LCRTF_CPK_Question_and_Answers_27_June.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M67854-13-R-5024
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
LCRTF_CPK_Question_and_Answers_27_June
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
Sheet1
| Question Number | Date Received | Solicitation Reference | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | 5/20/13 | PS 3.2.4.1 | The Performance Specs states there is an Addendum 1. It is not listed in the attachments. Could you provide that document or will it be forthcoming? | "Addendum 1" in the Performance Spec is "Attachment D" in the RFP. For instructions to get this document, please see page Statement of Work Section 6.3. | |
| 2 | 5/21/13 | SOW 6.3 | Must my company have a Facilities Clearance to received the controlled document (Attachment D)? | Yes - No exceptions will be made. | |
| 3 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.1.4 | Subject paragraph states that “The contractor's management program or process shall be provided as part of the technical proposal and evaluated by the Government to determine whether the contractor has efficient and effective management practices in place.” QUESTION: The RFP Attachment F Evaluation does not state what criteria will be used to | ||
| evaluate the bidder’s management program. How will this be evaluated and what is the relative importance to technical, supportability, past performance, and price. | Subject items will be evaluated by what demonstrates commercial industry best practices. This is part of the "Supportability" factor. Relative order of importance is stated on Attachment F Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 “Evaluation – Commercial Items” paragraph "a." | ||||
| 4 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.1.4 | Subject paragraph states that “The contractor's management program or process shall be provided as part of the technical proposal and evaluated by the Government to determine whether the contractor has efficient and effective management practices in place.” QUESTION: The RFP Attachment E Instructions to Bidders does not require, nor describe, information solicited regarding the management program. What information is required? | Potential offerors have the latitude to provide any relevant information that demonstrates their proficiency, consistent with the answer to question 3 above. | |
| 5 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.1.4 | Subject paragraph states that “The contractor's management program or process shall be provided as part of the technical proposal and evaluated by the Government to determine whether the contractor has efficient and effective management practices in place.” QUESTION: Is the discussion of the bidder’s management program intended to be presented in Part IV Technical, and is it included in the 60 page technical section limit? | Yes, the discussion shall be presented in Part IV, but under "Supportability." Yes - it is included in the 60 page limit. | |
| 6 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.1.4 | Subject paragraph states that “ In addition to a discussion of the overall CPK design, the contractor shall also include a Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTM) and System Impact Assessment (SIA) within the Technical Proposal.” "QUESTION: Are the bidder’s RTM and SIA intended to be presented in Part IV Technical, and is it included in the 60 page technical section limit? | Yes, within the Part IV's 60 page limit. | |
| 7 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.1.4 | Subject paragraph states that “ In addition to a discussion of the overall CPK design, the contractor shall also include a Requirement Traceability Matrix (RTM) and System Impact Assessment (SIA) within the Technical Proposal.” QUESTION: Are the bidder’s RTM and SIA development, pre-contract, intended to be paid for by the government as a consequence of this procurement? | The Government will not compensate potential Offerors for expenses incurred responding to this RFP. | |
| 8 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.7.1 | Subject paragraph states that “The TDP shall consist of accurate Level 3 Product Configuration Documentation (PCD) sufficient to manufacture, assemble and install the CPK. ” QUESTION: Does the government intend to pay full value for all intellectual property associated with the technology the bidder uses to meet all CPK performance requirements as a consequence of this procurement? | The offeror shall price the TDP understanding the rights conveyed as "Government Purpose Rights." |
| 9 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.7.1 | Subject paragraph states that “The TDP shall consist of accurate Level 3 Product Configuration Documentation (PCD) sufficient to manufacture, assemble and install the CPK. ” QUESTION: Does the government intend to exercise full government data rights after this data is delivered under contract, including a re-compete of any other deliverables required within this solicitation? If so which deliverables? | The TDP, if the Government chooses to exercise that CLIN, shall contain sufficient information to reproduce the CPK using a Government facility or other Contractor. |
| 10 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.7.3.1.4 | Subject paragraph states that “ Drawing Formats: GOVERNMENT FORMAT TO BE PROVIDED BY MCSC ” QUESTION: When can the bidder expect that MCSC will provide the required government drawing format? | MCSC will provide a drawing block format as Government Furnished Information (GFI) upon contract award. Drawing digital format requirements are specified in SOW 3.7.3.1.2. |
| 11 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.8.1 | Subject paragraph states that “The principles contained in EIA-649, National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management, and MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management Guidance, should be used for guidance as well as related MARCORSYSCOM acquisition and engineering policy. ”: QUESTION: When can the bidder expect that MCSC will provide the required MARCORSYSCOM acquisition and engineering policy documents? | MCSC will identify acquisition and engineering policies upon contract award. |
| 12 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.8.7 | Subject paragraph states that “ The contractor shall submit all configuration control documentation in a digital format specified by the Government. ” QUESTION: When can the bidder expect that MCSC will provide the required digital format? | Configuration control documentation associated with the TDP shall be formatted in accordance with SOW 3.7.3.1. Any other configuration control documentation shall be formatted in accordance with SOW 3.1.3. |
| 13 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.8.7.2 | Subject paragraph states that “ECP shall be submitted by the contractor, and shall be limited to those, which are necessary or offer significant benefit to the Government. MIL-HDBK-61A provides guidance concerning the classification of ECP’s. Class I ECP’s shall be submitted when changes are required to: (a) Correct deficiencies; (b) Add or modify interface or interoperability requirements; (c) Make a significant and measurable effectiveness change in the operational capabilities or logistics supportability of the system; (d) Effect substantial life cycle costs/savings; and (e) Prevent slippage in an approved production schedule. Class II ECP’s shall be submitted by the contractor to the Acquisition Contracting Officer (ACO) for approval for those engineering changes, which impacts none of the factors listed above.” QUESTION: Will the contractor be allowed a day for day deliverable schedule adjustment for the elapsed time the government uses for approval of ECPs submitted after the Critical Design Review? | As no two ECP's are alike in scope, critical path relationship, and circumstances, the Government cannot address this question. Each ECP-related schedule adjustment, if necessary, shall be considered separately based on its own unique merits. |
| 14 | 5/21/13 | SOW 3.8.7.3 | Subject paragraph states that “ The contractor shall process Requests for Deviation (RFD) from current approved configuration documentation.” QUESTION: Will the contractor be allowed a day for day deliverable schedule adjustment for the elapsed time the government uses for approval of deviations submitted after the Critical Design Review? | As no two RFD's are alike in scope, critical path relationship, and circumstances, the Government cannot address this question. Each RFD-related schedule adjustment, if necessary, shall be considered separately based on its own unique merits. |
| 15 | 5/21/13 | Attachment F 2.0 | Subject paragraph states "The Government will establish a Total Evaluated Price for each Offeror by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed unit price for each CLIN by the maximum quantity for that CLIN; the sum of these amounts will determine the total evaluated price to the Government. For CLINs with proposed stepladder pricing, random evaluation quantities will be used. " QUESTION: Depending on the randomly selected number, the total for the CPK CLIN may be far less than the other CLINS combined which may or may not be the intention of Government. This could creating the price evaluation reflecting total cost much greater than the Government's actual requirement. Was this intentional? | Based on current requirements and funding, the Government anticipates buying 104 units (4 test assets and 100 production assets). The following Attachments have been updated as a result: 1. "Attachment C LCRTF CPK Price Submission Worksheet", and 2. "Attachment F Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items." |
| 16 | 5/30/13 | RFP | Is this project considered a new requirement? | Yes. |
| 17 | 5/30/13 | RFP | Who is the incumbent? | None - this is a new requirement. |
| 18 | 5/30/13 | RFP | What is the contract number? | None - this is a new requirement. |
| 19 | 5/30/13 | SOW 3.3.4 | Is it the case that you are no longer going to conduct System Impact Assessments as part of the Proposal process? | A system impact assessment is required. Previously in SOW 3.4.1, this requirement has been moved to the updated Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors.” "Attachment F Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items" has also been updated as a result. |
| 20 | 5/30/13 | RFP | Are you planning to award from the proposals received 24 June? | While Government reserves the right to award without discussions, the Government also may engage with Offerors consistent with FAR 15.306 ("Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals"). |
| 21 | 5/30/13 | PS | Are coverage area and 3D models available? | No. |
| 22 | 5/30/13 | PS | What is the current weight of the LCRTF cab? | The weight of the LCRTF unarmored cab is 1200 lbs. |
| 23 | 5/30/13 | RFP | When will the contract be awarded ? | The Government intents to award a contract 90-120 days following the closing of the RFP. |
| 24 | 5/30/13 | Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” | Must the 8 hours of viewing be consecutive? Is it possible to split them up? | The eight hours are in one block in one day and cannot be split up. |
| 25 | 5/30/13 | Reserved | Reserved | Reserved |
| 26 | 6/2/13 | Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” | "Offerors must have facility security clearance (FCL) facilities approved by DSS to be considered for award. QUESTION: "Is this language consistent with past practices and language stating that an Offeror must have the ability to obtain a FCL?" | This is a new requirement that requires a FCL - No exceptions will be made. |
| 27 | 6/2/13 | Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” | Is an existing and current FCL required to be considered at time of submission? | Yes - No exceptions will be made. |
| 28 | 6/2/13 | Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” | Is an existing and current FCL required after award but prior to performance? | An FCL is required to received Attachment D (and therefore submit a responsive bid), to be considered for award, and to perform the work as stated. No exceptions will be made. |
| 29 | 6/2/13 | Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” | Is an existing and current FCL required for all Sub-Contractors? | An FCL is required for any entity handling information or performance of the specifications in Attachment D - No exceptions will be made. |
| 30 | 6/2/13 | Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” | Is an existing and current FCL required for all subcontractors at time of submission? | See answer to question number 29. |
| 31 | 6/2/13 | Attachment E Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors” | Is an existing and current FCL required for all subcontractors after award but prior to performance? | See answer to question number 28. |
| 32 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will the MCSC allow a Contractor to have access to a LCRTF unit for operations and testing with the CPK so that a complete and accurate System Impact Assessment can be submitted? | Attachment E, paragraph e states "An LCRTF unit is available at Quantico, VA for viewing for eight (8) hours per Offeror. Offerors will be permitted to examine but not operate or dissemble the unit. No additional information will be exchanged with Offerors at this viewing." This is the only opportunity Offerors will have to examine the forklift. Once the contract has been awarded, the vendor will be required to update the System Impact Assessment. |
| 33 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4,3.3.4 | Will additional test data or an expanded test report be available to Offerors upon request? | See newly posted Attachment K "LCRTF Limited Test Data." |
| 34 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will additional information related to visibility test results of fork visibility with the standard cabin be available? | See answer to question number 33. |
| 35 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will additional test results be available regarding stability with the standard cabin? | See answer to question number 33. |
| 36 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will additional test results be available regarding weight with the standard cabin? | See answer to question number 33. |
| 37 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will additional test results be available regarding weight and center of gravity with the standard cabin? | See answer to question number 33. |
| 38 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will MCSC supply the ratings of the drive axles with comparison to applied load with each of the conditions of reach and lift? | No. |
| 39 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will the MCSC supply current connection information (location and type) for electrical and hydraulic connections between chassis and the standard cabin? | Connection point coupler parts are listed in Attachment I. |
| 40 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | Will the MCSC accept calculated data rather than physical data and give that data the same weight as physical test data? | The use of calculated data is acceptable for the proposal submission. Evaluations of proposals will be done in accordance with "Attachment F Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 “Evaluation – Commercial Items”". |
| 41 | 6/2/13 | SOW 3.1.4, 3.3.4 | If physical test data is preferred, will the MCSC consider allowing further time (30 to 45 days) for responses so that testing may be completed? | See answer to question number 40. The deadline for Q&A will be extended. |
| 42 | 6/2/13 | RFP | The RFQ in multiple places implies that the CPK Offeror is responsible for the results of the LCRTF fitted with the CPK and that performance shall not be degraded. Please clarify the responsibility of all of the parties and the responsibility of the Offeror to take corrective actions if there is a failure during FAT caused by the non-performance of the baseline system? | The offeror is not responsible for corrective actions if there is a failure during PQT caused by non-performance of the baseline system if the incident of non-performance could have either: |
1) Occurred on the LCRTF with the unarmored cab installed.
2) Been caused only by the additional weight of the LCRTF.
| 43 | 6/2/13 | RFP | What machine baseline will the Offeror be held to for configuration of the plug and play solution? | The LCRTF baseline configuration is available for viewing at TDSA. See Attachment E, paragraph "e"." |
| 44 | 6/2/13 | RFP | Will the Offeror be responsible for costs related to configuration changes that occur to the baseline LCRTF? | Changes and associated costs, if any, will be handled in accordance with clause 52.243-1 ("Changes - Fixed Price") included in the RFP. |
| 45 | 6/2/13 | RFP Clause 52.219-6 (Notice of Small Business Set-Aside) | Please provide a specific definition of "end items" that MCSC will apply in considering the compliance with this section? | End items are defined as deliverables under each CLIN with de minimis exceptions. |
| 46 | 6/3/13 | RFP | Can we have exploded view of the unarmored cab with a BOM that matches the parts called out in Attachment I? | See newly posted Attachment "L" Parts Manual. ***THIS ATTACHMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REQUIREMENT. REFER THE SOW AND PS FOR REQUIREMENTS.*** |
| 47 | 6/3/13 | PS 3.4.4 | What are the current axle and tire ratings? | The LCRTF is equipped with Carraro 26.16M (front) and 26.16 (rear) axles. |
The LCRTF is equipped with four Michelin 380/75R20 radial tires.
| 48 | 6/3/13 | PS 3.4.3 | The requirement is for the CPK to not weigh more than 1775 pounds greater than the unarmored cab. Could you define the weight of the unarmored cab? | See answer to question #22. |
| 49 | 6/3/13 | PS 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 | Operating temperature requirements are 120 to -25 degrees F. Will the armor need to be tested and qualified at those temperature in order to meet specifications? | The armor must meet all requirements in the performance specification. |
| 50 | 6/3/13 | RFP, Page 36 | The ordering period is listed as 60 months. What is the Government's desired quantity of production CPK's and what is the delivery schedule for those quantities? | See answer to question number 17. The Government's anticipated order quantity and schedule are outlined in Attachment "C." |
| 51 | 6/3/13 | Attachment I | We have had no access or visibility ot the Kalmar OEM parts pricing or the parts configurations. Since this access creates a distinct advantage to the bidder(s) with this access, can the cost and engineering time needed to integrate these parts be separated out from the bids? | Offerors are to submit pricing in accordance with "Attachment "E." |
| 52 | 6/3/13 | Attachment I | Will the government provide LCRTF component parts as GFE? | No. |
| 53 | 6/3/13 | Attachment I | Will the government require the OEM to support all vendor's equally with pricing and availability of parts in support of the LCRTF? | No. The Government intends to procure a complete solution consistent with the SOW. |
| 54 | 6/3/13 | SOW 3.3.4 | In the Systems Impact Statement, the Sub-paragraphs list A-E (missing F-K) and list L-N. This seems to be an admin error is this correct assessment? | The SOW paragraph regarding the System Impact Assessment will be revised and reflect the correct listing. Please see updated Attachment "A." |
| 55 | 6/3/13 | Attachment H | The SOW/PS matrix Tab - Supportability Factors (SOW) list 7.1.3 Item Unique Identifier, 7.1.4- Packaging, and 7.2- Marking. In Attachment A-LCRTF SOW 7.13, 7.14, and 7.2 are missing will these sections be provide by the government? | Consistent with FAR 15.204-1 "Uniform contract format," this information is located on pp. 38-40 of the RFP (titled "M67854-13-D-5024 LCRTF CPK"). |
| 56 | 6/3/13 | Attachment F 2.0 | Attachment F, reads in part "At a minimum, the following factors will be assessed: crew protection, CPK weight, CPK interoperability, CPK adaptability, controls and displays, human factors, and storage/transport.". CPK interoperability and CPK adaptability are not defined anywhere in the solicitation, could you provide a definition for these terms relative to this solicitation? | "CPK Interoperability" shall be defined as the ability of the CPK to successfully control LCRTF operation and provide the operator with displays showing LCRTF status. Performance requirements which reflect CPK interoperability include PS Paragraphs 3.2.4.8 (Controls and Displays), 3.5.2 (Braking). |
"CPK Adaptability" shall be defined as the ability of the CPK to operate within the mission profile of the LCRTF. Performance requirements which reflect CPK adaptability include PS Paragraphs 3.2.2.1 (Load Handling), 3.2.2.2 (Travel), 3.2.4.14 (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), 3.2.4.15 (defroster), 3.3.2 (visibility), 3.9.5 (Durability)
| 57 | 6/3/13 | PS | There are several requirements listed in the performance specification with "threshold" and "objective" requirements. Will an offeror be given extra credit during the evaluation process for meeting "objective" requirements as identified in the performance specification? | Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Attachment F. |
| 58 | 6/3/13 | PS | Will an offeror be given extra credit for exceeding "threshold" requirements? | Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Attachment F. |
| 59 | 6/3/13 | RFP | Will the government provides the OEM technical manuals (Operator/Maintenance/Parts Catalog) for the commercial version of the LCRTF? | See newly posted Attachment "L" Parts Manual. ***THIS ATTACHMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REQUIREMENT. REFER THE SOW AND PS FOR REQUIREMENTS.*** |
| 60 | 6/3/13 | RFP | Is any provisioning data available for the current military version of the LCRTF? If so, can that data be made available to bidders? | See newly posted Attachment "L" Parts Manual. ***THIS ATTACHMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REQUIREMENT. REFER THE SOW AND PS FOR REQUIREMENTS.*** |
| 61 | 6/3/13 | SOW 5.4 | Section 5.4b of the Statement of Work references Field Users Evaluation (FUE) Training; however, no requirements for this training are defined in the document. Section 5.4.2 defines Limited User Evaluation (LUE) Training, a training requirement that is not identified in Section 5.4a through d. Did the Government intend for 5.4b of the SOW to be LUE Training instead of FUE Training? If the Government does have a requirement for FUE Training, would you please provide a requirements statement similar to those provided for other training requirements? | LUE is the same as FUE. LUE training is required. |
| 62 | 6/3/13 | PS | Are ballistic reports required as part of the program deliverables? | Please refer to Performance Specification Paragraph 4.2.4.1 and 4.1.1.i. |
| 63 | 6/3/13 | RFP | Can we submit past performance examples of a subcontractor's in the Past Performance as one of our three examples? | No. |
| 64 | 6/3/13 | RFP | Are photographs allowed at the viewing of the vehicle? | Yes. |
| 65 | 6/3/13 | SOW | To what extent will government provisioning data be available? | See newly posted Attachment "L" Parts Manual. ***THIS ATTACHMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REQUIREMENT. REFER THE SOW AND PS FOR REQUIREMENTS.*** |
| 66 | 6/3/13 | Attachment E | What dates and times are available to view the vehicle? | See Attachment E paragraph "e" |
| 67 | 6/3/13 | SOW | Please specify the location and nature (qualities) of the Lifting and Tie down provisions on the LCRTF. | See newly posted Attachment "L" Parts Manual. ***THIS ATTACHMENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A REQUIREMENT. REFER THE SOW AND PS FOR REQUIREMENTS.*** |
| 68 | 6/3/13 | SOW | Please provide the information as to the size and location of inspection, maintenance, and service area openings for maintenance on the unarmored crew kit and LCRTF. | Found on Forklift door. |
| 69 | 6/3/13 | PD | Are all automotive parts in the unarmed LCRTF crew kit designed to be water resistant? If not, which parts are not? | The LCRTF is capable of fording in depths up to 36 inches (including wave action) and operating in blowing rain environments up to 4 inches per hour. |
| 70 | 6/3/13 | PD | Please provide the Horn and Backup alarm parts location, dimensions and data sheets. Are they located on the C or in/on the Crew Kit? | The horn is mounted on the front of the LCRTF unarmored operator cab and will be transferred to the CPK. The backup alarm is permanently mounted on the rear of the LCRTF and will not need to be re-mounded on the CPK. |
| 71 | 6/3/13 | PD | Please provide the weight of all components on the Unarmed Crew kit without the shell itself. | The USMC does not have this information. |
| 72 | 6/3/13 | PD | Is the Armor coverage area and 3D model available? | See the answer to question #21. |
| 73 | 6/3/13 | PS 3.4.3 | The CPK Threshold and Objective weights are stated as "Above the current cabin weight", what is that? | See the answer to question #22. |
| 74 | 6/3/13 | Attachment F | Is there going to be a Down Selection process after response submission? | See the answer to question #20. |
| 75 | 6/3/13 | PD | Is there a light master switch in the current cabin? | Yes, there is a light master switch inside the LCRTF unarmored operator cab. |
| 76 | 6/3/13 | RFP | Have the ballistic requirements changed since the original RFI? | The ballistic requirements are in the Performance Specification and Attachment D. |
| 77 | 6/3/13 | Attachment E | What is the latest date a vendor can schedule a site visit? | Last available day is 28 June 2013. |
| All questions above were answered via Amendment 001 | ||||
| 78 | 6/18/13 | SOW 6.3 | Is Attachment D a classified survivability annex that must be requested / obtained by qualifying suppliers in order to participate on this project? | Yes. See answers to questions 2, and 26-31. |
| 79 | 6/24/13 | PS 3.2.4.14, 3.7.1, and 3.7.2 | Regarding the HVAC system, what are current and expected performance requirements for HVAC? | See Attachment B, Paragraph 3.2.4.14, Paragraph 3.7.1, and Paragraph 3.7.2. |
| 80 | 6/24/13 | PS 3.2.4.15 and 3.7.2 | Regarding the window defrost requirements, what are the current and expected performance requirements? |
| See Attachment B, Paragraph 3.2.4.15 and Paragraph 3.7.2. | ||||
| 81 | 6/24/13 | SOW/PS | Regarding the test report, If we meet or exceed standards in report ATC10841 on performance, is that an acceptable guideline for this proposal? | Offerors are to submit proposals consistant with the criteria set forth in the Statement of Work and Performance Specification. |
| 82 | 6/24/13 | RFP | Will we be provided a GF unarmored cab upon award to better understand all vehicle details? | Although the Government reserves the right to provide Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) at any point after contract award, offerors shall assume for proposal purposes no GFE will be provided. |
| 83 | 6/24/13 | SOW 3.3.4 | Will the existing environmental control unit, condenser, radiator and fan be moved from unarmored cab to the armored cab? | |
| No. |
Attachment (3) Question and Answer M67854-12-R-5024
&P
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .