Solicitation Questions and Answers - 2.pdf

Next Generation Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Solicitation Questions & Answers 2

26 Aug 2020

1. Question: In order to prepare a proposal of the scope that you have requested, the Offeror believes at least 75 days are needed. We request that the deadline for submitting the proposal be extended by 45 days, to 29 October 2020. Given the extensive amount of the time, intellect and resources that the United States Air Force (USAF) has invested in preparing the RFP, the USAF deserves a detailed, contextualized and rigorous proposal response, born of equal investment of the Offeror’s time, intellect, and resources, with the most innovative solutions for the USAF to make an informed decision. The Offeror believes it would be in the USAF’s interest to allow the maximum practicable time for all potential offerors to create and deliver high quality proposals based on full understanding of your specific requirements. Good risk assessment and planning requires careful, deliberate consideration but will save time and money over the program lifecycle. The Offeror would prefer not to sacrifice the quality of our proposal response due to the short timeline. Lastly, the unprecedented environment we face today with COVID-19, warrants that the USAF favorably consider this request for proposal extension. We look forward to your response.

Answer: The Government is reviewing all initial responses/questions to the solicitation and an extension to the due date for proposals is under consideration. Upon completion of the Government’s review, an appropriate extension will be determined, executed via an amendment to the RFP, and will be posted via beta.sam.

2. Question: We did not see a provision detailing a question and answer period as is generally part of similar solicitations. Can you please provide the period during which the Contracting Authority will accept and respond to questions related to the Solicitation, Purchase Description, and associated documents and the procedure for submitting questions?

Answer: There is no specific due date for questions to be submitted. Questions should be submitted in time that will allow for the Government to review and respond prior to the due date for proposals.

3. Question: With respect to the Purchase Description, Section 2.2.1 refers to Specifications, Standards, and Handbooks. Specifically, this section lists MIL-DTL-32102 JSLIST Detail. Please verify that this document was canceled on 21 May 2020. If so, is there another reference document that replaced this canceled document?

Answer: Although MIL-DTL-32101 may have been cancelled, it is still a valid reference as the Government’s intent is not to procure this item but to reference the ensemble that may be used in conjunction with the CWC Mask configuration.

4. Question: With respect to the Purchase Description, Section 3.4.1.2 refers to SAR Performance.

Specifically, the kit shall consist of four each escape pressure demand air respirators with escape cylinders that have a 10-minute duration. Would the USAF consider a 15-minute cylinder which is already in service with other DOD agencies?

Answer: No. The requirement is for a 10 minute escape cylinder.

5. Question: With respect to the Purchase Description, Section 3.8.1.1 refers to NATO standard 40MM threads. Can the USAF confirm the NATO standard mentioned is STANAG 4155?

Answer: Yes. Based upon NATO Allied Engineering Publication (AEP)-4155, “It is agreed within NATO, to retain the ability to use an RD 40 mm threaded canister in extremis on all negative pressure air purifying devices.” NATO uses 40mm thread to match up with our CBRN protective mask and filter canisters.

6. Question: With respect to the Purchase Description, Section 4.8.11.4 refers to chemical agent testing. Can the USAF confirm that C2A1 canisters are fully capable of meeting the protection requirements as identified?

Answer: The intent of section 4.8.11.4 is to test the protective capability of the CWC mask, not the government provided C2A1. However, previous testing has confirmed that the C2A1 is fully capable of meeting the protection requirements outlined in the PD.

7. Question: With respect to the Purchase Description, Section 4.8.12 refers to the C2A1 filter.

Since the C2A1 canister will be supplied by the USAF, can the USAF provide verification the C2A1 meets NFPA 1981 Para 7.11?

Answer: The intent of section 4.8.12 is to test the Heat and Flame resistance of the manufactures CWC mask and system, not the government provided C2A1. However, the C2A1 filter has been previously tested to NFPA 1981 paragraph 7.11 and passed with the current USAF configuration using shroud covering or equivalent.

8. Question: With respect to the Purchase Description, Section 4.15.2 & 4.15.2 refers to CWC Mask Passive Communications and CWC Mask Electronic Communication. The Speech Transmission Index (STI) protocol is referenced and testing will be per Appendix D over a range of human subjects (both speaker and listener). Appendix D Section D 3.5 describes test protocol which is not STI based. STI is a computer-based evaluation and not part of a human subject test evaluation. Can the USAF please re-evaluate and confirm test methodology?

Answer: A Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) shall be used to evaluate the communication capabilities of the SCBA system and CWC system. MRT shall be conducted using the test protocol described in Appendix D, section D 3.5. An RFP amendment with PD updates shall be forthcoming to provide better clarification.

9. Question: With respect to the Purchase Description and Statement of Work, the current SOW and Purchase Description are not identified as covered contract information (controlled technical information) since they have been released as public release documents, therefore, FAR 52.204-21 should not be applicable. Similarly, DFARs 252.204-7012 and 252.204-7008 should not be applicable again since information has been provided under public release. Can the USAF re-evaluate this requirement?

Answer:

o FAR clause 52.204-21 will remain in the solicitation as the prescription at FAR 4.1903 states, “The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-21 , Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems, in solicitations and contracts when the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier MAY have Federal contract information residing in or transiting through its information system.” Per the requirements listed in the DD 254, this clause is included in this solicitation in the case that classified or controlled information is generated in the performance of these requirements.

o Both the provision at DFARS 252.204-7008 and the clause at DFAR 252.204-7012 are required to be included per the prescriptions found at DFARS 204.7304(a) and DFARS 204.7304(c) as this requirement is not solely for the acquisition of COTS items.

10. Question: With respect to the Solicitation document, what is the USAF's expectation with respect to the export status of the SCBA system since it is to NFPA and NIOSH certified. These requirements are public standards and therefore, the SCBA system should not be covered by 252.225-7048?

Answer: DFARS clause 252.225-7048 will remain in the solicitation as the prescription for this clause at DFARS 225.7901-4 states to use in all solicitations and contracts. In addition, there are various other contractual documents that have export controlled distribution statements assigned; i.e. various Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) data.

11. Question: With respect to the Solicitation document, please clarify the sentence in RFP Section L.II.A.2 which states each volume within the proposal notebook shall be separately tabbed and identified. Does the Government want all four volumes of the proposal submitted as a single file on a CD/DVD; or as separate files on separate CDs/DVDs. If the Government wants all four volumes submitted as a single file do two versions of the proposal file need to be prepared, one containing all four volumes and one containing only volumes 2, 3, and 4 to facilitate the delivery of one copy of volume 1 and 2 copies of the remaining volumes in accordance with RFP Section

L.II.A.

Answer: Per the RFP provision, Proposal Requirements, paragraph II.A, proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four (4) separate volumes. As such, for the electronic copy, each proposal volume shall be submitted on a separate CD-R/DVD-R; i.e. Volume I will be on a separate CD-R/DVD-R, Volume II will be on a separate CD-R/DVD-R, and so forth. For electronic https://acquisition.gov/content/part-52-solicitation-provisions-and-contract-clauses#id1669B0A0E67 copies, Volume I will require one CD-R/DVD-R, Volume II will require two CD-Rs/DVD-Rs, Volume III will require two CD-Rs/DVD-Rs, and Volume IV will require two CD-Rs/DVD-Rs.

12. Question: With respect to the Solicitation document, Section L.II.2 states, "Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17”. Will the Government allow the use of 8pt for text contained in drawings, diagrams, illustrations, and spreadsheets as is normally the case for proposals submitted to DoD Agencies?

Answer: Yes. An amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming that will allow print to be no smaller than a font size of 8 for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets.

13. Question: With respect to the Solicitation document, Section L.II.C.2. Sub Factor One Para II states the offers shall provide four of its existing SCBA units for evaluation. No mention of mask size is provided. Should the SCBA units be sent with various sized masks to allow for a more complete field evaluation?

Answer: Offerors shall provide one (1) each mask for each size with every SCBA unit that will be submitted for evaluation; i.e. for an offeror that has three (3) mask sizes (small, medium, large), one (1) each small, one (1) each medium, and one (1) each large masks shall be submitted for SCBA #1; one (1) each small, one (1) each medium, and one (1) each large masks shall be submitted for SCBA #2 and so forth. An amendment to the solicitation is forthcoming to add this information to Technical Subfactor One.

14. Question: With respect to the Solicitation document, was it the intention of USAF to give a preference in this procurement to domestically produced or manufactured products? If so, why are not the appropriate FAR regulations marked as necessary and not included relative to Buy America Act, Trade Agreement Act and Berry Amendment. Please clarify.

Answer: Per DFARS 225.1101(2)(i)(E)(1), The Buy American clause at DFARS 252.225-7001 was not included because the RFP includes the Trade Agreements clause at DFARS 252.225-7021 instead. This is because the acquisition is estimated to exceed $182,000.00, none of the exceptions at FAR 25.401(a) apply, and “Fire fighting, rescue, and safety equipment; and environmental protection equipment and materials” are listed as end products subject to trade agreement at DFARS 225.401-70 under PSG 42. By extension, the Buy American clause is not marked in the clause at 52.212-5 as this contract is subject to the Trade Agreement Act. Finally, the Trade Agreements clause 52.225-5 is not marked within FAR 52.212-5 as the clause at DFARS 252.225-7021 is used instead in accordance with DFARS 225.1101(6).

15. Question: With respect to the pricing matrix, the proposed pricing evaluation is on a cost per unit basis. That does not account for the fact that units which require regular maintenance will add to the price paid by the government and these costs vary by offeror and by the technical solution itself. Would the USAF consider changing the price volume spreadsheet to capture the additional required life-cycle maintenance costs? Certain SCBA solutions require forced part replacement or scheduled overhaul. How will the USAF evaluate this associated cost estimated over the 15 years of expected service life as part of the price evaluation? Will the USAF add this life cycle cost to the price volume? How will the Air Force evaluate warranty, in terms of duration and coverage? How will the Air Force assess cost for replacement parts either not covered under warranty or parts that will purchased beyond warranty periods? Certain repairs may require the SCBA to be returned to manufacturer. If the SCBA design ensures all repairs can be performed by trained Air Force technicians, how will the Air Force evaluate cost of on-site repair capability vs factory required repair? Can the USAF re-evaluate the entire pricing requirements to address the above issues which will result in a reasonable and balanced offer?

Answer:

o No, the government will not consider changing the price volume spreadsheet to capture life-cycle maintenance costs. The SCBA requirement is strictly a production (supply) effort that does not require any type of sustainment effort. Life-cycle maintenance costs will not be considered for this effort.

o The government will not evaluate any associated costs for part replacement or scheduled overhaul as part of the price evaluation. The SCBA requirement is strictly a production (supply) effort that does not require any type of sustainment effort. Life-cycle maintenance costs will not be considered for this effort.

o The government will not add life cycle costs to the price volume. The SCBA requirement is strictly a production (supply) effort that does not require any type of sustainment effort. Life-cycle maintenance costs will not be considered for this effort.

o Warranty is part of the terms and conditions for the resultant contract and is not being evaluated as part of the tradeoff source selection procedures.

o Per market research that was conducted, the standard commercial warranty offered to the general public in the customary commercial marketplace is 15 years. The Government has determined that such a warranty is sufficient. The SCBA requirement is strictly a production (supply) effort that does not require any type of sustainment effort.

Life-cycle maintenance costs will not be considered for this effort.

o The government will not consider evaluating costs of on-site repair capability vs factory required repair. The SCBA requirement is strictly a production (supply) effort that does not require any type of sustainment effort. Life-cycle maintenance costs will not be considered for this effort.

o No, the government will not consider revising the pricing requirements. The pricing method described in the solicitation will remain as stated in the RFP.

16. Question: The USAF has provided a copy of DD Form 254 with the RFP package. Is it the intent that the contractor return this document with the completed Solicitation as an acknowledgement of the security requirement for the program or is it intended that the contractor simply retain it and comply with it in accordance with corporate operating procedures?

Answer: Per the face page note on the solicitation, offerors are advised to be familiar with the requisites of the DD254 requirement. The DD254 is not required to be returned with proposals.

However, compliance with the requirements set forth within the DD254 is mandatory as part of the terms and conditions of the resultant contract.

17. Question: The RFP requires contractors to submit “Small Business Participation Plan,” but it appears that it is the same as a FAR requirement to submit a contract-specific small business subcontracting plan that is not applicable. The Small Business Participation Plan and a small business subcontracting plan under FAR 52.219-9, both require contractors to identify all subcontractors, categorize them, assess them against DOD subcontracting goals and identify a plan where goals are not met. Under the requirements of FAR 52.219(g), if an entity already has an approved commercial plan, the government “will not require another subcontracting plan.”

Therefore, it is requested that the solicitation be modified to indicate that where a commercial plan has already been approved by the government, it satisfies the evaluation pass/fail criteria for the requirement.

Answer: Per RFP provision ‘Proposal Requirements’, paragraph II.D.1, the Small Business Participation proposal is required from all offerors, including small businesses and companies with Master, Individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans. The offeror/joint venture member shall include only the first tier of subcontractors for this effort. Offerors are advised that the Small Business Participation proposal is not the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 52.219-9. Large business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business Participation proposal.

The solicitation requirements as stated in the RFP provision ‘Proposal Requirements’, paragraph II.D.1, remain in full force and effect.