Q&As_4.pdf

Next Generation All Aluminum Pallets Questions and Answers #4

FA8534-19-R-0001

1. Would the USG consider using commercially available Tie-Down Ring Assembly? (Reference USG provided drawing number 201993432)

Government Response: We will require the tie-down rings specified in the TDP

2. What is the load rating for the Tie-Down Ring Assembly? (Reference USG provided drawing number 201993432)

Government Response: The tie-down rings are required to meet the specifications of

MIL-DTL-27443

3. What direction of pull for the Tie-Down Ring Assembly (i.e. Straight, vertical, etc.)? (Reference USG provided drawing number 201993432)

Government Response: The tie-down rings are required to meet the specifications of

MIL-DTL-27443

4. When will the USG release CAD files for all drawings released? We will require the files in CAS at least 60 days prior to the release of the RFP.

Government Response: We will be providing Solid model files.

5. We now understand that the CLIN for the Surge is only the cost to surge and not the cost of the Surge Quantity Pallets. However, the delivery is still listed as thirty (30) days ARO. Is it the Government need to deliver all 37,000 pallets within thirty (30) days?

Government Response: The delivery for SURGE quantities is 365 days from order IAW the

SOW.

6. The Government answered multiple questions on the responsibility of the design and FAT. As detailed by the government in response to the last set of questions posted on Fed Biz Ops on Aril 24th, 2019, the Government stated “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.” An additional question for clarification is now required. If the contractor meets all the requirements of the supplied drawing package, mil spec and SOW and the pallets still fail First Article Test, who then is responsible to correct the failures associated with a deficiency within the design that caused the FAT Failure. Is the government now saying, regardless of any latent defect in the U.S. Air Force Drawing or Design, the contractor must be responsible to fix all issues?

Government Response: The current drawing package provided by the AF will have undergone Government Testing. If the contractor does not pass FA testing according to the MIL SPEC, SOW and AF Drawing Package, it is their responsibility to fix all issues..

7. There appear to be differences in the geometry where the side panel and edge rail meet. What is the reasoning behind this/Will this cause an issue with the corners having a smooth surface?

Government Response: The side rail and edge rail are drawn with a geometry that allows for “corners having a smooth surface”.

8. Notes for the pallet say that machining will be done at the manufacturer's discretion. Will we be given details on how the original pallet prototypes were machined in order to be able to follow their methods?

Government Response: A sample pallet may be provided to contract award winner after the award. The solid models will detail the machining concepts.

9. Since the pallet design is more or less finalized, can the government share the test results from the first series of tests?

Government Response: Testing has not been completed for the 6-panel design published on

FBO.

10. What testing/verification if any has been done on the latest design?

11. How was the reduction in total weight for the pallet justified?

Government Response: The 6-Panel design published on FBO, along with all previous iterations of 463L pallet design, is required to meet the MIL-DTL-27443 maximum weight of 300lb.

12. Will solid models be provided at any point?

Government Response: We will be providing Solid model files.

13. Upon reviewing the most recent extrusion drawing package, and based on our calculations, it appears the nominal wt/ft on profile parts 201993429 and 201993430 exceed the max wt/ft allowed under the notes on your extrusion prints. Have you relaxed the maximum weight of the pallet or increased it from 300 lbs max?

Government Response: Our solid model indicates a nominal weight under 290lb. We have not relaxed the pallet maximum weight. If there exists data to indicate an overweight pallet design, please send that information for government analysis.

14. It was noted at the Industry Day held on March 27, 2019 that the extrusion designs were set and there would be no changes, what prompted a redesign?

Government Response: A re-design was launched to provide a product with the performance attributes required (and an economically friendly design) while mitigating sourcing restrictions or limitations.

15. Have the smaller extrusions and completed pallets from these designs been tested and validated?

16. Are there specific reasons that you feel the smaller extrusions will be more successful than the larger extrusions to provide a more cost-effective pallet that meets all requirements per the FA8534-19-R-0001 solicitation?

Government Response: A re-design was launched to provide a product with the performance attributes required (and an economically friendly design) while mitigating sourcing restrictions or limitations.

17. Has the variation in the Tie Down Assembly weight been factored into the maximum allowable pallet weight of 300 lbs?

Government Response: Yes

18. I did not see any reference regarding DCAA accounting system certification. Because this contract is in excess of 20 million US Dollars will this be a requirement pre or post award?

Government Response: Certified Accounting Systems are required for Cost Type Contracts, this is a Firm Fixed Price contract.

19. See contract page 73 item 12...PSA - it refers to CLINS that are subject to PSA... but those CLINS do not include the surge CLINS; would there be a PSA on those?

Government Response: There will not be a PSA on surge CLINs.

20. With Regard to min and max price changes, is there a minimum amount that the price needs to fluctuate before it is accepted as an increase (Price matrix example shows minimum of 5%)?

Government Response: Equal to or greater than 5.00%.

21. Is there a cap on the total price change (Price matrix example shows not more than 10%)

Government Response: The aggregate increase to any unit price shall not exceed 10.00% of the original unit price.

22. The contract (page 74 item 6) also refers to the min and max. My question: Is there a mechanism to adjust the contract price if AL fluctuates more than the thresholds?

Government Response: The EPA clause and EPA example both convey what triggers an adjustment.

23. 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. Question: Does this mean that we will include the total price we pay to the aluminum extruder, which included the raw metal price plus a fabrication charge?

Government Response: It is up to you how and where you include your aluminum costs.

24. This award is based on a critical supplier or teaming including Aluminum extruders, FSW or friction Stir welders, machining and finally integrators. See section L and Section M as they do not match names. Will the final RFP include 3 or 4 of the above critical suppliers’ categories mentioned?

Government Response: At this time, there are no plans to change the L&M sections.

We need for the question to be stated more clearly. What is industry referring to, “do not match names”?

25. With the addition of the critical suppliers or teaming included as part of the manufacturing process;

The manufacturing, the capability, processes and all past performance documentation is now required. Will there be an extended (beyond 30 days) to get all the crucial required information together from the critical supplier? (Example: In most cases because of the decrease in extrusions widths, the extruder partner cannot be selected until the final TDP is released).

Government Response: At this time we are inclined to say no.

26. The amount of aluminum exceeds the finished weight of 284.5 stated. The actual aluminum used for a finished pallet is going to be higher by approximately 2% due to yield and scrap losses. Can the lbs. used for the PSA be the actual lbs. used for finished pallet?

Government Response: Our solid model indicates a nominal weight under 290lb, and a weight without ring assemblies under 284lb. If there exists data to indicate an overweight pallet design, please send that information for government analysis.