| Question Number | Solicitation Reference | Question | Answer |
| 1 | SOW 3 | For clarification is the contractor responsible for all transportation from each site designated and also responsible for transportation of the modified EBFL to the designated locations in Attachment G | Yes, the contractor is responsible for all transportation. For those assets shipping to overseas locations the contractor will be responsible for delivery to a port designated by the government |
| 2 | SOW 3 | Will those assets in Japan, Hawaii and Norway be the reasonability of contractor to provide transportation. | No, the Government will coordinate the transportation of those EBFLS back to a designated CONUS location. |
| 3 | SOW 3.1.1 | Are all EBFLs to receive a armored cab? | Currently, only 100 amored cabs are being considered for procurement; however, that requirement is subject to change. For this reason, all EBFLs are required to be capable of integrating an armored cab. |
| 4 | SOW 3 | Can serviceable parts from other EBFL deemed unrepairable be utilized to support the modernization of the 495 EBFLs | Yes. |
| 5 | SOW 3.1.2.1.2 | Are Battery Disconnect Switches on all EBFLs? Are all required to have them? | No. Only a few EBFLs procured in 2010 have the switches. Yes all EBFL are required to have the Battery Disconnect switches. |
| 6 | SOW 3.1.2.1.3 | Can the batteries be replaced with an equivalent capacity battery other than hawker? | No. |
| 7 | SOW 3.1.2.1.3 | Can current installed hawker batteries be reused? | Yes. As long as they are fully charged and meet the original performance standard. |
| 8 | SOW 3.1.2.2 | Why are multiple service hours stated? | Each service performed (250 hr, 500 hr, 1,000 hr, and 2,000 hr operator, field, and intermediate service intervals) entails different actions. The technical manual details the services and checks required for each service hour. |
| 9 | SOW 3.1.4 | The para states the contractor shall provide the government with a Spare Parts Kits. Please quantify how many spares parts kits? | The government intends to build 10 Spare Parts Kits with each of the components listed. Each kit will have one of each component listed. SOW 3.1.4 has been updated to clarify. |
| 10 | SOW 3.1.4 | Are the spares to be new or can they be reconditioned? | That is a business decision for each contractor. All spare must meet the EBFL requirements whether new or reconditioned. |
| 11 | SOW 3.2.4 | Is the contractor picking up EBFLS at OCONUS location. | No, the Government will coordinate the transportation of those EBFLS back to a designated CONUS location. |
| 12 | SOW 3.9.7.2 | 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. |
| 13 | SOW 3.9.7.3 | 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. |
| 14 | RFP | Is this project considered a new requirement? | Yes. |
| 16 | RFP | Are you planning to award from the proposals received? | 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"). |
| 17 | PS | Are coverage area and 3D models available? | No. |
| 18 | RFP | When will the contract be awarded ? | The Government intents to award a contract 90-120 days following the closing of the RFP. |
| 19 | SOW | Will the government allow the contractor to visit multiple bases to assess the EBFL conditions. | Yes. Visit requests can be requested by emailing the contract specialist. |
| 20 | SOW 7.2 | If no secret level work is performed at the Prime Contractors facility, is the Prime Contractor required to have a secret facility clearance level or can that be maintained exclusively at the armored cab supplier? | Any facility safeguarding classified materials must have been cleared for that. If the Sub-contractor is the only cleared facility then that must be stated in the response, but the prime contractor is not required to have a secret facility clearance level if no classified work is being performed by the prime. |
| 21 | PS | Will test data or an test reports be available to Offerors upon request? | Yes. This information can be obtained by emailing the contract specialist with a request. |
| 22 | SOW 4.5.4 | Pertaining to SOW (page 51 of M67854-14-R-5011) paragraph 4.5.4, Provisioning Technical Documentation, will the USMC provide the existing SDFP and EDFP for the current EBFL to support the provisioning effort outside of the 5 modifications listed in paragraph 3.1.1, Modifications, of the SOW (page 39 of M67854-14-R-5011)? | The offeror will provision for the entire Modernized EBFL. There is no existing PPL, LSA-036 or EDFP/SDFP. The all parts can be found in TMs. No EDFP or SDFP will be requried if an existing PN cross references to an active NSN. If the PN is no longer valid/discontinued or the NSN is not active any longer, a new part and all EDFP/SDFP will be requried. |
| 23 | SOW 3.1.2.1.2 | Reference is made to TI 10794B-OR/2. Can we have access to this document? | Yes. This information has been posted as Attachment H to this amendment. |
| 24 | SOW 3.1.2.1.2 | Reference is made to JLG supplement 31200693. Can we have access to this document? | Yes. This information has been posted as Attachment J to this amendment. |
| 25 | SOW 3.1.1 | Are Base Year CLINs 11-34 to be priced ONLY for the items effected by the 5 modifications listed in paragraph 3.1.1, Modifications, of the SOW (page 39 of M67854-14-R-5011)? | CLINs 11-34 are to be priced to include the cost to provide the item or service with profit included. Each offerors will have to determine its own pricing strategy. For example, the price for CLIN 0012 - Net for FUE should be the price it will cost to meet the requirements of SOW 6.1.2.2 |
| 26 | Attachment F | Are Base Year CLINs 11-34 to be priced for the complete EBFL, whether it’s new (CLIN 0002) or modified (CLIN 0001)? | CLINs 11-34 shall be based on a modernized EBFL. In contrast, CLIN 0002 is the offeror's proposed price for building an entirely new EBFL. |
| 27 | Solicitation CLIN 0002 | The CLIN reads "this is the price for a new EBFL without an exchange credit" Is this intended to read this way or should the word "new" read "modernized"? | Yes, the word new is correct and this is NOT intended to mean "modernized." |
| 28 | Solicitation CLIN 0002 | Does the MCSC intend to purchase new EBFL units? | No, MCSC does not intend to purchase new EBFL units. However, in accordance with DFARS 217.7004, the solicitation includes a request for offerors to state prices for new items being acquired without any exchange (CLIN 0002). |
| 29 | Solicitation CLIN 0002 | Does the MCSC intend for all bidders to offer a price for a new EBFL unit? | Yes, it is required per DFARS 217.7004. |
| 30 | General Issue | Does the MCSC require all bidders to offer to provide every item or service related to each and every CLIN? | Yes |
| 31 | General Issue | Will a bid be deemed unacceptable if a bidder decides to not offer a price for each and every CLIN? | Yes, the Government understands pricing a new EBFL will be difficult, but as stated above a new CLIN is required per DFARS 217.7004 |
| 32 | General Issue | The RFP contains many requirements that can be collectively referred to as provisioning. Does the MCSC intend these sections to apply to the modernized EBFL system in its entirety or should these be read to refer to the modernization effort and subsystems impacted by that effort? | The offeror will provision for the entire Modernized EBFL. There is no existing PPL, LSA-036 or EDFP/SDFP. The all parts can be found in TMs. No EDFP or SDFP will be requried if an existing PN cross references to an active NSN. If the PN is no longer valid/discontinued or the NSN is not active any longer, a new part and all EDFP/SDFP will be requried. |
| 33 | Solicitation CLIN 0007 | Will NET CONUS - Operator training include training on the entire modernized EBFL system or just on those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | Training is required only on the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 34 | Solicitation CLIN 0008 | Will NET OCONUS - Operator training include training on the entire modernized EBFL system or just on those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | Training is required only on the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 35 | Solicitation CLIN 0009 | Will NET CONUS - Maintainer training include training on the entire modernized EBFL system or just on those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | Training is required only on the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 36 | Solicitation CLIN 0010 | Will NET OCONUS - Maintainer training include training on the entire modernized EBFL system or just on those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | Training is required only on the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 37 | Solicitation CLIN 0011-0019 | Various NET training materials. Does the MCSC intend and expect that these materials will cover the entire modernized EBFL system or cover subsystems impacted by the modernization? | Training is required only on the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 38 | SOW 4.5.4 | Will the provisioning technical documentation cover the entire modernized EBFL system or cover only subsystems impacted by the modernization? | The offeror will provision for the entire Modernized EBFL. There is no existing PPL, LSA-036 or EDFP/SDFP. The all parts can be found in TMs. No EDFP or SDFP will be requried if an existing PN cross references to an active NSN. If the PN is no longer valid/discontinued or the NSN is not active any longer, a new part and all EDFP/SDFP will be requried. |
| 39 | SOW 5.3 and 5.15 | Does the MCSC intend and expect to receive a new and complete TM? | Yes. |
| 40 | SOW 5.3 and 5.15 | Does the MCSC intend and expect to receive a supplement to the current TM? | No. The Government requires an entirely new TM. However, the current EBFL TM is available upon request from the contract specialist. |
| 41 | SOW 5.3 and 5.15 | Will the new TM cover the entire modernized EBFL system or just those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | The new TM should cover the entire EBFL system. |
| 42 | General Issue | Will pricing be fixed by the order year that the delivery order is issued or by the order year in which the equipment or service is delivered? | Pricing will based on the price at the time of the order. |
| 43 | SOW 3.2.4 | Will the MCSC consider contractor obligation to be delivery to a port of debarkation that is CONUS for those units being sent OCONUS as this will be a significant cost savings? | Yes. See response 1. |
| 44 | SOW 3.2.4 | Will the MCSC consider contractor obligation to be transportation from a port that is CONUS for those units being received from OCONUS as this will be a significant cost savings? | Yes, see response 1. |
| 45 | SOW 3.2.4 | Will the OCONUS transportation apply to MEF units or will the contractor exchange modernized units for existing units at a CONUS port? | Yes, see response 1. |
| 46 | SOW 3.4.4 | Will the required corrosion prevention and control plan be applicable to the entire modernized EBFL system or only to those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | The plan should only include the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 47 | SOW 3.4.5.1 | Will the required reliability and maintainability program be applicable to the entire modernized EBFL system or only to those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | Reliability and maintainability only applies to the subsystems impacted by the modernization |
| 48 | SOW 3.9.3.2 | Will the MCSC accept modernized units that are comprised of serial numbered items from one or more core EBFL units? | Yes. |
| 49 | SOW 4.5.4.7 | Will the MCSC expect and intend the LSA-036 to include the entire modernized EBFL system or only subsystems impacted by the modernization? | The LSA-036 should cover the entire EBFL system. The USMC will provide source data for the current EBFL system. |
| 50 | General Issue | Will the MCSC expect and intend provisioning to include the entire modernized EBFL system or only subsystems impacted by the modernization? | See Response 32 |
| 51 | SOW 4.6.1 | Will the MCSC expect and intend the contractor to support DVD on the entire modernized EBFL system or only subsystems impacted by the modernization? | The contractor is only required to support the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 52 | SOW 5.1 | Will the MCSC expect and intend the contractor to create new Operation and Maintenance Technical Manuals supporting the entire modernized EBFL system or only those subsystems impacted by the modernization? | See Responses 40 and 41. |
| 53 | SOW 7.2 | Is the Prime Contractor required to have a Secret Facility Clearance if the armor testing will be performed at a subcontractor's facility and that facility has a Secret Facility Clearance? | No. |
| 54 | SOW 7.2 | If the Prime Contractor is required to have a Secret Facility Clearance, is it required to obtain that clearance prior to starting work on the contract? | All facility clearance must be in place prior to contract award. However, as stated in response 20 above, the prime is not required to have a facility clearance. |
| 55 | SOW 7.2 | Must a Prime Contractor have a Secret Facility Clearance in place in order to submit a proposal for the EBFL modernization? | No. However, if the subcontractor will be the one holding the facility clearance, then the subcontractor must have a FCL in place at the time of award. |
| 56 | SOW 4.2 | Will the contractor be responsible for creating new IUID markings for the entire modernized EBFL or only to add additional markings to those items that require markings and are part of the modernization effort? | New IUID labels will required for the entire EBFL system. |
| 57 | General Issue | Will the MCSC expect and intend that the Warranty coverage offered will apply to the entire modernized EBFL system or only to those subsystems impacted by the modernization which will be tracked by unique serial number? | The contractor should provide its best warranty strategy. At a minimum, a warranty should provided for the subsystems impacted by the modernization. |
| 58 | General Issue | The scope of the Warranty coverage is defined, does the MCSC desire the contractors to provide a price for an extended warranty period such as an additional 4 years? | Each offeror should state the warranty it is proposing in its proposal submission. The Government will not pay for a separate warranty. The warranty will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the RFP. |
| 59 | General Issue | If extended Warranty coverage is desired will the MCSC create a CLIN for this purpose? | No. |
| 60 | General Issue | What source document will be the baseline for EBFL performance against which the modernized EBFL will be measured? | If a number is not specified in the PS, the Government will use the test data from the previous EBFL tests. |
| 61 | PS 3.1 | Will the MCSC provide test report ATC-8697, NATC 20528 and WFE - E- 96? | Yes. This information can be obtained by emailing the contract specialist with a request. |
| 62 | PS 3.2.4.2 | Will the MCSC prescribe a maximum or desired time for removal of the cab and installation of the armored cab? | Eight (8) hours total for installation and removal. PS 3.2.4.2 has been updated to clarify. |
| 63 | PS 3.2.3.1 | Will the Modernized EBFL (MEBFL) be held to the same tested results as the original EBFL regardless of hours of previous usage and condition of the applied “core” driveline? | Yes. |
| 64 | PS 3.2.3.1 | Will all the baseline testing for the MEBFL be conducted with the same JP-8 specified fuel as the original PVT Testing? | Yes. |
| 65 | General Issue | Will these baseline functional tests be completed at ATC on the same test course layout as the initial EBFL Program? | These tests will completed at the course specified in the PS Section 4. |
| 66 | PS 3.2.2.1 | When the hydraulic control valve for the carriage functions is relocated, will the time for completed function (sideshift or FP) need to remain the same as the PVT of the base contract? | Yes. |
| 67 | PS 3.3.2 | With the new lowered operator's cabin (lowered SIP test point) how will the degradation of fork tip and load placement visibility be treated? | The design will have to meet the PS requirements of 3.3.2 Visibility. |
| 68 | | The requirement for the “internals” to be the same in the non-armored and armored version of the cabin would indicate that all 495 MEBFL trucks are fitted with a new cabin of similar size and interior regardless of C1 fitment or not? | The EBFL needs to meet all of the PS requirements. All armored cabs must be the same, all unarmored cabs must be the same, but the armored and unarmored cabs are not required to be same but must have the same functionality. |
| 69 | PS 3.1 | The requirement to replace all ZF equipped transfer case units with Carraro transfer cases would indicate that (a) the fleet core of “F” grade units has sufficient Carraro transfer cases to meet the need or (b) the contractor is required to arrange for the OE to produce the older style transfer case as a new replacement item for this demand. Which version will serve as the performance baseline for the MEBFL Fleet? | The Carraro P/N 2915060 will serve as the baseline. |
| 70 | General Issue | Will the contractor be allowed to purchase any and all required new tires from DLA or will any new tires be a “street” purchase of the old style tire? | A contractor can either purchase from DLA or in the open market. It is each contractor's prerogative to determine how it purchases the tires. The government will not facilitate any tire purchases; the vehicle for purchasing the tires, regardless of what it is, is completely the responsibility of the vendor. |
| 71 | PS 1.2.1 | Will the MCSC require any MEBFL units to be shipped from the contractor's final test and sign-off location with an Armored Cab installed? | No. Armored cabs do not need to be installed on the production units. All armored cabs will be shipped in separate containers. |
| 72 | PS 3.2.4.1 | Is the STANAG Armor Requirement listed in the PS the correct one or is there a newer version that will apply for some or all C kits? | Contractors need to request the classified addendum 1 as stated in SOW 7.3 |
| 73 | General Issue | Will the modernized EBFL be held to current standards such as ANSI and others or the standards in effect when the EBFL units were produced? | Contractors will be held to the current standards for the modernized subsystems only. |
| 74 | Solicitation | CLIN 0006 on page 4 of the solicitation states the quantity unit as "Each". On Attachment F, base year, CLIN 0006 states the quantity unit as "Lot." What unit of measure should be used? | The correct unit of issue is Each. Attachment F has been updated. |
| 75 | Solicitation/Attachment F | CLIN 0001 & CLIN 0002 include additional rows that state "Quantities (Offeror - insert your step ladder quantities here)". Please provide a definition for the term "step ladder quantities"? | Step-ladder pricing is is a structure that allows an offeror to propose different unit prices for various quantities of an item. For this solicitation, the Offeror is requsted to provide the steps at which the pricing will change, depending upon order quantities (for example, 1-5, 6-20, etc.). Step ladder pricing allows the government to order small quantities at one price while potentially securing more favorable pricing when purchasing larger quantities. |
| 76 | SOW p 38, PS p 4 | In the SOW on page 38 under Applicable Documents it states "In the event of conflict between the applicable documents and this SOW, the SOW shall take precedence." The PS statement on page 4 section 2.4 states "Unless otherwise noted herein or in the contract, in the event of a conflict between the text of this document and the references cited herein, the text of this document takes precedence". Which document takes precedence? | The term "applicable documents" in both the SOW and PS refer to the applicable documents listed in each document. Neither takes precedence over the other. |
| 77 | SOW/PS/Attachment F PS 4.1.2, SOW 6.1.2.2 | Is there a Limited User Evaluation (LUE) per the PS section 4.1.2 paragraph ii, or a Field User Evaluation (FUE) per the SOW paragraph 6.1.2.2 and Attachment F, CLIN0012 or both? | The correct term is FUE. The PS 4.1.2 has been updated to clarify. |
| 78 | Solicitation Clause 52.209-4 | Reference Solicitation page 79, is the contractor expected to deliver base year PQT assets 120 day after date of contract award or 180 days after delivery order as stated in Attachment F? | The test assets are due 180 ARO. FAR 52.209-4 has been updated. |
| 79 | SOW 3.2.4 | Understand the contractor is responsible for pickup of OCONUS EBFLs. Is the contractor responsible for pickup from OCONUS destinations listed in Attachment D or at an East/West Coast Port of Embarkation? | See Response 1 |
| 80 | SOW 3.2.4 | Understand the contractor is responsible for delivery of OCONUS EBFLs. Is the contractor responsible for delivery to OCONUS destinations listed in Attachment G or at an East/West Coast Port of Embarkation? | See Response 1 |
| 81 | Attachment F, CLIN 0005 | States a quantity of 10 each for "Spare Parts Block" (SPK). The SOW reference page 41 section 3.1.4 states "Each SPK shall include the following items: Ten (10) Engines, Ten (10) Transmissions, One (1) set of Axles (one set includes one front axle and one rear axle), One (1) Boom assembly, Ten (10) Carraro Transfer Cases, Ten (10) 7k fork carriage assemblies and Ten (10) 11k fork carriage assemblies." Does the Government want pricing for the quantity of 10 SPKs? (i.e. Per Attachment F, 10 sets = 100 engines) | Yes. The government wants pricing for 10 SPKs. SOW 3.1.4 has been updated to clarify. |
| 82 | SOW 5.7 | The validated draft technical manual (DTM) delivery is scheduled for 160 DAC, but page 79 of the SOW identifies the timeframe for First Article approval as 180 DAC. It is our assumption and desire to validate the TMs against a Government approved design. Can the MCSC clarify what appears to be a schedule conflict? | |
United States Marine Corps