RFP 70CMSW24R00000008 Q and A AMENDMENT 1.pdf
PDF 225 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Body Armor Requirement to support ICE/OFTP
- Solicitation number
- FY2024ICEBODYARMORRFP
- Issued by
-
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
About this file
This document is an amendment to the Request for Proposals (RFP) 70CMSW24R00000008 for body armor to support the OFTP program. The amendment addresses several industry questions and provides the government's responses.
The key details are:
- The government will add a Not-To-Exceed (NTE) Travel CLIN to the pricing schedule for any travel costs associated with providing sizing/measurements.
- The government is willing to evaluate innovative body armor designs that meet the technical specifications, including allowing unisex (neutral) models and solutions that do not require parasitic internal stiffeners.
- Soft armor lighter than 0.70psf will be evaluated per the revised evaluation criteria under Sub-Factor 1.
- NIJ certified independent testing results and compliance letters are required and will be excluded from the proposal page limits.
- The ULVCTS (Ultra Concealable Body Armor) will not be part of the requirement, as the concealable carriers are already included.
- The government will consider proposals for buckle systems greater than 4" in width, but no larger than the cummerbund width.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Requirement: Body Armor to support OFTP
Amendment 1 to RFP 70CMSW24R00000008 Questions and Answers (Q&A) dated 4/26/2024
Industry Question #1, Pricing Schedule:
Will “travel costs” for providing sizing/measurements be an additional line item on the base IDIQ award(s)?
Government Answer #1- The Government will add a Not-To-Exceed (NTE) Travel CLIN applicable to the base and all optional periods for any travel costs associated with providing any required sizing/measurements. See revised Pricing Schedule with added CLINs.
Industry Question #2- RFP/SOW; Page 5, Overt Tactical Carrier, Paragraph 2:
Our level IIIA armor does not require parasitic internal stiffeners in order to increase load carriage performance or prevent bunching/sagging. Would ICE consider models that are built with this in mind instead of adding parasitic weight to meet this requirement?
Government Answer #2- All specifications and enhanced ballistic protection requirements must be met IAW the SOW. The Government is willing to evaluate industry products that are innovative in nature so long as it meets the requirement of including “an internal stiffener behind the soft armor panel to help reduce a push of the soft body armor into the area between the breasts.” In addition, “OTC shall include an internal stiffener placed behind soft armor to increase load carriage performance, provide a rigid platform, reduce fatigue, and stabilize soft armor inserts to prevent soft armor panels from bunching/sagging inside carrier.” See SOW for specifications.
Industry Question #3- RFP/SOW; Page 4, Technical Specifications, paragraph 10:
Would ICE consider body formed panels as a unisex (neutral) model and use them for female front panels as opposed to requiring 2 separate armor models for male and female?
Government Answer #3- All specifications and enhanced ballistic protection requirements must be met IAW the SOW. The Government is willing to evaluate industry products that are unisex (neutral) model in nature if it meets the requirement for enhanced ballistic protection and provides the end user the required protection. See SOW for specifications.
Industry Question #4 RFP/SOW; Page 4, Technical Specifications, paragraph 9:
Is there a specific test plan or specification defined that quantifies what designs meet your intended requirements?
Government Answer #4- All specifications and enhanced ballistic protection requirements must be met IAW the SOW. The Government encourages offerors to submit innovative solutions that meet all of the SOW requirements.
Industry Question #5- RFP/Attachment 1; Page 9 under Sub-Factor 1 Table Rating Definition:
How would soft armor lighter than 0.70psf be evaluated?
Government Answer #5- See revised evaluation criteria for the RFP under FACTOR 1, Sub- Factor 1- Weight Evaluation Ratings (Page 9).
Industry Question #6 – RFP, Volume I:
Are the NIJ-certified independent testing results required? If so, can they be excluded from the page limit?
Government Answer #6- The NIJ certified independent testing results are part of Volume I and should be included in the proposal package sent to Fort Moore, GA. Yes, they will be excluded from the page limits required for Volume I submissions.
Industry Question #7 – RFP, Volume I:
Is an NIJ compliance letter required? If so, can they be excluded from the page limit?
Government Answer #7- The NIJ compliance letters are considered part of the NIJ Certified independent lab results and are part of Volume I and should be included in the proposal package sent to Fort Moore, GA. Yes, they will be excluded from the page limits required for Volume I submissions.
Industry Question #8 – RFP/SOW:
Will ULVCTs (Ultra Concealable Body Armor) be added to the contract?
Government Answer #8- The ULVCTS (Ultra Concealable Body Armor) will not be part of the requirement/award(s) since each soft body armor kit already includes concealable carriers.
Industry Question #9 – RFP/SOW:
Will the agency allow a buckle system greater than 4” inches to be utilized in the carrier?
Government Answer #9- The Government is willing to consider/evaluate a proposed buckle system greater than 4” inches but NO larger than the width of the cummerbund.
End of Amendment 1
| 2024-04-26T14:20:11-0400 | |
| TONY P ROSS |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .