HDEC0419R0017__Response_to_questions_for_Wrappers_and_Scales_SOL_HDEC0419R0017_Amendement_3.pdf

Contractor questions concerning Solicitation HDEC0419R0017 Amendment 3.

1) The solicitation sets forth certain CLINs for which pricing is not to be provided, as follows:

SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE

Item 001 Scales Labeler Wrapper , Auto CONUS

FFP

Scales Labeler Wrapper , Auto CONUS **Please note this is an information CLIN only please do not Price**

Item 002 1M28 Scale Labeler Wrapper, Auto AK/HI

FFP

1M28 Scale Labeler Wrapper, Auto - Alaska and Hawaii **Please note this is an information CLIN only please do not Price**

Item 003 Scale Labeler Wrapper Auto Puerto Rico

FFP

Scale Labeler Wrapper Auto Puerto Rico **Please note this is an information CLIN only please do not Price**

Item 004 Scales Labeler Wrapper, Auto Far East

FFP

Scales Labeler Wrapper , Auto Far East (Guam, Japan and South Korea) **Please note this is an information CLIN only please do not Price**

And the same language is repeated for these CLINs for the options.

Yet on page P. 93 the solicitation provides as follows:

(b)(6) Price: Provide your best firm fixed price offer for each CLIN Unit Price and enter the total price for the maximum quantity on the Estimated Net Amount line in the SF1449.

Q1: Please clarify/correct.

Answer: The above CLIN Items 001, 002, 003, and 004 are Information CLINs and are not priced. The sub CLINs 0001AA, 0001AB, and 0001AC are to be priced as well as the other sub

CLINS that follow the other information CLINS, to include the option periods. No correction required.

Example:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0001AA 65 Each $X,XXX.XX(provided by Offeror)

1M28 Scale Labeler Wrapper Auto-CONUS

FFP

1M28 Scale Labeler Wrapper Auto-CONUS

Note: The requirements in DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, are applicable for this line item. The contractor shall provide DoD unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent.

FOB: Destination

(total of Max Quantity times Unit price)

MAX

NET AMT

2) Also, a min/max is requested for these "do not Price" items. Should we insert "0" for those items in the min/max table, or should we put the totals for the sub-items "AA, etc." that fall within those categories? We do not want to insert totals and have it misunderstood as being an additional quantity of items.

Q2: Please clarify/correct.

Answer: The Min/Max table is to be left blank by the offeror. No correction required.

3) At P. 43 the solicitation provides as follows:

CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CONTRACT VALUE

The minimum quantity and contract value for all orders issued against this contract shall not be less than the minimum quantity and contract value stated in the following table. The maximum quantity and contract value for all orders issued against this contract shall not exceed the maximum quantity and contract value stated in the following table.

MINIMUM QUANTITY AMOUNT 1.00 $3,000.00

MAXIMUM AMOUNT $60,000.00

This is the same as the DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY

AND ORDER VALUE.

Also, given the typical pricing for automatic wrapper machines and the volume of wrappers that exist at certain locations (we are aware of as many as 3 at any given commissary site), the maximum order amount would seem to be unduly low as a practical matter. Or, is it possible that the amounts added above the CLIN table is supposed to be an example only of how to complete the CLIN table but not actual min/max order limitations?

Q3: Please clarify/correct.

Answer: The min/max table is generated by the amounts entered in FAR Clause 52.216-19 on page 66 and 67 of this solicitation. The Minimum contract value will be revised to $3000.00.

The maximum contract value will be identified upon contract award. The maximum delivery order value will be changed to $1.5 million.

4) In addition, the above also appears to conflict with:

52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995)

(a) Minimum order.

(b) Maximum order. The Contractor is not obligated to honor -

(1) Any order for a single item in excess of $60,000.00;

(2) Any order for a combination of items in excess of $1.5 Million ...

Q4: Please clarify. Can an order be 1.5 Million or only $60,000 and what is the maximum value of an award under the RFP or any task order issued thereunder?

Answer: Yes an order for a combination of items up to $1.5 Million could be awarded; on page 66FAR 52.216-19(b)(2) states the maximum value of any delivery order issued that the contractor is obligated to honor. See FAR 52.216-22(b) (Page 67) for the explanation of the maximum value of the contract award.

5) Further, at P.92 the RFP provides that

“Offerors may submit a proposal for all or some CLINs, but each offer must submit a proposal for each of the listed CEDs to be eligible for contract award.”

Then, at P. 93, the RFP provides as follows:

(b)(6) Price: Provide your best firm fixed price offer for each CLIN Unit Price and enter the total price for the maximum quantity on the Estimated Net Amount line in the SF1449.

Q5: Please clarify/correct.

Answer:

Offeror can submit a proposal for one or more CLINs. For each CLIN included in the proposal, the offeror shall submit prices for each of the CEDs listed in the related sub-CLINS and all corresponding option years.

6) With respect to the prior set of clarification questions presented, DeCA, rather than answering, directed offerors to Amendment 3. Yet this leaves offerors uncertain with respect to the actual answer. Accordingly please clarify by explaining or directing offerors to the specific place in the amended RFP where the following are addressed:

Re Prior Question #1: While we understand that DeCA wishes to add the above language as a required clause, it is unclear what is intended by this addition. In referencing the “Fair Opportunity Decision Summary” what exactly is DeCA referencing? Is the intention here to refer to and expressly incorporate FAR 16.505(b)? Does DeCA have a policy or instruction document entitled “Fair Opportunity Decision Summary”? Please clarify/explain.

DeCA Response: Amendment 003 to the Solicitation clarifies the Government’s ordering process.

Q6: please clarify by explaining or directing offerors to the specific place in the amended RFP where this is addressed.

Answer: Page 78 of solicitation in 252.216-7006, paragraph (d). There is no Agency policy or instruction entitled “Fair Opportunity Decision Summary.” That is simply the title of a document that the Agency will use to memorialize its determination.

7) Prior Question 3. DeCA previously amended the RFP to add the following language:

Offerors awarded a contract resulting from this solicitation will be given an opportunity to provide a quote through the Fair Opportunity Decision Summary for delivery orders only when the requirement of the life cycle of the existing system has expired and determined the whole system; (CEDs 1M28,1M30 & 4SPPM), will be replaced. When only one of the above CEDs need replacing the Fair Opportunity Decision Summary will not be used. Each awardee will be guaranteed one complete system; (CEDs 1M28,1M30 & 4SPPM) for one commissary.

We previously asked the following Question: (i) What is meant by “only when the requirement of the life cycle of the existing system has expired and determined the whole system; (CEDs 1M28,1M30 & 4SPPM), will be replaced”? (ii) What is meant/please clarify what will be used “when only one of the above CEDs need replacing”? How will a single be procured? (iii) Finally, please clarify what is meant by “Each awardee will be guaranteed one complete system;

(CEDs 1M28,1M30 & 4SPPM) for one complete system.

DeCA prior RESPONSE: Amendment 003 to the Solicitation clarifies...

Q7: please clarify by explaining or directing offerors to the specific place in the amended RFP where this is addressed.

Answer: Refer to Page 78 of solicitation in 252.216-7006, paragraph (d), where it describes the Government’s process for placing orders. Please note that amendment 3 supersedes the previous description in earlier versions of the solicitation. The language you quoted no longer exists in the solicitation and therefore does not require a response.

8) DeCA Also previously responded that “DeCA will evaluate offers that provide pricing for all or some CLINs, but each offeror must submit a proposal for all of the listed CEDs to be eligible for contract award. Amendment 003 clarifies this point and also reflects changes to the evaluation criteria to include deletion of references to LPTA.”

Q8: We are still unclear on the scope of what will be considered an acceptable bid on less than all products and locations. Please clarify by explaining or directing offerors to the specific place in the amended RFP where this is addressed.

Answer: Refer to answer for question number 5.

Q9: Are IM28, IM30, and 4SPPM considered acceptable unique item identifiers?

Answer: No. See DFARS 252.211-7003 for information on unique item identifiers.