H92401-25-R-0002_Final_RFP_QNA_Round_5_21_Apr_25.pdf

ITEM

SECTION

NUMBER

NAME OF

SECTION

COMMENT

TYPE

(Select from drop down)

SOURCE

SELECTION

SENSITIVE OR

PROPRIETARY

INFORMATION

QUESTIONS / COMMENTS

(With justification of why considered source selection sensitive if applicable) Government Answer

44 H Special Contract Requirements

Substantive No

Request guidance from the Government to guard against any adverse impact to the future TREX3 program due to the market volatility in the IT industry sector. We have noticed that vendors have started to add language on their quotes that tariffs are not including in the quoted amount.

Since, “all unit prices will be provided as a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and shall be inclusive of all direct (i.e., direct labor, material, travel, and ODC) and associated indirect costs plus profit related to the DO”, will the Government consider adding the following flow-down duty-free clauses, FAR 52.225-8 and DFARS 252.225-7013?

No for the following reasons.

1. DFARS requires use of 252.225-7013 instead of FAR clause 52.225-8 thus both cannot be used (ref

225.1101 (4)

2. IAW DFARS 252.225-7013 "eligible product" means "(1) “Designated country end product,” as defined in the Trade Agreements (either basic or alternate) clause of this contract;...and "“Qualifying country” and “qualifying country end product” have the meanings given in the Trade Agreements clause, the Buy American and Balance of Payments Program clause, or the Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program clause of this contract, basic or alternate."

3. IAW DFARS 225.1101 (6) "Except as provided in paragraph (6)(iv) of this section, use the basic or an alternate of the clause at 252.225-7021, Trade Agreements, instead of the clause at FAR 52.225-5, Trade Agreements, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, if the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement applies, i.e., the acquisition is of end products listed at 225.401-70, the value of the acquisition equals or exceeds $174,000, and none of the exceptions at 25.401(a) applies."

4. TREX 3 does not include end products meeting the above criteria at 225.401-70 and therefore is not applicable to this solicitation. Moreover, some are excepted IAW 25.401 (a) (2).

5. All line items require domestic or qualifying country end products in accordance with subpart 225.70 and RFP clause 252.225-7012

45 H Special Contract Requirements

Substantive No

Will the Government consider adding the below economic price adjustment clauses:

•FAR 52.216-2, Economic Price Adjustment-Standard Supplies, •FAR 52.216-4, Economic Price Adjustment -Labor and Material

The clauses will not be included for the following reasons:

1. While the Government is aware of potential impacts to prices due to the potential increased Tariffs, like supply chain impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these tariffs will not impacts ALL materials and/or end products under this effort. Additionally, Pre-negotiating these clauses is challenging given the dynamic nature of trade policies.

2. IAW 52.216-2.The aggregate of the increases in any contract unit price under this clause shall not exceed 10 percent of the original contract unit price. Moreover, the clause requires that modification increasing a contract unit price shall be executed until the Contracting Officer verifies the increase in the applicable established price. Given the nature of TREX this additional burden on limited Government resources is unrealistic and unmanageable given the volume, lack of contract direct with OEMs, etc.

3. RFP clause 52.229-3 Allows for contract adjustments for new or increased taxes/duties imposed during contract performance. While application of these authorities is limited and must be carefully evaluated, it is still an option.

4. 52.216-4; in addition to the issues previously stated above, this clause is not applicable to this effort since IAW the RFP SOW, services are incidental and limited to specific support such as NET and the materials are not broken out within the proposed prices to have them listed in the "schedule" as outlined in the clause.

H92401-25-R-0002_Final_RFP_QNA_Round_5_21_Apr_25

46 Attachment 8 Price Matrix Substantive No

The TREX Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is derived by summing the individual DO prices. As we are actively pricing, “Ex C DO2 TS” is significantly higher than the other three delivery orders thereby dominating the TEP. We have noticed that some vendors are not extending pricing beyond 30 days and are providing MSRP/List Price.

To ensure that a single BNJ product does not drive the TEP of the entire TREX award, will the Government consider adding language of a weighted average across DOs under M.4 FACTOR 4: Delivery Order Price ? If this is not doable, would the Government consider reducing the quantity to 1 on all ELINs on “Ex C DO2 TS”?

No for the following reasons:

1. While this DO may be higher than the others, it is not "significantly" higher than ALL four.

2. A weighted average is not necessary when all four Dos are considered equal in technical and therefore, all prices should also be considered equally. Moreover, it is unclear how this would even be applied.

3. If in fact an OEM is proposing MSRP prices, then it is reasonable to assume that they are proposing those MSRP prices to all potential TREX offerors, and therefore, will not impact the price competition.

4. The actual awardee for each DO will be determined IAW RFP Clause H.10.3. Prior to actual DO award, modifications to the DO ELINs may be necessary to address necessary changes since proposal submission such as parts obsolescence unknown to offerors at the time of submission, changes to Government authorizations, program shifts, etc. This would include removal of any ELINs where the Government determines it necessary due to the TREX vehicle not offering a reasonable price (i.e. MSRP vice SOCOM pricing) as compared to other potential contract options (given this is not a requirements type contract).

5. Also reference response to item # 19 with regards to ensuring OEM compliance with the RFP.

47 Attachment 10b

DO 1 SOW Substantive No

Was it the Government's intent to not to have the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) perform testing to ensure end items function as intended and are operational?

If so, can the Government provide guidance on how the Contractor needs to satisfy operational use testing?

No. Amendment 4 updates DO 1 SOW and ITO to reflect OEM testing like the other DO's.