Att_20_-_QA_Matrix_Final_20131205.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 379 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AAV Survivability Upgrade Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- M67854-14-R-0001
- Issued by
- United States Marine Corps
About this file
Attachment 20 Questions Answers Matrix
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 26
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
TOTAL
| ? No. | Do. | Pg # | RFP Section | Specific Location | Question | Additional comments | GOVERNMENT RESPONSES |
| 32 | RFP | 1, 79,80 | A | A, L.5 | On the SF33, blk 9, it says we are to submit the original plus 5 copies. In Section L.5 it says we are to submit 3 copies in binders, plus 8 DVD/DC-ROM copies of Technical Past Performance, and 3 copies in binders plus 4 DVD/CD-ROM copies of Price. |
| Please confirm the correct number of copies in binders and DVD/CD-ROM to be submitted. | Block 9 of SF33 is limited to just a number. The number has been changed to "3" to reflect the number of hard copies of each volume to submit. Please refer to Section L.5 for total copies. | |||||||
| 12 | RFP | 4 & 8 | B | CLINS 0103 & 0205, | Please clarify what types of Other Direct Costs are to be funded under these CLIN’s and the process to be used to obtain Contracting Officer approval for these expenditures. | These CLINs are for Other Direct Costs in support of CLINs 0100-0101, 0105 & 0106, and 0200-0203, respectively. | Any ODCs will be identified and defined at a later time, as needed by the USG. | |
| 38 | RFP | 3 | B | B | CLIN 0100 in Section B cites six (6) prototypes being built; however Section F (page 13 of 93) cites eight (8) prototypes being built under this CLIN. Additionally, SOW paragraph 3.6 speaks to eight (8) prototypes being built and no more than ten (10). Could you please clarify the number of prototype builds required for this CLIN? | See question 25. | ||
| 43 | RFP | 3 | B | B | CLIN 0100 Prototypes has a quantity of six (6) listed. However, Section F (pg 13) calls for a quantity of eight (8). Which quantity is correct? | See question 25. | ||
| 55 | RFP | 4 | B | B | Reference: ODC CLINs 0103 and 0205 | |||
| Question: Please confirm these CLINs are directed amounts that the contractor is to propose as a "plug" and not intended to be itemized in detail. In other words, these are ODC "plugs," correct? | Yes. | |||||||
| 51 | RFP | 4, 8 | B | CLIN 0103, 0205, | Will the government please clarify the ODC CLINs and what specifically is intended to be provided under them? | Seequestion 12. | ||
| 24 | RFP | 6,7 | B | B | Do the Not to Exceed values provided for LRIP option CLINs 200, 201 and 202 take into account a learning curve? | Yes. Ceiling revised. | ||
| 26 | RFP | 3, 8 and attach. 14 | B | B | Confirmation of test schedule duration, please provide clarification on the DT Schedule. CLIN 101 states 14 months and the DT Test schedule contains 9 months of testing, not including live fire. | Sections B and F have been updated. | ||
| 27 | RFP | 6 | B | B | Is the APUC value being used to determine NTE for LRIP CLINs 0200, 0201 and 0202? | The Not To Exceed (NTE) value does not appear to recognize learning curve effects on LRIP prototype pricing. | Yes. See Attachment 15 page 2. | |
| 25 | RFP | 5, | B | Section B, Para 3.5, 3.6 of SOW | Please provide clarification of number of vehicles per phase (i.e., number of prototype vehicles, number of LRIP vehicles, and number of FRP vehicles). | Number of EMD Prototype Vehicles is referenced in Attachment 16, Para 3.5; Section B also shows the number of vehicles. | ||
| 23 | RFP | B | CLINS 200-202, page 6-7, and L.10 page 84 | While it is understood that offerors will have an opportunity to revise their LRIP CLIN prices as part of the LRIP proposal, and that our CLIN price cannot exceed the NTE amount, please clarify the Government’s intent for CLINs 200-202 and the pricing responsibilities of Offerors for same in our proposal due 20 December 2013. | The referenced Section L paragraph states that offerors shall “shall provide a firm fixed price for all CLINs…” however, the referenced CLINs in Section B contain an NTE amount for each CLIN. | Offerors shall provide their pricing on these CLINs within the NTE ceiling. | ||
| 48 | RFP | 3, 13 | F | B & F | The CLIN 0101 duration is unclear. Section B conveys a 14 month period for this CLIN; however, the Section F period for this CLIN of 05/01/2016 - 03/15/2017 is 10 1/2 months induration. Will the government please advise? | Sections B and F have been updated. | ||
| 49 | RFP | 8, 13 | F | B & F | The CLIN 0203 duration is unclear. Section B conveys a 15 month period for this CLIN; however, the Section F period for this CLIN of 12/01/2017 - 11/30/18 is 12 months in duration. Will the government please clarify? | Sections B and F have been updated. | ||
| 34 | RFP | 14 | F | Section F | Can you provide more detail concerning the FAR Clause 52.211-11, Liquidated Damages clause, $4500.00 per day penalty for failure on delivery? Does it apply to all CLINs? i.e. Vehicle delivery only? Could you please elaborate on how the determination will be made regarding whether the government or the contractor is at fault for a failed delivery? | See question 17. | ||
| 17 | RFP | 14 | F | Section: F FAR 52.211-11 | If services also apply, is it limited to PDR and CDR? Or does it also apply to each data deliverable? Will the Government consider capping the total amount of liquidated damages payable under the clause? | 52.211-11 Paragraph (a) specifies a liquidated damages amount of $4,500 per calendar day of delay for failure to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in the contract | This applies to testing and covers USG for the test facility. | |
| 13 | RFP | 13 | F | Section: F FAR 52.211-8 & 52.211-9 | At what point will more detailed delivery schedule information be provided as specified in these clauses? | These clauses contain fill-in tables for the Government’s “Required Delivery Schedule” and the Government’s Required and Desired Delivery Schedules, respectively. Section F currently only provides Estimated Periods of Performance for each CLIN assuming a 5 May 2014 award date. | Removed. | |
| 35 | RFP | 17 | G | G.4 | How many Days After Contract award do you expect to conduct manufacturing facility walk throughs? | It will most likely occur between the delivery of PDR and CDR artifacts. | ||
| 36 | RFP | 17 | G | G.4 | Can you furnish the check list or criteria the government will used to rate the facility? | Yes. Attachment 21 has been added. | ||
| 53 | RFP | 18 | G | G.5 | At the Industry Forum, the issue of Public-Private partnership evaluation for LRIP was discussed. Specifically, it was stated that the Program Office will add 10.4% to depot labor to provide a level playing field between depot (that scope that we would have them execute) and contractor prices. |
Question - Based on Clause G.5, please confirm that the Government will make the sole determination at a later date on whether a private-public partnership will be used, and therefore, offerors are not expected to propose costs related to any potential partnerships with the USMC Depot(s) in our proposal responding to this specific RFP.
| Incorrect. If partnering with a USG depot, Offeror shall include the USG depot cost in their proposed proce. The depot shall provide, to USG ONLY, the breakdown of that cost so the USG can determine the labor and add the 10.4% for evaluation purposes ONLY. The 10.4% is not to be part of the Offeror's proposed cost. | |||||
| 54 | RFP | 18 | G | G.5 | At the Industry Forum, the issue of Public-Private partnership evaluation for LRIP was discussed. Specifically, it was stated that the Program Office will add 10.4% to depot labor to provide a level playing field between depot (that scope that we would have them execute) and contractor prices. |
| Question - For the offeror’s understanding, please elaborate further on the details related to the Public-Private partnership. | See question 53. | |||||||
| 37 | RFP | 33 | I | I | Given the FFP nature of this acquisition, and the prescription for FAR Clause 52.222-2 (Payment for Overtime Premiums (JUL 1990)) which states this to be applicable to Cost Reimbursable contracts, deletion of this clause is requested. | Removed. | ||
| 56 | RFP | 25 | I | I | Per FAR 16.203-4(a)(1)(ii)), FAR 52.216-2 is applicable for “standard supplies that have an established catalog or market price” (and defines “established price” as “a price that … is an established catalog or market price for a commercial item sold in substantial quantities to the general public …”). Given the nature of this Solicitation to upgrade vehicles, there are no established prices for the end product, therefore we assume this clause does not apply to this Solicitation. Consequently, it is requested this clause be deleted. If not deleted, it is requested the Government elaborate in detail on the applicability and application of this clause. | |||
| Removed. | ||||||||
| 57 | RFP | 20 | I | I | Assuming the Government has determined FAR 52.216-4 is applicable because “there is no major element of design engineering or development work involved” per FAR 16.203-4(c), please provide the information detailed in FAR 16.203(c)(3) such as: 1) the type of labor and materials subject to adjustment under the clause; and 2) the labor rates and unit prices of materials that may be increased or decreased. | Removed. | ||
| 40 | RFP | 21 & 58 | I | I & K | With regard to FAR Clauses 52.215-22 and 52.215-23: Based on the exception for FFP contract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition as stated in the prescription for these clauses, and the incidental nature of the ODC CLINs, would the Government consider deletion of these clauses (which would apply to the ODC CLINs only)? | Removed. | ||
| 15 | RFP | 52 | I | DFARS 252.211-703(Para. "(c) (1) (ii) and (iii) | Please clarify which schedule(s) this is referring to. | 252.211-7003 indicates that the unique item identifier requirement is applicable to items for which the Government’s unit acquisition cost is less than $5,000 as “identified in the schedule”, and subassemblies, components and parts embedded within delivered items as specified in “(See Schedule as Applicable)” | These clauses are blank because there are no IUID items being tracked less than $5000. | |
| 14 | RFP | 20 & 25 | I | FAR 52.216-2 & 52.216-4 | Please clarify which Schedule lines these clauses are intended to address. | 52.216-2 provides for adjustment of unit prices established based on changes to the Contractor’s applicable established price in effect on the contract date for like quantities of the same item. 52.216-4 provides for adjustments to the rate of pay for labor or the unit prices for material shown in the Schedule | Removed. | |
| 16 | RFP | 22 | I |
FAR 52.244-2 Alt I
| It is requested that the Government consider deleting this requirement. | Use of Alternate I requires that the Contracting Officer be notified reasonably in advance of the Contractor entering into and (i) cost-plus-fixed-fee subcontract, or (ii) fixed price subcontract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold or 5 percent of the total estimated cost of the contract, despite having an approved purchasing system | Removed. | |||||
| 18 | RFP | 20 and 86 | I | FAR 52.215-20 & 52.215-21 | Is it the intention of these clauses that the Price Volume meet the requirements of FAR 15.408 and that Offeror's awarded a contract will first have to submit a Certificate of Current Cost or pricing Data, despite the competitive nature of this procurement? | These clauses provide that, if the offeror is not granted an exception from the requirement to submit cost or pricing data, the offeror shall prepare and submit cost or pricing data & supporting attachments in accordance with Table 15.2 of FAR 15.408, as soon as practicable after agreement on price, but before award, submit a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, The exceptions identified do not include an exception based on adequate price competition. | See question 8 and Section L. |
| 8 | RFP | I | Can FAR 52.215-20 incorporate Alt IV to allow for other than cost & pricing data instead of certified pricing? | Yes. | |||
| 19 | RFP | 3 | J14 | Attachment 14 | Figure A-2 includes a Column 16 indicating that 12 of the AAV Survivability Upgrade LRIP test vehicles will be scheduled for refurbishment at the completion of IOT&E testing. Whose responsibility will it be to refurbish these vehicles and where will it be addressed? | See Revised SOW. | |
| 42 | RFP | 6-7 of 93; 2 | J15 | Attachment 15 | Section B and Attachment 15 APUC NTE values appear to be in conflict on the quantity of units to achieve the APUC cost target. Please clarify which is the correct quantity. |
Section B, pages 6-7 of 93:
ITEM NO 0200 Option LRIP vehicles for FUSL Testing $6,402,060 (NTE) / Quantity 4 = $1,600,515 per unit ITEM NO 0201 Option LRIP vehicles for PQT/RQT IOT&E testing - $19,206,180 (NTE) / Quantity 12 = $1,600,515 per unit ITEM NO 0202 Option LRIP vehicles for fielding - $57,618,540 (NTE) / Quantity 36 = $1,600,515 per unit
Attachment 15, page 2 APUC Factor Breakdown:
Quantity 392 = $1,650,000 TOTAL COST Quantity 392 = $1,600,515 TOTAL PRIME CONTRACTOR COST (NTE)
| IAW Attachment 15, Page 2: TPCC is the APUC minus Product Support which is a USG cost. | ||||||||
| 9 | RFP | J3 | GFE Vehicles. When will GFE Vehicles be available. | Upon decision of down-select. | ||||
| 45 | RFP | 73 | K | K | Per DFARS Clause 225.1101(5)(i), please remove the "X' next to the provision at 252.225-7020, Trade Agreements Certificate, based on the absence of Clause 252.225-7021 in the Solicitation. | Removed. | ||
| 46 | RFP | 73 | K | K | Per DFARS Clause 225.1101(9)(i), please remove the "X' next to the provision at 252.225-7035, Buy American - Free Trade Agreements - Balance of Payments Program Certificate (basic and Alt I through V), based on the absence of Clause 252.225-7036 in the Solicitation. | Removed. | ||
| 47 | RFP | 73 | K | K | Per DFARS Clause 225.1101(7), please remove the "X' next to the provision at 252.225-7022, Trade Agreements Certificate -- Inclusion of Iraqi End Products, based on the absence of Clause 252.225-7021 Alt 1 in the Solicitation. | Removed. | ||
| 58 | RFP | 72 | K | K | Based on DFARs 216.203-4-70(c)(2), the provision at DFAR 252.216-7008 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT—WAGE RATES OR MATERIAL PRICES CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT—REPRESENTATION is to be used when Clause 252.216-7003 Economic Price Adjustment--Wage Rates or Material Prices Controlled by a Foreign Government is included. However, this clause is not included in the Solicitation. Will the Government be incorporating Clause 252.216-7003 in an amendment? | No. DFAR 252.216-7008 is in the body of DFARS 252.204-7007 Alt A, and cannot be resolved by deleting an "X". It is something the vendors would already have addressed in SAM. | ||
| 20 | RFP | 82 | L | L.9.2.1 | Since Small Business and the required ISR are not mentioned in Section M, rather than include the entire ISR in the page-limited Technical/Past Performance Volume, would the Government consider allowing Offerors to include an overview of the ISR and their Small Business contracting approach in the Technical Volume and include the entire plan in the non-page limited Price volume, since the information in the ISR is related to the cost information in that volume? | The referenced Section L paragraph states that: “Offeror(s) shall demonstrate that it is subcontracting at least 36.7% of its total proposed dollars to small businesses. The Offeror shall provide an individual small business subcontracting plan (ISR) demonstrating it will meet the DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals established for FY 2013….” | Concur with recommended change. RFP has been updated. | |
| 21 | RFP | 82 | L | L.9.2.1 5 | Request clarification of “total proposed dollars to small businesses” is the ‘”total planned subcontracting dollars” as defined in FAR 52.219-9 (d)(1): | Page 82 states that the “Offeror(s) shall demonstrate that it is subcontracting at least 36.7% of its total proposed dollars to small businesses” and that “The Offeror shall provide an individual small business subcontracting plan (ISR) demonstrating it will meet the DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals established for FY 2013…” | The RFP has been updated to reflect total planned subcontracting dollars.. | |
| 39 | RFP | 80 | L | L | Under Section L.5, it states "Offeror(s) shall make a clear statement in their proposal that the proposal is valid for no less than 120 calendar days from the closing date of its offer." Because this equates to a date prior to the anticipated award date of 5 May, shall offeror(s) state a validity period commensurate with the forecasted date of award, such as 150 days? | Changed to 180 days. | ||
| 41 | RFP | 86 | L | L | Would the Government revise FAR 52.215-20 to incorporate Alt IV to allow the submission of other than cost or pricing data instead of certified C/P data, given the prohibition per FAR 15.403-1(a) and the exception afforded via FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) under this competitive procurement? | Removed. | ||
| 50 | RFP | 85 | L | L | Will the government please confirm that L.10.3 and L.10.9 are addressing the same requirement? Does the government intend that each address something different? | They are the same and one has been removed. | ||
| 44 | RFP | 84 | L | L.10 | What specific proposal documents must the subcontractors submit directly to the government? | None for non-USG agencies; USG agencies must provide detailed proposal to PM AAA PCO | ||
| 30 | RFP | 80 & 82 | L | L.5 & | ||||
| L.9.2.1 5) | L.5 states "It is noted that no price information shall be contained within the Technical/Past Performance Volume. Price information shall be contained only in the Price Volume." L.9.2.1 5) states "The Offeror shall provide an individual small business subcontracting plan (ISR) demonstrating it will meet the DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals established for FT 2013..." The ISR includes the offeror's proposed price subcontracted amounts, pricing information, and this is part of Volume I, Management. Please clarify. | See questions 21 and 52. | ||||||
| 52 | RFP | 82 | L | L.9.2.1 5) | It is our understanding that the small business subcontracting goals are targets, vice requirements offerors will be evaluated on. Is it a correct interpretation that meeting these goals is not required for an offeror to be determined eligible for award? If so, will the government please consider revising the language in this section from "Offeror(s) shall demonstrate that it is subcontracting at least 36.7% of its total proposed dollars to small businesses. The Offeror shall provide an individual small business subcontracting plan (ISR) demonstrating it will meet the DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals established for FY 2013" to "The offeror should provide an individual small business subcontracting plan (ISR) considering the DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals established for FY 2013." | It is a correct assumption that these are goals. However, the language will not be changed to the proposed language. The language has been clarified that it is 36.7% of total subcontracting dollars. | ||
| 28 | RFP | 82 | L | L.9.2.1.5) | This section states "Offeror(s) shall demonstrate that it is subcontracting at least 36.7% of total proposed dollars to small business." |
| The SB requirement seems excessively high for the nature/scope of work being performed on this effort. Will the government consider relief in the SB requirement to promote competition? | See questions 20, 21 and 52. | ||||||
| 29 | RFP | 82 | L | L.9.2.1.5) | Is the individual small business subcontracting plan included in the Technical/Past Performance overall page limit? The requirements of FAR 52.219-9 generally result in plans of that are on the order of 20 or more pages. Recommend that the individual subcontracting plan be excluded from the Volume I page limitations | See question 20. | |
| 33 | RFP | 83 | L | L.9.3 | Does waste reduction, source reduction, energy efficiency, and maximum practicable recovered material refer to vehicle systems only? | OBE. Language changed. | |
| 31 | RFP | 83 | L | L.9.4 | "Offeror(s) shall provide three (3) references from current or previous relevant projects…" |
| If we have multiple delivery orders for similar work under a single IDIQ contract or BPA, may we consolidate those as a single citation? | Yes. | |||||||
| 11 | RFP | 83 | L AND M | L.9.3 M.3.3 | Section L appears to refer to energy savings at the facility, site, or even company level, while Section M refers to energy savings for individual vehicle components. Please clarify whether offerors should discuss energy savings and associated initiatives at the company, site or facility level or at the components level. Please elaborate on what sort of data would be considered relevant and as to how this section will be evaluated. What sort of savings and/or data is the Government expecting from Offerors? What distinguishes a satisfactory or good response from a marginal or unsatisfactory one? In other words, what are the Governments expectations for this portion of our response, and how are Offerors supposed to quantify any energy savings? | Subject of Question: Energy Discussion: The referenced Section L paragraph states that offerors shall “ describe their approach to promote waste reduction, source reduction, energy efficiency, and maximum practicable recovered material content”, while the referenced Section M paragraph states that: “ The information submitted by the Offeror(s) will be evaluated to assess: “Offeror(s) ability to, at a minimum, maintain (increase) current energy efficiencies at the component level” | Sections L & M have been revised. | |
| 59 | RFP | 93 | M | M | During Industry Day references were made to the definition of best value to be used in evaluating the submitted proposals. In order of priority the categories were force protection, water mobility/safety, and land mobility/safety. Information is located in section G of the RFP as shown below, not in section L or M. |
G.4 CRITERIA FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE PROTOTYPE BUILD OPTION
The Government reserves the right to exercise an option to build prototype vehicles following CDR using a best value analysis. The Government intends to exercise and award the option to one (1) Offeror and will make a determination based upon, in addition to the option clauses and price, the following non-price criteria in descending order of importance:
1. The AAV Survivability Upgrade design that meets the $1.65M Government APUC (FY12 dollars). The Offeror(s) will consider the following design trades in descending order of importance:
a. Force protection
b. Seaworthiness and water safety
c. Land mobility and land safety
2. The proposed duration of the prototype manufacturing schedule
3. Outcome of manufacturing site visits conducted prior to CDR. The Government intends to conduct a site visit to each Offeror(s) proposed manufacturing facility. The intent of the visit is for the Government to review the following:
a. Established Manufacturing processes and procedures
b. Documentation of Manufacturing processes and procedures
c. Lean Manufacturing
d. Training
e. Facilities
4. Demonstrated performance through CDR
All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the total evaluated price of the Prototype Build Options (Test Support Inclusive) and LRIP Options
Will sections L or M be updated?
| M.4 Best Value Source Selection | ||||||||
| The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this RFP will be conducted on a source selection basis utilizing a “trade-off” process to obtain the best value to the Government. The government seeks to award to an Offeror(s) who demonstrates the greatest likelihood that it will meet the requirements affordably. As part of the best value determination, the Government will assess the risks of each proposal including strengths and weaknesses, in selecting the proposal(s) that are most advantageous and represent the best overall value to the Government. In utilizing the “trade-off” process to obtain the best value, the Government may award a contract to other than the lowest priced or the highest technically rated Offeror. | Section M has been revised. | |||||||
| 60 | RFP | 93 | M | M | Based on the LRIP vehicle ceiling price, USMC has limited LRIP vehicle AUPC to $1.6M. Therefore full rate production APUC will result in less than $1.6M as shown in figure. Does the USMC desire to limit full rate production vehicle capability to less than $1.6M APUC? Or is the LRIP ceiling price due to USMC funding profiles? If funding profiles are driving the LRIP CLIN ceiling prices, would USMC consider changing the LRIP vehicle quantities per CLIN in order to obtain a $1.6M full rate production vehicle APUC? | LRIP NTEs have been changed. | ||
| 22 | RFP | 93 | M | M.4 Best Value Source Selection | Please provide guidance on what "Best Value" focus and evaluation factors for award are being considered. | The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this RFP will be conducted on a source selection basis utilizing a “trade-off” process to obtain the best value to the Government. | See Section L & M. This has been updated. | |
| 1 | N/A | Based on the presentation presented at the pre-proposal conference, can the Government provide the assumptions and inputs used in the AMSAA planning model that supported the reliability presentation? These models, inputs, and assumptions will help the Contractor understand and support the reliability growth strategy that was presented. | ||||||
| 2 | N/A | On Depot Price, the Depot quote to the Contractor = Z. Add 10.4% = Z x 1.104 = Final Price from using the depot. Is the above correct? | No. The 10.4% is ONLY added to the labor rates on the depot price proposed for evaluation purposes. The CTR is NOT to add this factor into their proposal. | |||||
| 3 | N/A | Progress Payments (Contracts). IAW the FAR Progress Payments are allowed; How will they be scored in the proposal? | No. See Section F for delivery / payment schedule. | |||||
| 4 | N/A | Will 36.7% SB be an evaluated requirement or a goal that is not evaluate? | See questions 20, 21 and 52. | |||||
| 5 | N/A | Liquidated Damages, Contracts. What are the conditions (or context) that Liquidated Damages would be used or employed? | Tthis applies to testing and covers USG for the test facility. | |||||
| 6 | N/A | Long Lead for Option. "It is your intent to allow long lead procurement prior to option decision." | Procurement of long lead is a Contractor's business decision. Only the Contractor who is awarded the Option shall be reimbursed. | |||||
| 7 | N/A | Best Value. Please describe your best value decision criteria for the design and development phase. | See revised Section L. | |||||
| 10 | RFP | The reliability goal at IOT&E is considerably higher than recent demonstration. Is it the intent of the AAV Survivability Upgrade Program to be the sole means of achieving the reliability goal or is there a parallel reliability growth program PM AAA is pursuing? | PM AAA understands that the IOT&E reliability goal is higher than the recent demonstration and there is a parallel effort to address legacy failures | |||||
| 61 | RFP | 20 | I | 52.215-17 | Is the inclusion of this clause meant to prohibit the inclusion of facilities capital cost of money as a proposed cost? If not and the contractor includes this cost in the proposal, will 52.215-16 be substituted for this clause? | This clause is applicable when the contractor did not include facilities capital cost of money as a proposed cost. | Removed. | |
| 62 | RFP | 21 | I | 52.217-8 | Which services would this option provision address and what is the not to exceed total duration of the extension? | Pursuant to this clause the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. | Removed. Added 52.217-5. | |
| 63 | RFP | 25 | I | 52.216-2 | It is requested that this clause be deleted as this RFP requirement does not appear to meet all of the specified criteria for use of the clause | Use of 52.216-2 is applicable when contracting by negotiation and all of the following apply: |
i) a fixed price contract is contemplated
ii) The requirement is for standard supplies that have an established catalog or market price
| iii) The CO has made a determination that it is necessary either to protect the contractor and Government against significant fluctuations in labor or material costs or to provide for contract price adjustment in the event of changes in the Contractor’s established prices | See question 56. | ||||||
| 64 | RFP | 20 | I | 52.216-4 | It is requested that this clause be deleted as this RFP requirement does not appear to meet all of the specified criteria for use of the clause | Use of 52.216-4 is applicable when contracting by negotiation and all of the following apply: |
i) a fixed price contract is contemplated
ii) There is no major element of design engineering or development work involved
iii) One of more identifiable labor or material cost factors are subject to change
| iv) The CO has made a determination that it is necessary either to protect the contractor and Government against significant fluctuations in labor or material costs or to provide for contract price adjustment in the event of changes in the Contractor’s established prices | See question 57. | |||||||
| 65 | RFP | 86 | L | 52.222-46 | Since planned award is competitive, rather than negotiated, it is requested that this clause be removed from the Section L requirements. | This clause is applicable to solicitations for negotiated contracts and requires the submission of a total compensation plan setting forth the proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract | Removed. | |
| 66 | RFP | 20 | I | 52.203-16 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to this solicitation | For solicitations and contracts that include a requirement for services by contractor employee(s) that involve performance of acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions for a federal agency or department | Removed | |
| 67 | RFP | 58 | K | 52.204-3 | This solicitation includes FAR 52.204-7 | Provision applies to solicitations that do not include the provision at FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management | Removed. | |
| 68 | RFP | 86 | L | 52.207-1 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to this solicitation | Used when soliciting offers and tenders under Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, to determine if the work to be performed is either an inherently governmental function or a commercial activity subject to the forces of competition. | Removed. | |
| 69 | RFP | 58 | K | 52.209-2 | Is it expected that this clause will be amended to cover solicitations using funds appropriated beyond FY2012? | Used in solicitations for the acquisition of products or services (including construction), when using funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2008 through FY 2012 (unless waived in accordance with FAR 9.108-4). | Removed. | |
| 70 | RFP | 20 | I | 52.209-10 | Is it expected that this clause will be amended to cover solicitations using funds appropriated beyond FY2012? | Included in each solicitation and contract for the acquisition of products or services (including construction) when funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2012, are used. | Removed. | |
| 71 | RFP | 20 | I | 52.215-2 Alt II | This clause does not appear to be applicable to this solicitation | For cost-reimbursement contracts with state and local governments, educational institutions, and other nonprofit organizations. | Removed. Added 52.215-2. | |
| 72 | RFP | 20 | I | 52.215-9 | Is it anticipated that the requirement for a make-or-buy program will be incorporated in the contract? | Included in solicitations and contracts when it is contemplated that a make-or-buy program will be incorporated in the contract. | The clause is not applicable to this acquisition. However, because our contract writing software has determined this (incorrectly) as a "required" clause, the system will not allow the clause to be deleted. There is a note in the RFP under the clause stating it is not applicable to this acquisition. | |
| 73 | RFP | 21 | I | 52.219-9 Alt II | Alternate II to this clause does not appear to be applicable to this solicitation | When contracting by negotiation, and subcontracting plans are required with initial proposals as provided for in FAR 19.705-2(d). | Clause is correct and will remain in RFP | |
| 74 | RFP | 33 | I | 52.222-2 | The only cost-reimbursement requirements in this solicitation are the two Other Direct Cost CLINs. As a result, this clause does not appear to be applicable to this solicitation. | In solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated and the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. | Removed. | |
| 75 | RFP | 29 | I | 52.222-29 | There are no requirements related to performance in or on behalf of a foreign country. As a result, this clause does not appear to be applicable to this solicitation. | Include in contracts that will include the clause at FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, if the contractor is required to perform in or on behalf of a foreign country. | Removed. | |
| 76 | RFP | 21 | I | 52.223-19 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to the scope of the solicitation | Used for contractor operation of Government-owned or -leased facilities or vehicles, located in the US. For facilities located outside the US, the agency head may authorize use of the clause. | Removed. | |
| 77 | RFP | 22 | I | 52.244-5 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to this solicitation | Inserted in solicitations and contracts when contracting by negotiation and when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, unless: a firm-fixed-price contract, awarded on the basis of adequate price competition or whose prices are set by law or regulation, is contemplated | Removed. | |
| 78 | RFP | 55 | I | 252.232-7001 | Is this clause applicable to this solicitation? | In contracts when payments are to be made by a disbursing office not designated in the advance payment pool agreement. | Removed. | |
| 79 | RFP | 24 | I | 252.232-7007 | Is an incrementally funded fixed price contract contemplated? | For use in solicitations and resultant incrementally funded fixed-price contracts. | No. Clause has been removed. | |
| 80 | RFP | 24 | I | 252.233-7001 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to the scope of the solicitation | For use in solicitations and contracts when performance will be outside the U.S. and its outlying areas, unless otherwise provided for in a government-to-government agreement. | Removed. | |
| 81 | RFP | 24 | I | 252.235-7011 | Please clarify which report(s) will require submission to the Defense Technical Information Center | Requires that the Contractor must submit 2 copies of the approved scientific or technical report to the Defense Technical Information Center, and include a completed Standard Form 298, Report Documentation Page, with each copy of the report. | Removed. | |
| 82 | RFP | 24 | I | 252.239-7001 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to the scope of the solicitation | For use in solicitations and contracts involving contractor performance of information assurance functions as described in DoD 8570.01-M. | Removed. | |
| 83 | RFP | 24 | I | 252.246-7004 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to the scope of the solicitation | For use in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR Part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, for the construction, installation, repair, maintenance, or operation of facilities, infrastructure, or for equipment configured for occupancy, planned for use by DoD military or civilian personnel during military operations. | Clause is correct and will remain in RFP | |
| 84 | RFP | 24 | I | 252.246-7006 | This clause does not appear to be applicable to the scope of the solicitation | For use in solicitations and contracts when it is anticipated that the resultant contract will include a warranty for serialized items. | Removed. | |
| 85 | RFP | 24 | I | 252.249-7000 | Is it anticipated that this contract will be incrementally funded? | May be used in an incrementally funded contract when approved by the agency head. The clause is authorized when: 1) the contract term is two years or more, 2) the contract is estimated to require total RDT&E financing in excess of $25 million or total production investment in excess of $100 million, and 3) adequate funds are available to cover the contingent reserve liability for special termination costs. | No. This clause has been removed. | |
| 86 | RFP | 59 | JEA | 3.8 LRIP PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL | ||||
| Exhibit A - CDRL A067 LRIP VEHICLE PROPOSAL | “Pursuant to FAR 31.205-18, Independent research and development and bid and proposal costs, bid and proposal costs do not include the costs of preparing, submitting, and supporting bids and proposals that are “required in the performance of a contract”. RFP Attachment 16 Statement of Work Paragraph 3.8 with associated CDRL A067 addresses the requirement for submission of a competitive LRIP pricing proposal. Given that this is to be a formal contract requirement bidders are required to include the cost of preparing this proposal as part of the cost of contract performance. In including this requirement in the contract Statement of Work was it your expectation that the cost for preparation of the LRIP proposal be included within the price of the CDRL A067 referenced CLIN’s 0001 and/or 0002?” | A revised detailed LRIP SOW will be provided by the Government 90 days prior to CDR. These documents will prepare the Contractor(s) to submit a competitive LRIP pricing proposal, in accordance with CDRL A067, 30 days prior to CDR. This proposal will be used, in conjunction with the design phase efforts, to down select to one (1) Contractor for the contract options, if exercised. The LRIP price proposal (CLINS 0200 – 0204 and 0206) shall contain firm fixed prices and not exceed the given NTE amount. | This would be an Offeror's business decision. | |||||
| 87 | RFP | 59 | JEA | 3.8 LRIP PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL | ||||
| Exhibit A - CDRL A067 LRIP VEHICLE PROPOSAL | RFP Attachment 16 Statement of Work Paragraph 3.8 with associated CDRL A067 addresses the requirement for submission of a competitive LRIP pricing proposal. However, CDRL A067 contains the following language: |
OFFEROR(S) SHALL SUBMIT A PROPOSAL THAT CLEARLY AND CONCISELY DESCRIBES AND DEFINES THE OFFEROR(S) RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIVES/REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN THE RFP. UNNECESSARY ELABORATION OR OTHER PRESENTATIONS BEYOND THAT SUFFICIENT TO PRESENT A COMPLETE AND EFFECTIVE PROPOSAL ARE NOT DESIRED. ELABORATE ARTWORK, EXPENSIVE PAPER OR BINDINGS, AND EXPENSIVE VISUAL OR OTHER PRESENTATION AIDS ARE NEITHER NECESSARY NOR DESIRED. THE PROPOSAL SHALL CONTAIN ALL THE PERTINENT INFORMATION IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSAL WHERE IT CONTRIBUTES MOST CRITICALLY TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE SAME INFORMATION. WHEN NECESSARY, THE OFFEROR(S) SHALL REFER TO THE INITIAL DISCUSSION AND IDENTIFY ITS LOCATION WITHIN THE PROPOSAL. OFFEROR(S) SHOULD IDENTIFY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR PROPOSAL, TECHNIQUES USED TO MITIGATE THOSE RISKS, AND WHERE SUCH TECHNIQUES WERE SUCCESSFULLY EMPLOYED IN OTHER CONTRACTS.
ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF A PROPOSAL MUST BE CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSAL VOLUMES SET FORTH BELOW. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT ASSUME OFFEROR(S) POSSESS ANY CAPABILITY, UNDERSTANDING, OR COMMITMENT NOT SPECIFIED IN ITS PROPOSAL. IT IS AN OFFEROR’S RESPONSIBILITY TO SUBMIT A WELL-WRITTEN PROPOSAL, WITH ADEQUATELY DETAILED INFORMATION WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES AN UNDERSTANDING OF AND THE ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE RFP REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR A MEANINGFUL REVIEW.
| This appears to be the same text that appears in Section L.5 of this Solicitation. Please confirm that CDRL A067 is limited to an updated Price Proposal Only, and does not require any Technical Volume Change. | CDRL A067 is specific to the LRIP pricing period which is requested 30 days prior to CDR (per block 10 & 12 of the CDRL). | ||||||
| 88 | RFP | 78 | L | Section L, Para L.1.8 | Could you please clarify what procedure should be used to submit a question dealing with a classified subject matter and will such questions be considered if received after the 11-20-13 question cut-off date? | If the question itself is not classified, then submit to the PCO. If it is classified, please send to Dennis Boucher via SIPRNet at dennis.boucher@usmc.smil.mil. Also, please send an email notification to stacey.coolican@usmc.mil, renee.staton@usmc.mil and dennis.boucher@usmc.mil that a classified question has been submitted. Late questions MAY be considered. | |
| 89 | RFP | 86 | L | L, Clauses Incorporated by Reference | During the Pre-Proposal Conference, contractor financing was discussed. Would the Government consider contractor financing alternatives? | No. | |
| 90 | RFP | 9 | B | B, CLIN 207 | How does the Government intend to use the Technical Data Package purchased under this program? | As the USG determines. | |
| 91 | RFP | 14 | F | Section F, 52.211-11 | Discussion during the pre-proposal conference regarding the applicability of the liquidated damages clause centered around test delays. Please confirm that the purpose of the liquidated damages clause is to offset delay in testing. | Yes. | |
| 92 | RFP | 4 | B | B | Please clarify what expenses the USMC expects to be included in CLIN 0103 ODCs. | See question 12. | |
| 93 | RFP | 3 & 13 | F | CLIN 0101 & Section F | Page 3 indicates a POP of 14 months for ITEM NO 0101 |
Page 13 defines the POP as 05/01/2016-03/15/2017 a period of 10.5 months
| Please clarify the Period of Performance For ITEM NO 0101 | Sections B and F have been updated to be in agreement. | |||||
| 94 | RFP | 8 & 13 | F | CLIN 0203 & Section F | Page 3 indicates a POP of 15 months for ITEM NO 0203 |
Page 13 defines the POP as 12/01/2017-11/30/2018 a period of 12 months
| Please clarify the Period of Performance For ITEM NO 0203 | Sections B and F have been updated to be in agreement. | |||||
| 95 | RFP | 85 | ||||
| 2 | L | L.10.8 (a) & (f) | If the PDR/CDR phase does not exceed the $50M threshold, will the USMC require industry to submit a CSDR? | Yes. | ||
| 96 | RFP | 9 & 22 & 33 | J16 | B & 3.4.7.1 & A027 | Section B of the RFP calls for a Technical Data Package, CLIN 0207, to be delivered in accordance with the SOW. The only TDP referenced in the SOW requests an in progress TDP during the CDR/SVR phase in accordance with the direction in CDRL A027, which is inconsistent with the timing of the TDP delivery schedule in Section F. |
| Please provide clarification on what is to be delivered in response to CLIN 0207. | See revised SOW Para 3.4.7.1 & CDRLs A027 & A030. | |||||||
| 97 | RFP | 86 of 93 | L | FAR Clause 52.232-28 has been included in the solicitation. Please confirm that the customer is willing to accept proposals for a performance based payment schedule. | No. Clause removed. | |||
| 98 | RFP | 77/78 of 93 | L | L.1.8 | In attempt to provide the best solution possible, will the USMC extend the due date of this proposal by 45 days to February 3, 2014? | No. Revised due date is January 6, 2014. | ||
| 99 | RFP | 93 of 93 | M | M.3.5.2 | Please define the term "unbalanced"? | See FAR 15.404-1(g) | ||
| 100 | RFP | 1-2 | J2 | Special Mission Kits | Will the reference documentation for the Special Mission Kits be included as GFI. | The Concept of Operations identifies TM 2350-10/1 Special Mission Kit For The AAV | Yes, the Publication will be included in the GFI package after contract award. | |
| 101 | RFP | 1-2 | J2 | Special Mission Kits | Does any design solution need to include design changes to any or all of the special Mission Kit hardware and vehicle interfaces | Internal changes such as seats, deckplates and spall liners may effect the interfaces to the associated Mission Kit. Does this assessment also need to include vehicles with the Line Charge Kit installed? | Yes, All designs must mitigate all interferances or stack tolerance issues with the Special Mission Kits interface to the existing FoV. All proposed designs should eliminate or minimize any need to change or modify the existing kits | |
| 102 | RFP | 1 | J3 | 1 | Attachment 3 indicates a tech data package will be available. Will this include Computer Aided Design models for vehicle, subsystems and components? Will ICDs for all the subsystems be available? What other items will be included in the Technical Data Package? | CDRL A0027 and A0043 require the contractor to provide CAD models of vehicle and shot lines. | The 2D TDP will be provided in pdf format. This will be the current TDP used for Configuration Management and will include all Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) incorporated to that date. The TDP does not contain discrete and specific ICDs to identify how vendor-controlled items/drawings (example, engine) mount in the vehicle. It does, however, contain all of the individual hardware and component drawings that identify how the vendor-controlled items/drawings mount in the vehicle. We will also provide an unofficial 3D drawing package that will be accurate up to a certain date as defined later. It may not contain the latest ECPs, but a list of differences between the official 2D TDP and the unofficial 3D drawing package will be provided. The 2D TDP also includes the RAM/RS system specifications as well as many component specifications. | |
| 103 | RFP | J4 | Attachment 4 – Integrated Master Plan | The Statement of Work does not mention DFARS provisions 252.234-7001, 7002 (EVMS), nor does if provide any requirements as to the timing or scope as it relates to a contractor-conducted an Integrated Baseline Review. Is it the IBR as described in the Government Integrated Master Plan a “joint” event or Government event? If it is a Joint event, will the Government be providing requirements for scope and timing? | IBR removed from Attachment 4 | |||
| 104 | RFP | 128 | J7 | Please Confirm Table 8 is no longer required. | Compared to the 28 August DRAFT version of the AAV-U SOW, the second page of Table 8 has been deleted. | Table 8 is required. Attachment 07 has been updated. | ||
| 105 | RFP | J7 | To what extent are Tier 3 requirements tradable? | Tiering is as stated. Tier 3 is your trade space. | ||||
| 106 | RFP | J7 | Please provide guidance on the significance of Threshold. | Threshold is the minimum requirement. | ||||
| 107 | RFP | 69 | J7 | 3.4.1 | Is there a reliability model for the legacy vehicle that can be used as the basis for the survivability upgrade? | Reference SOW Paragraph 3.4.14.6 | No. While we do not have a reliability model for the legacy vehicle, should consider the RAM data collected during the AVTB baseline testing for likely high failure areas. | |
| 108 | RFP | 3 | J7 | Appendix 1 | Is 218lbs the correct weight for determining the weight of a fully loaded vehicle or should an average weight of a 50th percentile Marine be used? | The fully loaded weight of 95th percentile Marine is required. | ||
| 109 | RFP | J7 | 3.6.3 | Is it the intent that only components within the DoD inventory are to be used to define upgrades to the AAV or are components which meet the TRL requirement but not in the current DoD inventory allowed? | "(U) All Survivability Upgraded AAV components shall be selected from DoD inventories with existing NSN. Unique parts shall be minimized. Interchangeability of LRUs and Line Replacement Modules (LRMs) of the same type shall be maximized." | Preference should be given to existing inventory. However, items not in the current inventory are allowed if they meet the requirements. | ||
| 110 | RFP | 5 | J7 | 14.63 | Requirements are provided in 3 tiers with Tier 1's more important than Tier 2's and Tier 3's. Are there requirements which are mandatory and is there a relative priority within Tier 3? | Failure to meet a tier 1 requirement would bring the military utility of the AAV Survivability Upgrade into question. There is no discrimination of requirements within Tier groups. | ||
| 111 | RFP | 69 | J7 | aavUP-SPEC-395 | Is the requirement 43.5 hrs? |
| Reliability Requirements: In comparing section 3 and section 4 requirements there seems to be a disconnect between them. Spec ID aavUP-SPEC-395, Section 3 has a threshold requirement of 43.5 hrs with a reference to 31 hrs in section 4. | MTBOMF is a Tier 3 requirement. The 43.5 hours is the stated threshold requirement. However, it is tradable down to 31 hours. | ||||||
| 112 | RFP | 70 | J7 | aavUP-SPEC-396 | If the section 3 and section 4 requirements are correct for Spec ID aavUP-SPEC-395, should Spec ID aavUP-SPEC-396, be changed to reflect the same logic? | Currently, aavUP-SPEC-396, reflects 56hrs in both Section 3 and 4. | The objective value is 56 hrs and is correct as stated. |
| 113 | RFP | N/A | J7 | DD254 |
Att_07_AAV_Spec_v1-1 Att_07-01-Appendix_1_Combat_Load_Descriptions Att_18_Baseline_Test Please provide clarification to the markings provided in the DD254 and the cited attachments, along with the requested approvals.
These documents are marked with both Distribution Statement D & FOUO. According to the direction in Attachment A (paragraph 5) of the DD254, any documents marked FOUO are not allowed to be released. This conflicts with Distribution D, which permits release to US DOD Contractors/Potential Contractors. We would like to share these documents with our suppliers, but only with the approval of your offices.
Additionally, we are seeking approval to share these documents with {a foreign supplier}.
| The markings are correct. Please follow procedure to request approval for sharing with your foreign supplier. | |||||||
| 114 | RFP | 2 and 19 | J7 | Page 2 & 3 | 7 out of the 8 EMD vehicles are slated for reliability testing and only one for survivability testing, yet all RAM requirements are tier 3 whereas survivability requirements are tiers 1 and 2. Please explain this apparent inconsistency. | The more vehicles used in reliability testing, the quicker the required number of hours is reached. Therefore, we want all available assets to be used for RAM testing. Additionally, survivability testing generally requires destruction of assets and we try to minimize that need. | |
| 115 | RFP | J7 | AAV-U Survivability proposal shows NAVSEA PCCL as a tier two requirement. P-Spec includes the PCCL; however, the SOW and CDRL work does not (that we can locate) reference the PCCL. Please clarify requirements? . | The requirement is as stated in the P-Spec. Please see SOW para 3.4.10 and CDRL A029. | |||
| 116 | RFP | 100 | J7 | aavUP-SPEC-1798 | Does the current vehicle envelope meet MIL-Std-1366? | Transportability | The AAVP7A1 did not meet any of the rail clearance envelopes in MIL-STD-1366E with EEAK installed. With EEAK uninstalled, meets rail clearance envelopes on DODX 40000, 41000, 42000 series railcars. |
| 117 | RFP | J7 | general | Is partial compliance credited for performance below threshold? Is partial compliance credited for performance between threshold and objective? | No. | ||
| 118 | RFP | 36 | J8 | 4.1.3 | The Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Technology Integration effort talks about potential changes in requirements at CDR. Will there be opportunity to re-price EMD prototype CLINs or prototype and test support CLINs at CDR assuming the customer modifies the technical baseline? | No. | |
| 119 | RFP | 14 | J8 | 3.2.5.3 | The SOW states that the Contractor will conduct a Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) 90 calendar days after exercise of EMD Prototype Build and LRIP CLINs (3.2.5.3) | No question asked. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .