Source Selection - Questions and Answers Pt. 1.pdf

Thailand AT-6 Source Selection Q&A Part 1

Question 1:

Upon reviewing the information in Section L, Section 6.2 Section A, Solicitation/Contract Form-it states, “Completion of block 25 on the DD 1155 of the model Delivery Order shall be consistent with prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix. Signature by the offeror on the SF33 and DD1155 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. I don’t see the DD 1155 of the model Delivery Order. Can you please advise me on where to locate this?

The text referenced above in Section L shall be amended as follows: “Completion of proposed pricing on the model contract shall be consistent with prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix. Signature by the offeror on the SF33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.”

Question 2:

Please confirm that there is no page limit for Volume II Technical Proposal, as shown in Table 1 in Section L.2.1. Is it correct that the page limitations in Section L.2.2 now only apply to Volume I Executive Summary (the only remaining volume having a page limit, per Table 1) and to any possible future Evaluation Notices?

There are no page limitations on Volume II Technical Proposal. The only required page limitation in this solicitation is a three (3) page limit on Volume 1, Executive Summary. If any page limitations are required in future Evaluation Notices (EN’s), it will be explicitly stated.

Question 3:

Section L.2.4 says “Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume.” However, during the Draft RFP stage, the Government's 10 Oct 2023 response to Question #4 said tables of contents are not required. Please confirm that (1) the table of contents is not required in Volume I Executive Summary OR (2) if the table of contents is required in Volume I Executive Summary, the table of contents will not count against the page limit (as this is now the only volume having a page limit).

Section L 2.4 will be amended as follows, “Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Table of contents will not count toward any page limitations. Tab indexing may be used to identify sections and if used will not be included in page limitations. If used, index pages should be blank and not be used to convey any information.”

Question 4:

"Section L.2.4 says tab indexing shall be used to identify sections. Please clarify if tab indexing is relevant for an electronic submission such as is required here and, if so, how it is to be implemented.

Section L 2.4 will be amended to remove required page indexing. If indexing is used by an offeror, it may be used at their discretion to best organize the proposal. If used, index pages should not be used to convey information.

Thailand AT-6 Source Selection Q&A Part 1

Question 5:

The manufacturer no longer makes the aluminum case assembly of the FN® Test Box Unit. As a result, FN Herstal has discontinued production of the current FN® TBU referenced 3538937000. It is replaced by the new reference 3538937030. Does the USG approve this new part number for purchase in this effort?

The USG approves the replacement/newer version of this PN as an acceptable alternate. The solicitation will be amended accordingly.

Question 6:

In reference to SOW paragraph 3.4.5.4, does I/A at the OEM/Vendor facility apply to ALL material procured? Will DD250s be submitted in WAWF prior to or after I/A? What DoDAAC will be used for DD250 submission to WAWF?

All of Section 3.4.5 (3.4.5 thru 3.4.5.5) relates to only the HMP-400 Gun Pod/with gun, PN: 3648905470.

I/A at Vendor facility only relates to this PN and FN Herstal as the OEM. Nothing should be submitted in WAWF until after I/A and Invoicing will not be paid until gun pods deliver to first destination (Travis AFB). The DoDAAC should be whatever the contractor would normally cite on DD250s.

Question 7:

Is it acceptable to assume Unique Identification will not be required for items being delivered under a resulting contract since these materials will not be in USG inventory?”

This is not an acceptable assumption. According to https://samm.dsca.mil/policy-memoranda/dsca-05- 04 “Any item purchased for a security assistance customer could potentially become part of the DoD inventory.”

Question 8:

The BOM Tab indicates in the Notes column that the Ejection Seat Tools and Support Equipment "Must be delivered 16 Months After Receipt of Order (ARO)." However, the Ejection Seat BOM tab indicates that each of the individual items "Must be delivered 18 Months After Receipt of Order (ARO). Earlier deliveries are preferred." These two statements do not align.

The solicitation will be amended to state that all items must be delivered 16 Months After Receipt of Order (ARO) with early deliveries preferred.

https://samm.dsca.mil/policy-memoranda/dsca-05-04 https://samm.dsca.mil/policy-memoranda/dsca-05-04