Responses_to_Industry_Questions_-_18_Sep_2017.pdf

FA8629-17-R-5003

Response to Industry Questions

Q# Referenced Document

Industry Question Government Response

1 SOO Section 2 CLINs 0001-0006 list FOB: Destination, and there is no CLIN for shipping/freight; SOO section 2 states that, “the pricing shall include shipping of the kits listed below,“ which includes all five kits as well as Replacement Parts. Is it the government’s intent that shipping costs be included in the price of each kit and replacement part, with one price for items delivered to any of the 14 units?

Contractor submitted proposals should include all shipping costs in with the cost of each kit and replacement part.

2 Section F, SOO 8.A CLIN 0005, Mechanical Ascender, lists 120 days ARO for the delivery date. Please confirm that it is exempt from this requirement as is stated in SOO paragraph 8.A.

CLIN 0005 delivery date is 120 DARO.

The SOO, paragraph 8.A. has been updated to remove the statement:

"exception: Ascender delivery schedule will be determined at time of DO".

3 Section F, CLIN

0006, SOO 8.A

CLIN 0006, Replacement Parts, lists 30 days ARO for the delivery date, which is inconsistent with SOO paragraph 8.A that says kit delivery time shall not exceed 120 days. SOO paragraph 2 defines “kits” as including Replacement Items (Replacement Parts). Please confirm that the delivery date for CLIN 0006 is 120 days ARO, and that the ascender is exempt from the 120 day requirement as is stated in SOO paragraph 8.A.

CLIN 0006 delivery date is 30 DARO. SOO paragraph 8.A. language has been updated to reflect a 30 DARO for replacement parts. The ascender is not exempt from the 120 DARO requirement and the statement: "exception:

Ascender delivery schedule will be determined at time of DO" has been removed from the SOO paragraph 8.A.

4 Section F CLIN 00014, Test Assets , contains unknown items. Is it the government’s intent to only require items that can be sourced and delivered within 30 days?

30 DARO is appropriate for CLIN 00014, Test Assets. Offerors should propose in accordance with Section F, CLIN 0014.

5 Section I, pages 17-

18, FAR 52.216-19

Is it the government’s intention that the offeror fill in this value based on its pricing of the Model Delivery Order FA8629-17-F- 0901? If not, what is the projected value of Delivery Order 0001?

The value will be populated by the Government prior to contract award

6 Section I, pages 17- 18, 52.216-19

Is the Offeror to assume the $57 million maximum to mean that the contractor would be obligated to fulfill a replacement parts order for $57 million dollars in carabiners within 30 DARO in the Model Contract’s current form?

The maximum ordering value under this IDIQ will be $57,000,000. This value is accurately reflected in FAR 52.216- 19(b)(2) and (b)(3).

7 Section K, FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications

Please clarify discrepancy between the NAICS code included in Section K, page K-1, FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications, paragraph a. (423990, Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers) and the NAICS code used in the cover letter and synopsis (333999 – All other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing).

The NAICS code included in Section K has been updated to reflect 333999.

8 SOO 10.A.3 SOO 10.A.3 states that the “…contractor shall properly package the equipment and ship”. While the SOO is perfectly clear that the contractor will be reimbursed for return shipping of SME items, it appears to be inadvertently ambiguous about the outbound shipping charges. Please clarify how these are to be handled.

SOO paragraph 10.A.3 has been updated to reflect that contractor submitted proposals should include the cost of inbound and outbound shipping in with the cost of each kit.

9 Section L, L.3.3, Indexing

L.3.3, Indexing, states; “Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.” This appears to indicate that the government would like to have a master TOC provided as well, covering all Volumes.

Please clarify whether this should be included with the proposal submittal, and if so, where it should be included.

A master table of contents is not required.

10 Section L, L.3.5, Binding and Labeling

L.3.5, Binding and Labeling, includes the following requirement: “All material shall include the following information located in the header and footer of each page: SOURCE

SELECTION INFORMATION FOR OFFICAL USE

ONLY See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104.” Please confirm that all pages have to be marked in BOTH the header AND the footer with the Source Selection Information FOUO restrictive marking.

Yes, all pages should be marked in both the header and footer with the source selection Information FOUO restrictive marking.

11 Section L, L.3.6 Electronic Offers

L.3.6, Electronic Offers, indicates the following: “If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included.” However, subparagraph g indicates: Do NOT submit documents using file compression software (such as .zip format). Please clarify whether compressed files are acceptable.

Compressed files will be accepted.

Section L, paragraph 3.6, subparagraph g verbiage, "Do NOT submit documents using file compression software (such as .zip format)", has been removed.

12 Section L, L.3.6.h, PPI

There is no PPI tool on the solicitation notice posted to FBO. Please provide the latest version of the tool.

The PPI tool was uploaded to FBO on 24 August 2017.

13 Section L, L.3.7 Distribution

L.3.7, Distribution, includes the following statement: “Be sure to advise the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for prime and subcontractors that the proposal is "For Official Use Only" and "Source Selection Information--See FAR

2.101 and FAR 3.104". Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit their proposals to their cognizant DCAA and ACO for evaluation.

Offerors are not required to submit their proposals to their cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) for evaluation.

14 Section L, L.7.1.7, Section J – Attachments

L.7.1.7, Section J , Attachments, lists the Price Matrix and SSS, but the note conflicts this instruction saying they are only to be provided in the specific volumes. Please confirm that the offerors are to include these as attachments to only Volumes II and IV per the note, and exclude them from the attachments in Volume V.

Offerors shall submit the System Subsystem Specificiation in Volume II and the Price Matrix in Volume IV.

Offerors are not required to submit the System Subsystem Specification and Price Matrix in Volume V.

15 Section L, L.7.1.7, Section J, Attachments, subparagraph b

L.7.1.7, Section J, Attachments, subparagraph b, requires that offerors develop and submit a Statement of Work (SOW) that will become part of the contract.

Please clarify where the SOW is included in the evaluation of the Technical Volume.

Section M identifies the Governments evaluation factors for this source selection.

18 Section L, L-3, Pricing Cross Reference Matrix

L-3, Pricing Cross Reference Matrix, in the heading for column three, what does CSR stand for?

The CSR acronym (and CSR Cost Element # column of the Section L, Attachment L- 3 Pricing Cross Reference Matrix) is not germane to offeror proposal submission and does not need to be completed.

19 Section L, L-4 Pricing Matrix, Kit Pricing Tab

Please confirm whether the government intends that offerors propose a single price for each kit that includes shipping to all listed locations, both CONUS and OCONUS.

Offers should propose a single price for each kit to include shipping to all listed locations, both CONUS and OCONUS.

20 Section L, L-4 Pricing Matrix, Replacement Parts Tab

Please confirm whether the government intends that offerors propose a single price for each item that includes shipping to all listed locations, both CONUS and OCONUS.

Offers should propose a single price for each item to include shipping to all listed locations, both CONUS and

OCONUS.

21 Section L, L-4 Pricing Matrix, Replacement Parts Tab

If the government confirms its intent to include shipping in the item prices, is it also the government’s intent that offerors price based on quantities of 1 for all items, including shipping costs for such quantities?

If not, does the government intend for offerors to propose minimum order quantities, or will the government specify a quantity for each item?

Offerors shall submit pricing which includes all shipping costs. No quantity bands are requested in this RFP.

22 Section L, L-4 Pricing Matrix, Replacement Parts Tab

The Quick-Loc Steel Carabiner by Omega Pacific, P/N: 371270 is listed in Appendix B of the SRD, but it is not listed here in the Pricing Matrix. Please add it if the government intends that it be priced.

The Pricing Matrix has been revised to add the Quick-Loc Steel Carabiner by Omega Pacific, part number 371270

23 SOO 9.F There is no OCONUS price for CLIN 0008.

SOO paragraph 9.F states, “Training must be mobile and deployable to any of the GA unit locations.” Please clarify whether the 110 hour Operator Training courses will be conducted OCONUS.

Operator Training courses will not be conducted OCONUS. SOO para 9F has been updated to include an exception for Operator Training.

24 Section L, L-4 Pricing Matrix, Program Management Tab, Paragraph XI of the Brand Name J&A

Please confirm that the government intends for the contractor to coordinate an annual Technology Refresh conference as part of the Program Management and Systems Engineering requirements described in SOO paragraphs 4 and 5, and that offeror costs for this conference with ACC and the GA PO should be priced into CLIN 0013.

The Government does not intend for the contractor to coordinate an annual technology refresh conference as a part of the Program Management and Systems Engineering process.

25 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

K-SHIELD001-Kit manufacturer is incorrect. For this item description, the manufacturer has been removed and the part number replaced with the following: The CS SHIELD Breathing System contains: 3 Shields (P/N: SHIELD- AF), 1 Std Adapter to Recharge Breathing System (P/N: CHGA 25ft), 3 Medium Masks (P/N: MASKTWM), 3 Large Masks (P/N: MASKTWL), and 3 (40mm) Mask Adapters (P/N: SH-Mask Adapter)

26 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

SHIELD001 is an outdated part number. The current part number for this item is SHIELD- AF, and it is now manufactured by (SPO) Special Projects Operations.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number and manufacturer to SHIELD-AF and SPO

27 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

CHGA25 is an outdated part number. The current part number for this item is CHGA 25ft, and it is now manufactured by SPO.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number and manufacturer to CHGA 25ft and SPO

28 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

Osen-Hunter is now SPO (for MASKTWM and MASKTWL, note these items appear twice on the list).

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number and manufacturer to MASKTWM / SPO and

MASKTWL / SPO

29 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

MASKADPT is an outdated part number. The current part number for this item is SH-Mask Adapter, and it is now manufactured by SPO.

Please note that this item appears twice on this list.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number and manufacturer to SH-Mask Adapter and

SPO

30 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

SHIELD003 manufacturer is incorrect. For this item description, the manufacturer has been removed and the part number replaced with the following: The CS SHIELD Torching System contains the following: 3 Shields (P/N: SHIELD-AF), 1 Std Adapter to Recharge Oxygen Bottle (P/N: CHGox- (Multi)), 15 18" Cutting Rods (P/N:

EX189MM), 3 Medium Masks (P/N:

MASKTWM), 3 Large Masks (P/N:

MASKTWL), Torching Assecory Pkgs (P/N: Shield-ACC-T/M), 3 (40mm) Mask Adapters (P/N: SH-Mask Adapter), and 1 Vacuum Test Kit (P/N: Shield-VTK)

31 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

CHGMULTI is an outdated part number. The current part number for this item is CHGox- (Multi), and it is now manufactured by SPO.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number and manufacturer to CHGox-(Multi) and SPO

32 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

Osen-Hunter is now SPO (for EX189MMEA). The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number and manufacturer to EX189MM and SPO

33 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

SHIELDACCT is an outdated part number.

The current part number for this item is SHIELD-ACC-T/M, and it is now manufactured by SPO.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number and manufacturer to SHIELD-ACC-T/M and

SPO

34 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

SHREGULATOR is an outdated part number.

The current part number for this item is SH- Regulator Valve Combo, and it is now manufactured by SPO.

The SRD has been updated to reflect the change in part number and manufacturer to SH-Regulator Valve Combo and SPO

35 L-5 SRD, Appendix B, CS Kits brand name items

CHGHOSE is an outdated part number. The current part number for this item is CHGA 50ft, and it is now manufactured by SPO.

The SRD has been updated to reflect the change in part number and manufacturer to CHGA 50ft and SPO

36 Appendix C, Confined Space Kit brand name or equivalent items

The required characteristics for the Sterling 6mm Powercord 25’, p/n A060PC0007, are not consistent with the item listed.

Powercord has a Technora core and a Nylon sheath. Please confirm that the government intends to procure a cord with a Nylon sheath and Technora core.

The SRD has been updated to change the required characteristic for part number A060PC007 to reflect Nylon sheath and Technora core

37 Appendix D, Light REDS name brand items

DCG412P2 is a 20V grinder kit with 2 batteries. Please confirm that the government intended to list DCG414B, which is the part number for the item description listed.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number to DCG414B.

38 Appendix D, Light REDS name brand items

K-HCT5111SOF manufacturer is incorrect.

There is no Holmatro part number that corresponds to the description provided.

For this item description, the manufacturer has been removed and the part number replaced with the following: The HCT5111RH Combi-Tool (Hand Operated) with 11" Blades installed and spare 17" Blades contains the following: 1 Combi-Tool (Hand Operated ) with 11" Blades installed (P/N: HCT5111RH) and 1 spare 17" Blades (P/N: 150003556)

39 Appendices E, G, and I

The required dimensions for the E3-LE Mulitcam, p/n TICS.13.10118 appear to be incorrect. They are listed as 1.81 inches by

1.04 inches by 0.25 inches. Please provide the required dimensions for equivalent products.

The dimensions listed in the SRD for part number TICS.13.10118 are correct.

40 Appendix F, Heavy REDS name brand items

K-CT5110ST manufacturer is incorrect. There is no Holmatro part number that corresponds to the description provided.

For this item description, the manufacturer has been removed and the part number replaced with the following: The CTS5117RH Combi-Tool w/ C.O.R.E. with 17" Blades installed & spare 11" Blades contains the following:

1 Combi-Tool w/ C.O.R.E. with 17" Blades installed (P/N: CTS5117RH) & 1 spare 11" Blades (P/N: 150006070)

41 Appendix F, Heavy REDS name brand items

The part numbers for the spare blades seem to have been transposed. 150006067 is for the 17” blades, and 150006070 is for the 11” blades. This change also needs to be made on the Replacement Parts tab of the Pricing Matrix.

The SRD and Pricing Matrix have been updated to reflect the change in part number for the respective items.

42 Appendix F, Heavy REDS name brand items

XWB114456BHFASSEMBLY is an incorrect part number. This item’s part number is

WB114-45B-HF.ASSMBLY.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number to WB114-45B-

HF.

43 Appendix F, Heavy REDS name brand items

HOSSALTASSYWVASSM is an outdated part number. This item’s part number is now 139307FAD-Assm.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number to 139307FAD.

44 Appendix H, SC kit name brand items

XWB114456BHFASSEMBLY is an incorrect part number. This item’s part number is

WB114-45B-HF.ASSMBLY.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number to WB114-45B-

HF.

45 Appendix H, SC kit name brand items

HOSSALTASSYWVASSM is an outdated part number. This item’s part number is now 139307FAD-Assm.

The SRD has been updated to reflect a change in part number to 139307FAD.

46 Appendix J, Mechanical Ascender Kit

The required characteristics listed for the APA-5 are not consistent with that part number. The part number for the model with those characteristics is APA-5A. Please confirm which model the government is requesting equivalents for.

The Government confirms it is requesting brand name or equivalent for part number APA-5.

47 Section M, Paragraph 2.2, Technical

Subfactor 1, Training, includes a staffing plan for instructors, but there is no subfactor for AMSVs. Will the offeror’s ability to provide personnel that meet the SOO requirements be evaluated?

Section M, as currently written, identifies the Governments evaluation factors for this source selection.

48 SRD, Conflict between SRD and Government Answer

Upon reviewing the question (and answer) that was posted (on 24 Aug 17) yesterday morning, we noticed that there is a conflict between the answer provided by the government and the SRD. The SRD lists 4542262 as the part number for the Draeger X-am 2500 atmospheric monitor. That part number indicates that it is a 4-gas monitor that uses AA batteries, which is in compliance with paragraph 3.1.1.1.2 of the SRD. The government's answer to the question lists part number 4542261 with a NiMh rechargeable battery. This is not in compliance with paragraph 3.1.1.1.2, as such a battery is not common in the same context as AA, AAA, or 123 lithium batteries are.

Please clarify?

Part number 4542262 as identified in the SRD is correct.

49 Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool

Instructions state that the PPI tool can be downloaded from the solicitation’s file section on FBO; however, the link does not appear on the page. Will the Government please post the link soon, so that Offerors may begin to complete past performance submissions?

The PPI tool was uploaded to FBO on 24 August 2017.

50 Section L, 5.2, Past Performance Questionnaire

The RFP states that “respondents shall be instructed that all responses are to be provided directly to the Government CO not later than 01 Sep 2017.” However, later in the same section the RFP states that “each Offeror is requested to submit the information shown in Attachment L-2 for each relevant contract 15 calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals.” If the completed PPQs are due to the Government CO on 01 Sep, which information is the Government requesting within 15 calendar days prior to proposal due date? We respectfully request the Government clarify.

Section L, Paragraph 5.2 has been updated to reflect an Attachment L-2 due date of 15 days prior to proposal submittal.

51 Section L, 5.2, Past Performance Questionnaire

The RFP requires Offerors to “provide a listing of the individuals to whom the questionnaires were sent, with contact information…” Can Offerors submit this information simply in the body of an email message or on a blank document attached to email, or does the Government have another preferred format?

Offerors should submit this information via a document attached to an email.

52 Attachment L-2, Past Performance Questionnaire

Would the Government please provide a clear copy of the PPQ (without the word “DRAFT” watermarked across the background) for Offerors to send to responding officials?

The draft watermark of the PPQ was removed and a corrected document was uploaded to FBO on 24 August 2017. A further revision of the document has been uploaded with this posting, which removes the reference to the PPQ due date.

53 Section L, 5.3.1 AND Section M 2.4

Per the RFP, Offerors are to “categorize relevant information into the specific Technical subfactors and Price factor used to evaluate the proposal.” The RFP also states, “Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).” Is the Government’s intent for Offerors to provide this information on each referenced contract?

It is not the Governments intent to request pricing information on referenced contracts. Section L, Paragraph 5.3.1 has been updated to remove "Price Factor" from the final sentence.

54 System Requirements Document (SRD)

Have any of the new pieces of equipment (those that were not included in the DRAFT RFP but do appear in the FINAL RFP) been fielded yet?

This question is not germane to offeror proposal submission.

55 Section B, Pricing Are other direct costs (ODC) for training itemized in a separate CLIN? Or should Offerors include ODCs within the pricing for each training CLIN?

Offerors should include all other direct costs (ODC) within the pricing of each training CLIN.

56 - When does the Government anticipate the award date of this contract?

No anticipated award date has been identified.

57 Memorandum, Item #9, Proposal Submission

GovWin and FBO websites both list the response date as Sep 25, 2017 at 5:00pm Eastern; however, the Department of the Air Force Memorandum dated 11 August 2017 that was issued with the RFP lists only “25 September 2017.” Would the Government please verify the date and time proposal are due?

Proposal due date is as follows: 25 Sep 2017 at 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time.

While the RFP memorandum documents a 25 Sep 2017 due date, the 25 Sep 2017 at 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time as documented in GovWin and FBO is the accurate proposal due date/time.