RFP Release Questions from Industry 15Nov19.docx
DOCX document 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Next Generation Cargo Pallet Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA853419R0001
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a request for proposal for a next generation cargo pallet. The solicitation seeks proposals to manufacture extruded aluminum pallets to Mil-DTL-27443G specifications for the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center located at Robins Air Force Base. Bidders must provide their direct material cost for raw aluminum. Questions were accepted until November 22nd regarding corrections to drawings, testing requirements, and clarification of specifications for the six panel pallet design. The response document refers bidders to a draft standard for addressed concerns.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Protest Cover Letter.pdf | ||
| Final_Redacted_Version_2019-12-11_NEW_PROTEST_FA853419R001.pdf | ||
| RFP Release Questions from Industry 25Nov2019.docx | DOCX document | |
| FA853419R0001_______0006.pdf | ||
| MIL-DTL-27443G.pdf | ||
| FA853419R0001_______0005 (002).pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Release Q&A_5
1. Is there a preference of putting the discs inside the binder pocket, or separate and outside the binders?
Response: No preference
2. Reference Volume V, Do we need to include the examples sheets with attachment “G”?
Response: Please follow instruction from Section L
3. This raises the same issue as question 2. Unless a sufficient quantity of representative cut offs, extractions or witnesses is available, this will require destruction of a large quantity of pallets at government expense.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for concerns addressed
4. Can the Government confirm which specific water penetration test is required?
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
5. Section 3.1 references “(See 6.2)”. Should 6.2 be 4.1 instead?
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
6. Section 3.3.1 – the word “design” was changed to “manufacture” in the previous revision, which made sense, but is now back to “design”. This does not make sense for a build-to-print contract. Please change back to manufacture for this build-to-print contract.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
7. Same issue with: 3.4.1.2, 3.4.1.3, 3.4.1.4
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
8. Section 3.3.2 References 3.4.6. Should this be 3.4.5 instead?
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
9. Section 3.4.1.3 references 4.5.3.3. We concur this is the correct reference, but 4.5.3.3 does not currently exist in the document, it is mislabeled as 4.4.5.3. Please correct 4.4.5.3 to be 4.5.3.3.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
10. Section 3.8 and Section 3.9 are similar but contradict one another in the wording. Please clarify which one is correct, and remove the redundant requirement.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
11. Section 3.8.1 was “Decal”, and is now back to “Label”. In addition, e and f were added, but the NSN requirement was removed. Please clarify or correct this section as you see fit.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
12. Section 4.4.5.3 – see question 4 above.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
13. Section 4.5.8.2 appears to be based on a balsa core pallet. The design is no longer ‘sandwich construction’, and we recommend the removal of this terminology. In addition, placement of the holes appears to position 3 of the holes on a single channel, and one on a single channel of each of the Intermediate Panels. Is it the Government’s intent to test only 3 channels?
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
14. Section 4.5.9.2 appears to apply to be worded for the 3 panel extrusion design (2 Edge Panels, 1 Middle Panel); versus the 6 panel extrusion design (2 Side Panels, 2 Intermediate Panels, 2 Center Panels). The wording should reflect Side, Intermediate and Center instead of Middle and Edge panels. Please also clarify how many test specimens per pallet the Government expects for each of the ‘Two FSW configurations’.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
15. Sentence in question: “Two FSW configurations shall be tested: the longitudinal axis joint (long weld across top/bottom joining middle panels and edge panels) and the edge rail joint (top/bottom joining the edge rails to the edge panels and middle panels.)”
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
16. What cost should be included in the $/lb (aluminum) in calculating the PSA? The offeror’s direct material cost for raw aluminum (Refer to the H-900 clause and Section L-900.II.F in the solicitation)
A. Vendor costs only? What you the offeror have to pay ($/lb) for raw aluminum.
B. Vendor conversion price plus the price of the raw aluminum?
a. Example - price of extruded aluminum, fabricated aluminum. Offeror is to propose it’s direct material cost for raw aluminum. Extrusion/fabrication costs would be captured in the proposed PNSA.
C. Bidder manufacturing costs (excluding indirect cost and profit as described in FAR 16.203-4(c)(4)(ii))?
a. Example - burdened labor, other direct costs. Offeror is to propose it’s direct material cost for raw aluminum. All other dollars would be captured in the proposed PNSA.
17. Understanding the intent is to close questions today, will clarifications to previously asked questions be allowed if responses received are unclear after the 11/19/2019 date?
Response: Questions are allowed up until 22 Nov. No more questions after that date will be responded to.
18. The Engineering Data List issued with the original solicitation has incorrect drawing numbers. We assume this attachment no longer applies since the latest release of new drawings. Please confirm this assumption is correct, or reissue with the updated drawing numbers.
Response: See MIL-DTL-27443G official draft.pdf for corrections addressed
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .