Pre-Solicitation_Conference_Questions_Final.pdf

Next Generation All Aluminum Pallets

FA8534-19-R-0001

Pre-Solicitation Conference Q&A

1. The drawings are identified as export controlled. Please provide the 5 digit Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) for these drawings. There is a new design that will be posted to FBO in the near future.

2. Is a solid model of the pallet available? Not at this time; the drawings are available at FBOs web site for reviewing and proposing. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

3. It appears all components identified on the BOM of drawings provided are new designs which require development of new tooling to produce aluminum extrusions and tie down forgings. Are there sources that have been established for prototyping which can be leveraged for production bidding? It is the AF’s responsibility to only supply the drawings and other specifications.

4. Can the Government identify the vendors that developed the prototype? It is irrelevant as all offerors must propose based on the drawings, SOW and Mil-spec. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

5. If sources have been established for prototyping is it Government intent to provide these vendors and will a consistent price for all bidders be established? It is irrelevant as all offerors must propose based on the drawings, SOW and Mil-spec. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

6. Is the design frozen or is there opportunity to modify for manufacturability enhancements and cost reduction as long as design intent is maintained? It is irrelevant as all offerors must propose based on the drawings, SOW and Mil-spec. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

7. What is the MRL of the prototype? Need definition of MRL please.

8. Can vendors examine the prototype ahead of the RFP submission? No. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

9. Are those vendors that developed the prototype excluded from participating in the manufacture of the pallets? No. The pallet that the Air Force is procuring is somewhat of a different design and is considered a full and open effort.

10. As we discussed during our session we want to make sure to clarify the pricing contained in the $/LB (Aluminum) on the Price Model versus the definition of Aluminum in the EPA. In the EPA, Aluminum is defined as Aluminum 6005A-T61, ASTM B221-14, and Aluminum 6061-T6, ASTM B221-14. On the Price Model the $/LB (Aluminum) would lead one to believe the proper input is only the Price for the raw aluminum. However, in the EPA note the Aluminum 6005A- T61, ASTM B221-14, and Aluminum 6061-T6, ASTM B221-14 specification would suggest the inclusion of the total cost of the aluminum extrusions would be appropriate. Please clarify. It is the offeror’s decision in complying with the aluminum inclusion. It is the price of aluminum whether it be raw material or subcontracted materials.

11. With the Small Business Participation so far in this effort it seems that there will be multiple Small Businesses that will respond. With that in mind will the USAF consider setting this effort aside for Small Business? No.

12. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Section L & M, we have conducted an exhaustive search for aluminum extruders that can meet the requirements of the 463L Next Gen Pallet HCU-6A/E Statement of Work (SOW) and provide the required manufacturing equipment information and past performance history required for “critical subcontractors”. In total we have reached out to four extruders that have machinery capable to push extrusions of the specified width. We have received notification in writing that two extruders will not provide quotes due to the required tolerances for the extrusions and the lack of commercial capacity to take on this work. The third extruder is not accepting new orders for the next 5.75 years and said that they would have a 63-week lead-time if they did take on that work in the future. A fourth extruder has offered conversion prices for the extrusions, but is unwilling at this time to provide SOW required information on their manufacturing equipment or provide past performance information and customer surveys. At this time, we have no other options for extruders and are unable to provide a compliant proposal due to the lack of required extruder information (beyond price per foot). Will the Government waive the past performance requirement and machinery information for the critical subcontractor (extruder) and simply accept a conversion price + the cost of aluminum for the sole extruder willing to provide a price-only quote? No Additionally, can the conversion cost quoted be added to the pricing spreadsheet to ensure that the evaluation team can verify all offerors are getting the same quoted price from the sole extruder? No. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

13. The Government identifies the following requirements: “The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed narrative with supporting documentation … to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach … to satisfactorily meet the Aluminum Extrusion requirements of drawing 201642455 in the quantities and technical tolerances required.” Will the Government waive the requirement for each offeror to demonstrate their ability to provide extruded aluminum? No.

14. Please confirm that the current design is frozen or do you expect to be considering design changes…. specifically extrusion width? The contractor is required to build in accordance with the drawing package, mil-spec and Statement of Work. A change to the drawing package is forthcoming.

15. Regarding the contract that was issued for the 500 pallet development work that was performed to arrive at the current pallet design upon which our proposal is to be based;

a. Do you have the government contract number(s)/ titles etc for any or all previous work performed?

b. Who are the sub-contractors and/or prime that were used;

i. for Extrusions, Machining, Friction Stir Welding, and testing

c. Are there process or routing drawings available or can they be requested and shared?

d. Can you share pricing that was paid per pallet on the development work?

e. Can you share any reports or documents regarding any manufacturability of the trials?

The contractor is required to build in accordance with the drawing package, mil-spec and Statement of Work. A change to the drawing package is forthcoming.

16. Regarding the Friction welding for AWS 17. 3 B; has a WPS (Weld Process Specification) developed and a PQR been written previously? For more info on these, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welding_Procedure_Specification No, typically developed by the awardee.

17. Is the contract to be sole sourced to a single prime contractor? No

18. Please confirm your expectation that a PO is not expected to be placed until 2020. A Delivery

Order will be placed for the First Articles in 2020.

19. What will the pallet be called? HCU-6A/E (SOW and MIL-DTL-27443) or HCU-17/E 463L All-

Aluminum Air Cargo Pallet (CDRLs). HCU-6A/E All Aluminum Cargo Pallet. CDRLs have been corrected and will be posted to FBO.

20. The Government did not provide a clear response to #3 of the February 2019 Q&A. This information is necessary to allow bidders to perform the same tests and correlate our data with what the US Air Force witnessed during these development contracts. The contractor is required to build in accordance with the drawing package, mil-spec and Statement of Work.

21. Please provide the design validation test results for the current TDP. It is imperative that bidders be able to see the results of the test to ensure their build produces a consistent result.

The contractor is required to build in accordance with the supplied drawing package, mil-spec and Statement of Work. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

22. Please provide the process specifications that were developed for the friction stir welding on the pallets. The process parameters are just as important as the dimensional and material properties that have already been provided. As this development was done with government funding, the results should be made available to the bidders to minimize risk to the government and ensure follow on pallets are made to the same standards. The contractor is required to build in accordance with the supplied drawing package, mil-spec and Statement of Work. This will be developed by the awardee.

23. Please also provide specific data pertaining to the ring re-design and development, and identify the source and whether or not the tooling is available for alternative suppliers. The contractor is required to build in accordance with the supplied drawing package, mil-spec and Statement of Work. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

24. Please explain how the government intends to revalidate the design if changes are made between initial design validation under the development contract(s) and bidders first article under this RFP. The contractor is required to build in accordance with the supplied drawing package, mil-spec and Statement of Work. Please follow the drawings. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

25. In addition, please provide any other test plans, test procedures, test reports, quality plans, manufacturing process documentation, MTBF data, and/or other proof (photographic/video/other) associated {or called by any other name} available for contract(s) FA851914C0004 and/or GS05Q15BMD0001 {or any other contracts associated with the All- Aluminum Friction Stir Welded 463L pallet development} to prove pallets were Manufactured to this Technical Data Package; Tested to this Technical Data Package; and Passed all requirements of MIL-DTL-27443. Please contact the issuing PCO for these contracts…. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welding_Procedure_Specification

26. Please explain why the Government would require the Contractor to create a duplicate Test Procedure under CDRL A007, when we assume one was already developed under contract(s) FA851914C0004 and/or GS05Q15BMD0001 for testing the government (NOT the Contractor) intends to perform. A007 requires the contractor sheet following inspection in accordance with MIL DTL 27443. Template will be uploaded to FBO.

27. How can the bidder be responsible for the CDRL A009 Test Report, when it is yet unknown as to whether or not the bidder will be allowed to witness the tests per the conference response?

A009 is not a test report but a notice of revision.

28. Will five (5) or six (6) pallets per MIL-DTL-27443, section 4.3 be required for CLIN 0001? The RFP will be changed to 6 (six).

29. On drawing 201642455 the primer is specified as being MIL-DTL-53022, type IV epoxy primer.

This primer has proven to be inferior and unable to prevent corrosion. Should this instead be the same zinc base primer used on the legacy balsa HCU-6/E pallet? At this time we are sticking with 53022.

30. The heat treatment specification called out on the Tie-Down Ring Assembly drawing 2016442459, rev. – is MIL-H-6875 has been canceled and replaced by SAE-AMS-H-6875. Can parts be heat treated to the SAE specification and is the drawing going to be revised in the future to make this change? The new tie-down ring drawing reflects the change.

31. Since no USAF asset currently uses 2” diameter x 3.5” wide rollers, should roller tests also allow USAF C-17 profile rollers (1.875” x 3.75” wide crown rollers), which are the closest in size to the legacy, obsolete 27443 size, for any testing requiring rollers? (Alternatively, could the USAF provide the PN and manufacturer of the required roller?) The MIL-DTL-27443 will be finalized with the required data.

32. Please further clarify/describe what an acceptable pass/fail criteria will be with regards to the roller conveyor test. Specifically, how much defined wear is acceptable? As written, no wear is acceptable. The MIL-DTL-27443 will be finalized with the required data. Government first article test will be in accordance with the mil spec, sow and drawing package.

33. Draft Spec 27443 section 2.3 - Should reference be AWS D17.3–2016 not AWS D17.3-2010? We recommend updates the following: Section 4.5.8.1 501.5 should be 501.6, Section 4.5.8.2 512.5 should be 512.6, Section 4.5.8.3 507.5 should be 507.6, and Section 4.5.8.4 509.5 should be

509.6. The MIL-DTL will be updated for the final RFP.

34. There is only one known US based extruder capable of providing the extrusion widths for this Technical Data Package – the large business incumbent for the development contract(s). Please provide an alternative design that incorporates narrower width extrusion profiles to lower program costs; increase competition (including small business extruders); and allow large business prime contractors to come closer to achieving the required small business set-aside percentages required by Section M-900 for this full and open competition. Additional drawings are forthcoming that are of a somewhat new and different design.

35. Redefine realistic requirements for the small business subcontracting plan percentages within Section M for this full and open competition. These are DOD requirements.

36. Why does this RFP require each proposed critical subcontractor to submit a small business participation proposal? This is not a typical requirement. This is a typical requirement for a source selection of this nature.

37. Section I, Contract Clauses: 52.203-6 Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government – please explain the intent of this clause as it pertains to this specific RFP. Standard government clause that each offeror must comply.

38. Sections L and M identify the three primary Technical Volume capabilities as i. Aluminum Extrusion, ii. Friction Stir Welding, and iii. Metal Machining. RFP FA8534-18-R-0003 Attachment “C” Past Performance Relevancy Table identifies Friction Stir Welding, Extrusions and Integration. Integration does not appear anywhere else in the RFP. Please explain. Noted.

Section L and M have been revised accordingly.

39. Section L, Volume III. Past Performance, 1. General: Why are critical subcontractors limited to friction stir welding and manufacture of extrusions instead of including a third category of metal machining? Please look at Technical Factor, Subfactor 2. True it is not in Past Performance.

40. Section L, Volume III. Past Performance. 1. General. The last sentence references Section M D.4.3., which does not exist. Please provide. Will be added.

41. Please explain how the EPA will work. Why does the EPA only apply to LRIP and FRP CLINs, and not Surge related CLINs? Please read the special clause. The surge CLIN is the capability to surge.

42. In sections B for Surge, and in sections L and M where there are references to Volume II. Written Technical Proposal, 2. Format and Specific Content: Subfactor One: Pallet Production Approach.

i. SOW references should be synced to ensure they reference 3.6.1.2.1, 3.6.1.2.2 and 3.6.1.2.3.

(See inconsistencies between 3.6.1.2.2 and 3.6.1.2.3.) Corrections have been made accordingly.

43. Per the SF 1447, this is identified as an FMS requirement. Is this correct? Partial

44. If CDRLS A007 and A009 are required by the Contractor, they should be included in the Basic period versus the Options, and clarification should be provided regarding the contractors specific responsibilities in both the SOW and CDRL documentation. We will address this in the final RFP.

45. CDRLs A007 through A013 require clarification in the SOW document, as they are missing or unclear. Please relook at the SOW for A007 through A010. A011 through A013 do not exist.

46. Why aren’t CDRLs A011, A012 and A013 included in the Basic Period? See response to question 45.

47. For A006 and A010, please provide the “Excel sheet format attached” for the required reports.

They were not included with the draft solicitation. We will address it in the final RFP.

48. Regarding A006, the title, SOW reference and due dates seem to be in conflict. Please review and reissue. Corrected

49. Within Section B, please provide a BEQ for scrap pallets for each year. Not available.

50. Why doesn’t the Government Exchange Material calculation in the March 2019 Q&A include

SOW 3.4.1.1 Incoming Inspection reporting expenses incurred for labor; labor required for the removal of roughly 6 pounds of steel rings and rivets from the aluminum structure to achieve a clean aluminum scrap rate; and labor required for the SOW 3.4.1.2 Issuance of Credit reporting?

Contractor is responsible for selling all scrap and crediting the proceeds to the contract.

51. Section L indicates that past performance can be aggregate across projects, however, in order to receive a Very Relevant rating in Section M, a bidder must have met ALL of the highest requirements. Please consider reviewing and reissuing relevancy ratings to reflect an aggregate compilation of performance. Please also add clarification/confirmation that past performance must be for prime Government contracts. Please see final RFP for final decision.

52. In Section L, we recommend the page count should exclude Cover Pages and Cross Reference Indices. We also recommend the Government allow Offerors to submit proposed Integrated Master Schedules on 11x17 pages as an Attachment to the Technical Volume without having it count against the proposal body page count. Page count increased to 35.

53. Section M, Subsection 4. Relevancy Definitions, Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities is missing “Quantity” in the bulleted list. Correct as stated.

54. Can the Government please provide the FSW joint cross sectional area required to meet the design intent? At this time our technical data package does not include these parameters but will be tested for technical and contract requirement.

55. Can the Government please provide minimum FSW Joint strength required to meet design intent? The weld strength specifications are listed in the MIL-DTL-27443.

56. Does a final program report for the pallet design activity exist? If so, can it be made available to bidders? This is a somewhat different design and any prior reports would be misleading.

57. Can the Government please provide the design qualification test report? No. Please build and design to the drawing package, mil spec and SOW as any prior data would be misleading.

58. MIL-DTL-27443F is a detailed specification that provides test constraints and structural requirements that are stipulated for the HCU-6/E and HCU-12/E pallets and references drawing numbers 7031843 and 7133047. Are there definitive test and structural requirements that differ from the MIL-DTL-27443F standard that will be applicable to the HCU-6E Next Generation Pallet, drawing number 201642455? Specific interest is related to first article Government testing. The contractor is responsible for passing First Article and complying with the drawings, mil spec and SOW.

59. Does the government have a target date for contract award? FY 20

60. If there is a conflict between MIL- DTL-27433 and Government TOP, drawing 201642 455, which document has the higher precedent? See Order of Precedence clause.

61. If the contractor manufactures the five (5) FAT units to the Government TOP with no defects and it fails the FAT requirement regardless, is the government responsible to modify that design or is the contractor responsible to modify that design. The contractor is responsible for passing First Article. The government has a high confidence in the specifications.

62. Will the RFP /Base Contract be modified to reflect the first production lot is a requirement for 167 unit per month and 2004(?) per year as a firm order? This is a Requirements contract so no order quantities are firm.

63. This requires that the contractor maintain the capacity for the annual BEQ, but there are no firm ordering quantities in each option year. How does the AF intend to fund the contractor if no orders are placed in that option year? At your own risk.

64. Should the NRE First Article Cost be Lot and not each? Yes “Lot”.

65. Delivery Note: The RFP expects deliveries 30 days ARO, how would the contractor meet delivery if the Government is not awarding a minimum buys in each option year? Propose at your own risk. This will be a Requirements contract.

66. Ship to Note: Will the contractor be required to Ship OCUNUS as well as CONUS? CONUS only.

67. It is not clear, can the U.S. Government skip over Option Year I and order from Option Year II?

Yes

68. Exchange Material: Is the U.S. Government asking the contractor to bid today for a credit of scrapped pallets without the PSA Clause? There will not be a PSA for the returned pallets.

69. Surge Quantity: is the US Government asking the contractor to bid today for a credit of scrapped pallets without the PSA Clause? The surge quantity and scrap quantity have no relationship.

70. Will the U.S. Government consider progress billing or milestone billing, especially for CLIN 0001AB, NRE? Not at this time.

71. The average price per pound has varied +/-33% in the last 10 years and +/-43% in the 10 years prior. Would it not be more reasonable to change the EPA to bound not only the upper limit, but the lower limit as well, to more evenly allocate the risks/rewards? No.

72. The data requested is to be estimated in pounds, however the PSA table in each CLIN is expressed in feet, can the Government clarify? It will be pounds.

73. The proposal states the Government has calculated the aluminum weight of the cargo pallet to be 284.5 pounds each. Does the calculated weight reflect unfinished or finished weight of the aluminum? It reflects the weight that will be evaluated by the Air Force.

74. Should FAR 52.245-1 Government Property Clause be incorporated? No.

75. All surge CLINs are Firm Fixed Price. Should these CLINs also allow the use of the EPA clause? No.

The Surge Option is for the cost of surging not the cost of pallets.

76. There is no location within the USG pricing model to provide surge pricing. Is it the USG intention to execute surge quantities using pallet pricing from the applicable option period or does the pricing model need to be revised? Pricing model only allows for pricing up to 37,700 pallets per year. The Surge Option is for the cost of surging not the cost of pallets.

77. The SOW states that the contractor shall be able to accept a surge order quantity of up to 50,000 pallets per year. Is the 50,000 in addition to the quantities under the option periods? The Surge Option is for the cost of surging not the cost of pallets.

78. The RFP is missing DFAR 252.217.7001 for surge requirement; should this be included? Added

79. The tolerances at three place decimals on the top level assembly drawing will drive the precision

(cost) that pallets will be manufactured IAW. Would you considered opening the tolerance scheme to allow for ease of manufacturing, but still meet the mission requirement? No, not at this time.

80. Are you going to require 1st Article at the individual extrusion, piece part level, or only at the top assembly level? No. In regards to this effort, a contractor is required to build 6 cargo pallets that will be First Article Tested by the Government by means of the supplied drawing package, mil spec and SOW.

81. If you require first Article at the piece part level, the manufacturer meets the 1st Article, but cannot assemble per the drawing, will the Program Office be responsible to the design review and corrective action? In regards to this effort, a contractor is required to build 6 cargo pallets that will be First Article tested by the Government by means of the supplied drawing package, mil spec and SOW. The contractor is required to past first article.