RFP Release Questions from Industry 25Nov2019.docx

RFP Release Q&A_5

1. Where H-900 states “contract unit price shall not exceed 10.00% of the original unit price,” does the “original unit price” refer to the quoted prices for each CLIN year; or is it capped to the Option Year I price?

Response: “Original unit price” would refer to the proposed unit prices for Options I through VIII.

2. What does the government consider as adequate support for the out years? H-900 states, “It is incumbent upon the offeror to adequately support its proposed PSA for all nine option periods.” FAR 16.203 does not provide adequate guidance?

Response: This is explained in the first paragraph of the H-900 clause

3. Per H-900, “In the event the Contractor purchases aluminum product (per unit) in excess of the per unit amount (pounds) required for manufacture, as identified by the Government and stated in the Schedule and RFP Attachment G (Excel Price model), only the Government stated amount will be used by the PCO in the PA computations.”

The aluminum weight, “per unit amount (pounds) required for manufacture” based on the TDP; must include an additional 46.4 pounds and be part of the PSA calculation. Please update the Schedule and RFP Attachment G (Excel Price model) from 284.5 pounds to the 330.9 pounds required by note 4 on drawings 201993430, 201993427, 201993428 & 2019934229.

Response: The drawings referenced state that the individual components (extrusions) are required to be manufactured to a certain length prior to machining and assembly. That length specified is a length greater than the finished length that is to be part of the complete pallet. It is a common practice to produce the extrusions longer than finished length prior to friction stir welding. The 284.5 lb. is the correct weight for the pricing the finished pallet; that material weight will be supplied to the Air Force as the finished product.

4. How should the contractor account for this excess material that is required to produce the pallet in accordance with the TDP if it is not updated in the Schedule and RFP Attachment G?

Response: Question states “this excess material” but does not identify a specific material. Presuming the reference is to the length of extrusions in question 3, the excess material is retained by the manufacturer upon completion of pallet manufacturing operations.

5. Regarding Q&A 9 and 12:

Please see MIL-DTL-27443-1. “4.5.5.3 Ring load test two.” should be 4.5.3.3 in this sequence below vs 4.5.5.3.

4.5.3 Tie-down ring tests.

4.5.3.1 Ring location and movement test.

4.5.3.2 Ring load test one.

4.5.5.3 Ring load test two. (Bottom of page 15. Numbering requires correction.)

4.5.3.4 Ring load test three.

Response: MIL-DTL will be updated

6. Do we price x005 CLINs now in Column L of the Excel Pricing Model, or negotiate them later?

•Within FA8534-19-R-0001-0002, Section B, Items x005 including 2005 through 9005 state “To be Negotiated” under the Amount heading for each Item Number.

•The Price Model Revised has a field that must be populated, and Section M also indicates this populated x005 pricing field will be used as part of the Total Evaluated Price.

Response: CLINs X005 are to be proposed to in the offeror’s initial proposal. The evaluated CLIN prices will be part of the TEP. No revisions are required for the price model or pricing language in Sections L&M

7. A previously asked question indicated the surge CLIN is for the cost of Surge, and is not tied to the cost of the pallet. Does this mean that the Surge CLIN will only be charged once to the Government during each option year that Surge is invoked; or will it be a surcharge for each Surge pallet delivered in addition to the unit price for the pallet? Please clarify.

Response: the offerors are to propose a unit price for an Accelerated Delivery Schedule (CLINs X004). This proposed unit price is not tied to any quantity of pallets