RFP_release_-_Questions_from_Industry.docx

1. The Government has indicated that the surge CLIN is for the cost of surging and is not tied to the cost of the pallet. What unit price will the Government use if/when placing order(s) for surge quantity pallets? For example, if the max BEQ quantity are ordered in OYIII and an order for an additional 5,000 surge pallets is issued, will the unit price for the surge pallets be awarded at the 1-5000 BEQ unit price or the 10,001-15,000 BEQ unit price (since the total order quantity exceeds 15,000)? The unit price will be for the 10,001 – 15,000 range.

2. To enable partnering, who produced the test 6-panel pallets? Information on the production of the 6-panel pallet is not available at this time and is not applicable.

3. Has the testing been completed for the 6 panel design?

4. If so, who conducted the testing?

5. Were the test results successful? Please upload the test results for this design. Response to 3, 4, & 5: Information on FEA testing of the 6-panel pallet is not available at this time.

6. The BEQ for OYs IV-VIII is 13,000 over a 12-month period. Please confirm that the BEQ for OY IX (13,000) is correct since it is only a 6-month period. Qty of 13,000 for Option Year IV is correct.

7. Under each x001 CLIN it states the quantity of pallets expected per month. What deviation above or below this amount (+/-) does the Government consider acceptable for delivery? This is a BEQ quantity which means the Government is providing its BEST ESTIMATED Quantity based on user requirements. The quantity of pallets provided on x001 CLINS is the current expected and acceptable output per month.

8. Within this section it states that the proposed/supported aluminum costs for a period will be the baseline aluminum costs for the next year. Does this mean the Government will use the costs from the offeror’s proposal as the baseline costs or will the offeror’s PSA from one period, including any EPA adjustments, be used as the baseline for aluminum costs in the next year? The Government will use proposed baseline costs and then adjust the PSA according to EPA adjustments at each new Option Year.

9. Within 60 days of issuance of each delivery order under Options II-IX, the contractor is required to calculate the amount of any EPA and submit a PA representing the requested adjustment and delivery order date. Within a given period, can an Offeror submit more than 1 request for PA if market prices continue to fluctuate? Yes If so, at what frequency can these PA requests be submitted? As frequent as reasonably necessary.

10. If market prices decline after the PSA adjustment period, at what percent or period in time shall the contractor notify the Contracting Officer of the decrease in established prices? The contractor should notify the Contracting Officer as soon as they become aware of the decline in market price.

11. If multiple PAs are allowable within a contract period, at what percentage will the Contracting Officer issue a modification to decrease the PSA if market prices decline? As stated in Section H of the contract, 10% is the greatest amount.

12. In accordance with the referenced clause, what “covered defense information” will be issued and need to be protected by the contractor under this contract? There is some confusion about the drawings package, the disclosure restrictions stated within, and it being posted in the public domain on FBO. The status of distribution was relaxed and classified as Distribution A.

13. Please provide the 5 digit Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) for these drawings. They are not Export Controlled. Drawings are attached in FBO.

14. Please confirm that the contractor shall only be liable for the cost of first article testing if the first article is disapproved. Is the $100,000 evaluation cost a fixed amount or a NTE amount? That is correct. $100,000 is a NTE amount

15. MIL-DTL-27443F states the maintenance facility shall furnish and affix 2 bar codes to each pallet. Are these bar codes the same or different than the IUID markings identified in DFAR 252.211-7003? If so, how? Detailed specifications for bar codes are not specifically referenced in DFAR 252.211-7003, but the document does reference MIL-STD-130. This document (MIL-STD-130) identifies the parameters for a bar code symbol, see 5.2.3.1. Yes, the bar codes are the same, but only in the context that the DFAR references MIL-STD-130.

16. Is there a requirement for how the ID tags are affixed to the pallet or is that up to the Contractor’s discretion? MIL-DTL-27443 references A-A-50271, which specifies the manner in which the identification plate must be attached to the pallet. A request for variance may be submitted to allow for adhesive labels.

17. If the unit cost does not exceed $5,000 (per the DFAR) are IUID markings required? No

18. Note 8 within this drawing references drawing number 201993432. Could the Government please upload a copy of this drawing? All drawings have been uploaded to FBO

19. Note 10 within this drawing states identification plates shall be attached to the pallet conforming to A-A-50271. A-A-50271 states that this specification is inactive for new design and is no longer used. Please provide an updated specification for this requirement. All updates to this requirement have been uploaded in FBO.

20. Please confirm that more than 1 volume can be burned to a CD-R or DVD-R. Yes, that is acceptable

21. This Section states print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Would the Government allow for tables and graphics to be in size 10 font? No

22. No legend is identified, was this intentional? If not, please provide the desired legend. Legend was added.

23. Since this table is intended to provide relevancy related to aluminum extrusions, should the second column under line item 2 be changed to reflect 6000 series Aluminum extrusion? The “Alum extrusions” sheet should say 6000 series aluminum extrusions, not 6000 series Aluminum Friction Stir Welding.

24. Does the Government desire the contents of the Past Performance Volume to be assembled in a certain order? If so, please provide the desired order of contents. A stated in the RFP. See Section L attachment.

25. When entering in the percentage of work, should this be based on value or level of effort? Entering percentage of work is not required, please see Section H on the RFP and attachments Sections L&M for cost/pricing instructions

26. Section 3.5.1.1 within the SOW states that delivery of first articles shall be within 18 months of contract award. This conflicts with the 12-month/365-day time period established under CLIN 0001 and in 52.209-4. Please de-conflict the delivery time period for first articles. Delivery of FA should be within 12 months of contract award, then the government has 6 months of testing.

27. The “Very Relevant” and “Relevant” evaluation criteria for Friction Stir Welding in Section M both identify extrusion quantities of 500 per month or greater. This conflicts with the quantity stated in row 2 of the Friction Stir Welding relevancy table in Section L, Attachment C which states 2,500 per month. Please confirm that the evaluation quantity for Friction Stir Welding is 500 per month or greater. 500/month is correct

28. Have any of the responses in the presolicitation questions changed since the release of the RFP or are all answers still applicable to this procurement? If any answers have changed, please identify the changes. Responses to presolicitation questions have not changed

29. Section L states any alteration of Attachment G may result in rejection of the offeror’s proposal. Please confirm that the completed Attachment G are exempt from the font and size restrictions. Confirmed

30. Section M, Evaluation has Subfactor 2 listed as “Aluminum Extrusion and Friction Stir Welding Capability” but in Section L, Instructions it is called “Manufacturing Capability for Principle Pallet Components”. Can the government verify the proper name for Subfactor 2? Subfactor Two should be ‘Manufacturing Capability for Principle Pallet Components’ for both L&M.

31. Could the Government please provide the number or percentage of warranty claims that were filed under FA8519-14-D-0002? 0

32. Can the Government provide any statistics for condemned pallets based on FA8519-14-D-0002? i.e. shipments of x quantity per year? Not at this time

33. Can repaired or replacement pallets be included with and sent back with planned shipments of new pallets? No

34. MIL-DTL-27433 (Draft of G version) requires the sampling plan per ANSI/ASQ Z1.4, general inspection level II, single sampling plan for normal inspection. For a lot between 91 and 150, the sample size would be 20 and would be subject to tests outlined in 4.5.3.4, 4.5.5.1, and 4.5.9.2. If these are performed on the actual pallets (which it appears they would be) what are done with the 20 pallets that went through this testing? Will the production rate need to be increased to account for the 20 pallets tested?

· Section 4.5.9.2 specifies “Samples shall be removed from actual pallets, off-cuts, or representative witness samples”. Completed production pallets are not mandatory for this testing

· Sample pallets used for tests 4.5.3.4 & 4.5.5.1 will be included in production quantities for all pallets that pass testing.

· Production rates should not be increased to account for the test samples.

35. Can the Government confirm for the CD files, other than the excel Price file and 1 copy of Volume II required in word format, all other files required are to be submitted in pdf format? Please read instructions carefully in Section L. The written technical proposal shall be in Word Format.

36. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the Offeror and is not to be delegated to any other entity. Since critical subcontractors are considered part of the offeror’s team, please confirm they are allowed to send out the transmittal letter and past performance questionnaires directly to their customers. Yes, the critical subcontractors can send the questionnaires; however, it is ultimately the responsibility of the prime to ensure they are sent and tracked.

37. Regarding the pre-solicitation conference Q&As that were released on 24 APR, the answer to question 25 invited offerors to request a copy of FA851914C0004 and GS05Q15BMD0001 from the PCO. Could you please provide these copies? No. For a copy of FA851914C0004, you must submit a FOIA request to the FOIA office. A Freedom of Information Act guide and other resources are available at the Department of Justice website under FOIA reference materials: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip . For GS05Q15BMD0001, you will need to go directly to GSA for a copy.

38. SOW – Paragraph 1, Scope: The final two sentences read: “Only the manufacturing procedure stated in this document shall be used to produce the pallet. Any deviations shall be authorized by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).” Please provide the required manufacturing procedures. The required manufacturing procedures are specified in SOW 3.6.1.1.1, HCU-6A/E Cargo Pallet Baselines.

39. MIL-DTL-27443G, Forward Section on page ii references Data Item 009 of Task 013, GS05Q15BMD0001/GSQ0517BM0141. Please provide any other data items relative to the UDRI contract for All Aluminum Friction Stir Welded pallets, including at a minimum 001 through 008.

MIL-DTL-27443G is now updated to meet the requirements of MIL-STD-961.

40. MIL-DTL-27443G, Section 3.3.1 Reliability reads: “The pallet shall be designed for a life of a minimum of 10 years.” Please explain why the Government expects there to be exchange pallets during the 10 year life of this contract.

Circumstances such as improper use, unforeseen damage during operational use, and extreme conditions will propagate a supply of damaged or unusable pallets.

41. MIL-DTL-27443G, Section 3.3.1 Reliability: This is a build to print contract, not a design effort. Please strike the final sentence from this requirement that reads: “The pallet shall be designed for a life of a minimum of 10 years.”

MIL-DTL-27443G is now updated to meet the requirements of MIL-STD-961. The revisions address the issue stated

42. The scrap calculation set forth in SOW Section 3.4 is not realistic, and does not compensate Offerers for labor associated with these Government requirements. Please correct this oversight. It should decrement the costs associated with inspection and reporting; versus providing these services free of charge to the Government:

a. A separate CDRL(s) needs to be defined and separately price (per incoming Exchange Material load) the required inspection and handling of each pallet to inspect rings per SOW 3.4.1.1 Incoming Inspection.

i. SOW 3.4.1.1. Incoming Inspection is for the visual inspection on all used pallets including the state of each and every pallet – this requires handling time for the lot that must be priced, as well as more than 48 hours to do a thorough inspection, plus the Government offers no insight as to the BEQ for Exchange pallets, further justifying why contractors should price this reporting service per pallet under a priced CDRL.

b. A separate CDRL(s) needs to be defined and separately priced to record SOW 3.4.1.2 Issuance of Credit.

i. SOW 3.4.1.2 Issuance of Credit puts the burden on the contractor to price reporting services for an unknown quantity (BEQ missing for Exchange pallets) in less than 48 hours from receipt, which must be coordinated with DCMA. It implies that the contractor is to do this free of charge, versus being able to charge per pallet for this reporting. There is also material handling and overhead that must be considered.

c. The requirements of CDRL A006 as an overarching report has different requirements than the Incoming Inspection and Exchange Pallet Issuance of Credit reporting.

i. SOW 3.4.1.3 Inventory Report (CDRL A006) refers to a report that rolls up SOW section 3.4.1 as a whole on a monthly basis for new and exchanged pallets and credit.

d. Offerers require adequate time to allow for SOW 3.4.1.1 Incoming Inspection activities, and then the Exchange Material load value may be calculated and recorded.

Expectations of damaged pallets being returned will be of a low quantity (an average of less than 1full load per month, with a full load defined as 140 pallets). Zero incidents of unusable or damaged pallets have been reported so far in 6 months of operational testing. The Contractor scrap procedures shall be used for disposal of the returned damaged pallets.

43. Please define how the current scrap value will be determined within SOW 3.4.1.2.

Current market scrap sale price

44. MIL-DTL-27443G, Section 3.4.1.2 Ring Capacity One.: This is a build to print contract, not a design effort. Please edit the sentence within this requirement that reads: “Each ring shall be designed to sustain a 7,500 pound tension load along any line in a vertical plane that intersects the pallet edge at right angles within the angular limits (see 4.5.3.2).” Please also provide proof the rings have been designed to meet this requirement.

MIL-DTL will be updated. The ring drawing is based on the current ring design, which has been validated on the legacy balsa-core pallet.

45. MIL-DTL-27443G, Section 3.4.1.3 Ring Capacity two.: This is a build to print contract, not a design effort. Please edit the sentence within this requirement that reads: “Each ring shall also be designed to sustain a 7,500 pound load along any line originating at the attachment point in a vertical plane extending above the pallet and parallel to the edge (see 4.5.3.3).” Please also provide proof the rings have been designed to meet this requirement.

MIL-DTL will be updated. The ring drawing is based on the current ring design, which has been validated on the legacy balsa-core pallet.

46. MIL-DTL-27443G, Section 3.4.1.4 Ring Capacity three. This is a build to print contract, not a design effort. Please edit the sentence within this requirement that reads: “The rings shall be designed such that two adjacent corner rings can be pulled simultaneously and then two center rings pulled simultaneously to a load of 7,500 pounds (see 4.5.3.4).” Please also provide proof the rings have been designed to meet this requirement.

MIL-DTL will be updated. The ring drawing is based on the current ring design, which has been validated on the legacy balsa-core pallet.

47. MIL-DTL-27443G, Section 3.4.4.1 Conveyor: Rollers used in testing for highline dock and aerial port are not specified. Please provide the profile of rollers used in First Article Testing of this design. Bidders should have the option of testing the pallet themselves to the same parameters as the Government to determine whether or not the pallet is capable of passing first article in lieu of the Government being able to provide acceptance of First Article Testing of this design.

Rollers referenced in the MIL-DTL-27443 are representative of current material handling equipment used in DoD cargo transportation.

48. MIL-DTL-27443G, Section 3.4.4.1 Conveyor: Why aren’t aircraft rollers also being used for testing, when SOW paragraph 1. Scope and MIL-DTL-27443G paragraph 6.1 Intended use, clarify this pallet will be used in conjunction with the 463L Cargo Handling System to transport cargo in aircraft including extensive use on the C-130, C-141, C-5, and C-17?

Rollers referenced in the MIL-DTL-27443 are representative of current material handling equipment used in DoD cargo transportation.

49. Section B, CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002: Provide proof of ‘first article acceptance’ of this design (including all subcomponents); as the Government is holding contractors responsible for the pallets passing first article testing before receipt of payment, versus payment at time of inspection and acceptance against the Drawing Package. Our experience with Build-To-Print means that the Technical Data Package has already been manufactured, tested and certified acceptance to meet the requirements by the Government.

a. Specifically, the MIL-DTL-27443G Verification section 4.2 Test rejection criteria indicates “a. Failure to conform to design or performance requirements specified herein.” Would be grounds for test rejection, however Bidders have no supporting evidence which proves the design is capable of passing the requirements and testing outlined in MIL-DTL-27443G in the first place.

Ambiguity and improper sentences make the actual question difficult to glean or infer. First article acceptance will be in the form of the test report from Air Force first article testing.

50. The RFP Schedule for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 states that delivery of six (6) units for first article testing is required twelve (12) months after award. The Statement of Work at 3.5.1.1. states "[d]elivery of production first articles shall be within 18 months of contract award." Why was the time allotted for CLIN 0001 and 0002 each reduced from 18 to 12 months? A twelve (12) month FAT production schedule is overly restrictive of competition and favors the extrusion and friction stir welding company that has produced pallets under the Next-Gen All-Aluminum Pallet development contract. Please change the delivery period in the CLIN Schedule for production of first articles to the 18 months after contract award, as stated in the SOW. Basic period is 18 months which comprises of 12 months to produce a First Article and 6 months of Government testing

51. Section M, Evaluation Basis for Award seems overly restrictive, and provides an unfair competitive advantage to the development contractor. We request Section M, II, D, 4 be adjusted as follows:

a. Paragraph 4.1 Friction Stir Welding Relevancy Definitions for Very Relevant:

i. The geometry of an object beyond the weld joint is irrelevant in Friction Stir Welding, therefor we fail to see a correlation between Friction Stir Welding and a “multi-void” extrusion.

1. We recommend “multi-void” be deleted.

b. Paragraph 4.1 Friction Stir Welding Relevancy Definitions for Relevant:

i. Unlike the Extrusion relevance ratings in 4.2, the Friction Stir Welding ratings do not offer relief from quantities.

ii. Recommend Relevant be adjusted to read “100” versus “500” or more per month.

iii. The thin wall (0.125 in or less) is important in the act of Friction Stir Welding, and recommend that carry over from Very Relevant, to read:

1. “Friction stir weldments of thin wall (0.125 in or less) 6000 series aluminum extrusions in quantities of 100 per month or greater.

c. Paragraphs 4.1 Friction Stir Welding Relevancy Definitions for Somewhat Relevant:

i. Unlike the Extrusion relevance ratings in 4.2, the Friction Stir Welding ratings do not recognize the performance of Friction Stir Welding. Recommend Somewhat Relevant be adjusted to read:

1. “Program required Friction Stir Welding.”

Responses:

a. The profile shape and geometry of the aluminum to be welded is of great significance. There is an added level of complexity in welding “multi-void” extrusions compared to a solid extrusion

b. The required quantity of welding needed to make production rates is validation for the relevancy description

c. Similar to above, the definition will not be amended

52. The drawings provided to offerers on the publicly available FBO website have consistently been labeled as containing "technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act . . . ." Because of the legend, we have treated the drawings as export controlled documents, but we wanted to bring the issue to your attention once more because the documents remain publicly accessible on the FBO website. The Air Force may want to consider removing the mistakenly applied legend in light of the public release of the drawings.

New drawings will be posted with the change pointed out

53. RFP Attachment 8, Section L, II. D. 8. Past Performance Questionnaire, third paragraph from end of section reads: “The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:” Please provide the required legend language. Legend has been added

54. RFP Attachment C, Past Performance Relevancy Table 2, for Aluminum Extrusions Relevancy Category, Row 2. Materials and Production Processes reads “6000 Series Aluminum Friction Stir Welding”. Should this read “6000 Series Aluminum Extrusions”? The “Alum extrusions” portion of Attachment C on row 2 should say 6000 series aluminum extrusions, not 6000 series Aluminum Friction Stir Welding. The wording has been corrected/will be corrected.

55. Please explain which preliminary tests are required by the Contractor, and where they are expected to be performed; versus which first article tests the Government and Government personnel will perform at Robins AFB.

a. Per SOW 3.5.1.1: “Pallet testing shall be completed at AFMC 802 MXSS/MXDTA test facility at Robins AFB”

b. Per M-1 Evaluation Cost Factor for First Article. The cost to the Government for first article testing or engineering review and approval of first article test reports (where preliminary Contractor testing is required), as applicable, shall be a factor in the evaluation of this solicitation. The factor to be used in evaluation shall be - - - Lot/Item = X001 and Evaluation Cost = $100,000 All First Article testing will be performed and evaluated by the Government at AFMC 802 MXXS/MXDTA Test Facility at Robins AFB.

56. 52.209-4 states in “(c) If the first article is disapproved, the Contractor, upon Government request, shall submit an additional first article for testing. After each request, the Contractor shall make any necessary changes, modifications, or repairs to the first article or select another first article for testing. All costs related to these tests are to be borne by the Contractor, including any and all costs for additional tests following a disapproval. The Contractor shall furnish any additional first article to the Government under the terms and conditions and within the time specified by the Government. The Government shall act on this first article within the time limit specified in paragraph (b) above. The Government reserves the right to require an equitable adjustment of the contract price for any extension of the delivery schedule or for any additional costs to the Government related to these tests.”

a. Please explain why a Contractor would have to make changes, modifications or repairs to this Build-To-Print package and the Required Manufacturing Procedures (see SOW Paragraph 1, Scope) during First Article Testing.

All contractors are required to comply with the clause 52.209-4.

b. Why would the Contractor be responsible for bearing the costs and offering the Government equitable adjustments for a pallet that requires “changes”, “modifications” or “repairs” to the Government provided design? The SOW, Scope 1 clearly states: “The original design function of the end-item and parts shall not be changed, modified or altered. Only the manufacturing procedure stated in this document shall be used to produce the pallet. Any deviations shall be authorized by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).”

Manufacturer will be responsible for following Technical Data Package.

57. 52.209-4 states in “(g) The Contractor is responsible for providing operating and maintenance instructions, spare parts support, and repair of the first article during any first article test.”

a. Where are bidders to price operating and maintenance instructions? What are the requirements of these instructions? Are contractors format acceptable?

Contractor will be required to provide first article only. Maintenance instructions, Spare parts support, and/or repairs will not be required.

b. What Spare Parts Support is necessary for this contract, when repair of pallets is not a requirement of the contract?

Contractor will be required to provide first article only. Maintenance instructions, Spare parts support, and/or repairs will not be required.

c. Please identify any repairs that were necessary during the initial First Article Testing of this design, so that Offerers may understand risks. Not doing so gives the incumbent of the pallet design an unfair advantage to this information that would result in unknown expenses to others.

Contractor will be required to provide first article only. Maintenance instructions, Spare parts support, and/or repairs will not be required.

58. Please confirm that Offerers will be allowed to be present for First Article Testing.

Contract awardee will be allowed to witness First Article Testing, but testing time frame and itinerary will not be altered to accommodate contract awardee.

59. On drawing 201993426 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? The coating requirement will be updated to MIL-PRF-32550.

60. 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?) Rollers referenced in the MIL-DTL-27443 are representative of current material handling equipment used in DoD cargo transportation.

61. 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. Permanent Deformation is defined in section 3.4.4.1 of MIL-DTL-27443G.

62. 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. According to MIL STD 810G corrections will be made.

63. Please provide an extension of no less than 4 weeks from the time the Government provides responses to these questions for Offerers to assimilate the information into their proposals.

Amendment to extend 3 weeks (11 Oct 19) has been completed and posted in FBO

64. On drawing 201993431, please strike Note “4. Ring Capacity 7500 lbs in any direction within freedom of movement”. This is a build to print package, therefore we are relying on the Government to have already proved the ring as designed will meet this requirement. We understand First Article Pallets manufactured with these rings, will be tested in accordance with MIL-DTL-27443G, section 4.5.3 Tie-down Rings Tests. The verbiage in Note 4 on drawing 201993431 is the same requirement specified in MIL-DTL-27443. There is no contradiction to warrant a change in the wording.

65. Please explain what has changed within the PPI tool released on September 4, 2019, versus the PPI tool released with the solicitation. PPI Tool released with the RFP is applicable.

66. Please provide 2019 Small Business Subcontracting Goals versus 2018 goals pertaining to this solicitation. FY19 DOD Goals – Prime Contracting goals 21.8%, Subcontracting Goals 32%

67. MIL-DTL-27443F states the maintenance facility shall furnish and affix 2 bar codes to each pallet. Are the bar codes the same or different than the IUID markings identified in DFAR 252.211-7003? If so, how? Detailed specifications for bar codes are not specifically referenced in DFAR 252.211-7003, but the document does reference MIL-STD-130. This document (MIL-STD-130) identifies the parameters for a bar code symbol, see 5.2.3.1. Yes, the bar codes are the same, but only in the context that the DFAR references MIL-STD-130.

68. Is there a requirement for how the ID tags are affixed to the pallet or is that up to the Contractor’s discretion? MIL-DTL-27443 will be updated to include specifications for pressure sensitive adhesion labels.

69. Does government have an extrusion source? Please refer to the drawing package and specifications

70. Would you be receptive to machined option to an extrusion? Please comply with the drawings and specification

71. Has a prototype extrusion been made? No

72. Latest amendment indicates response date as Oct 11th. Could this be due to difficulty in finding extruder and concern with warpage. No

73. Subject solicitation issued on 19 August 2019 did not include associated attachments –dwg_STEP_files, MIL-DTL, EDL_&_Transportation documents issued/released on 23 August 2019 or subsequent file; ppi_tool_20190904.accdb released on 4 September 2019.

The purpose of this communication is to determine if these documents released outside of the solicitation are binding on the offeror(s). Case in point, the document entitled Next_Gen_Cargo_Pallet_Replacement_MIL_DTL_27443G is a draft document. Is the offeror required to comply with this DRAFT document? Offerors are required to comply with ALL attachments released that are associated with the RFP. The Next_Gen_Cargo_Pallet_Replacement_MIL_DTL_27443G does say ‘draft’ on the document, however it is the final and approved copy that offerors should comply with.