PERM_QA_22May15.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 120MM, Precision Extended Range Munition (PERM)
- Solicitation number
- M67854-15-R-6007
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
Responses to Draft RFP Questions - 22MAY2015
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Section_J_Attachment_10_CLIN_1000_Configuration_Table.docx | DOCX document | |
| Section_J_Attachment__1_PERM_SOW_15MAY.rtf | RTF text file | |
| Section_J_Attachment_7_Incentive_Plan_15May15.docx | DOCX document | |
| Section_J_Attachment_3_GFP.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Section_J_Attachment_8_Price_Matrix_18MAY.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_DRAFT_18MAY.doc | DOC document | |
| Section_J_Attachment_9_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Section_J_Attachment_6_Cross-Reference_Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Section_J_Attachment_4_DD254.pdf | ||
| Section_J_Exhibit_A_CDRLs_15MAY15.docx | DOCX document |
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
Vendor Questions
| Vendor Question | Government Response |
| Q1) In response to the question about the container Technical Data Package | A1) By the time of award of the PERM production solicitation the government will have unrestricted rights to the existing PA117-IM container. |
| Q2) In response to the question in regard to the "PERM_SkedNF_Pre_Sol_9Mar2015_REV1[1].ppt" dates not aligning with "DRAFT_PERM_CLIN_Structure_Pre_Sol_Mar9Mar2015_REV1.xlsx." | A2) The government intent is to award a contract which will include a 60 month ordering period, the schedule will identify the specific periods associated with the government requirements and contract line items . |
| Q3) In response to the request to telemetry rounds included in the Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) quantities | A3) The contractor may include telemetry in rounds so long that it does not otherwise change the production configuration. |
| Q4) In response to the question about SOW paragraph 3.8.2."…gap in production…" | A4) The length of the "…gap in production…" will be reviewed in more detail to determine what provides the Government the most flexibility, but still ensures critical safety parameters are adhered to. |
| Q5) In response to the question about Performance Specification paragraph 3.1.1 Projectile Initialization and the related threshold | A5) This question is under further review and a determination will be made prior to release of the final solicitation. |
| Q6) In response to the question about updating the Performance Specification consistency between sections 3 and 4 and which test events require all up round configuration | A6) The CLIN 1000 configuration table, provided as a draft, breaks out the required configurations for Production Verification Testing and which tests require all up rounds. However, the Government will review the Performance Specification to ensure that there are no conflicts between the CLIN 1000 configuration table and the current performance specification. |
| Q7) In response to the question about Small Business Participation and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan | A7) The item at M-2.4 will be revised when the final solicitation is released. Submission of the SubK Plan (Test program) will not satisfy this factor. The government needs to know specifically what the Company is setting aside to small businesses under the specific solicitation requirement, since the commercial or corporate plans are for the overall company or division and do not specifically demonstrate what they will do under the specific solicitation requirement. |
| Q8) In response to question about CLIN 1000 configuration table and the requirement for arena test rounds to be have a live warhead | A8) This question is under further review and a determination will be made prior to release of the final solicitation. |
| Q9) In response to question about CLIN 1000 configuration table and the rocket motor being delivered with safe separation | A9) This question is under further review and a determination will be made prior to release of the final solicitation. |
| Q10) In response to the inconsistencies between the CLIN 1000 configuration table and the CLIN structure quantities | A10) The total quantity for CLIN 1000 is 162 rounds delivered per CLIN 1000 configuration table. The configuration table will be updated to reflect the proper quantities upon release of the PERM RFP. Additionally, the configuration table quantity for IM rounds will change from 40 or 25 to just 40. |
| Q11) In response to the question about pro-rating the number of failure in LAT based on the procurement quantity | A11) This question is under further review and a determination will be made prior to release of the final solicitation. |
| Q12) In response to Cost Incentive and the share ratios | A12) The Government has pre-determined the ceiling percentage and share ratios. They will not be negotiated. |
| Q13) In response to the schedule incentive and it application to sub CLINs 1000AA - 1000AF | A13) The schedule incentive is tied specifically to CLIN 1000, sub CLINS 1000AA and 1000AB. A copy of the Governments formal incentive plan will be provided as part of the PERM RFP. |
| Q14) In response to the schedule incentive and it application to any other production CLINs | A14) The schedule incentive is tied specifically to CLIN 1000 because getting through type qualification and Production Verification Testing is on the programs critical path. The production CLINs (1001, 1002, 1003, 1004) are associated with the quality incentive. The Government presumption is that if the contractor meets the Governments desired quality that schedule will also be met. Therefore, there would not be a separate schedule incentive for the production CLINs. |
| Q15) In response to the question about M-2.1.1 and the criteria for evaluating the "load out" sub-factor | A15) Section M-2.1.1 - "Load out" will be changed to read "Physical Characteristics" and will reference section 3.3 of the performance specification. |
| Q16) In response to the question about M-2.1.1 and the minimum range requirement | A16) The cancellation of High Explosive Rocket Assisted Projectile in June 2014 resulted in a gap of the Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) fires from the maximum range of 8km for standard HE to 12km, the previous threshold for PERM. The Marine Corps could not make a formal decision to make 8km the new threshold range until Critical Design Review Assessment was conducted on 12 June 2014 and it was proven that the current PERM contractors were able to produce a round that met the new threshold range. Current EMD contracts provided additional time and funding to implement risk reduction features and meet the new minimum range threshold requirement. |
| Q17) In regard to qual rounds not meeting requirements and the question about retest of 160 rounds or only those rounds that did not meet requirements | A17) The Government will be changing CLIN 1000AA and 1000AB from a specific quantity to a quantity of 1 (one). The Government requirement is that the contractor deliver a fully qualified round to the Government and that the minimum quantity of successfully performing rounds to meet this requirement is outlined in the CLIN 1000 configuration table. Therefore, the contractor must be prepared to address deficiencies in a timely manner and if a failure occurs re-test will require additional rounds, dependent on the failure and required changes. |
| Q18) In response to the question about option year price adjustments | A18) There are no provisions for price adjustments after contract award. Offerors should take into account pricing in the stepladders for the production contract line items (CLIN's) as well as the CLIN's applicable to each ordering period. |
| Q19) In response to the question about certified cost and pricing | A19) The Government will be requiring other than certified cost & pricing data. The final solicitation will reflect this change and include the types of price/cost data required. |
| Q20) In response to factors and how they will be rated if they have both threshold and objective requirements | A20) All systems are required to meet threshold performance to be acceptable. The value gained by exceeding the threshold will be determined per section M of the contract. |
| Q21) In response to the question about "Technical volume" page limits | A21) The inconsistency will be corrected. The Technical Volume page limit is 105 pages. |
| Q22) In regard to the question about reviewing other sections of the contract | A22) The remaining sections of the contract will be shared when the PERM RFP is released. |
| Q23) In response to the question about the Maintenance Support Plan | A23) It is noted that submission of a formal SAR per MIL-STD-882 should not be required as it will be required after contract award as a CDRL deliverable. The requirement for submission of a SAR, QAP, and MSP will be removed from the Technical Volume 1. |
| Q24) In response to the question about the CPSCM in the Technical Volume | A24) The Government will clarify that the CPSCM should be included as an Annex to the Technical Volume, not Section A-Performance. |
| Q25) In response to the question in regard to which version of MIL-STD-810 should be used | A25) The contractor will be required to use the latest version of MIL-STD-810 at the date of solicitation release. |
| Q26) In response to the question about the responsible party for test range costs | A26) For Type Qualification Testing / Production Verification Testing, the Government is responsible for test range costs and test conduct. For LAT the contractor is responsible for test range costs and associated conduct. |
| Q27) In response to the question of Performance Specification paragraph 3.4.1 no longer being consistent with paragraph 3.2.2 | A27) The Government does not see any consistency issues with the requirements as written. However, there may be some discrepancy in the initiation time. The Government will review and clarify the requirement prior to the PERM RFP release. |
| Q28) In response to the question about the CDRL delivery schedule | A28) The CDRL delivery schedule will be available when the PERM RFP is released. |
| Q29) In response to the question about the SAR as part of the proposal Technical Volume | A29) It is noted that submission of a formal SAR per MIL-STD-882 should not be required as it will be required after contract award as a CDRL deliverable. The requirement for submission of a SAR, QAP, and MSP will be removed from the Technical Volume 1. |
| Q30) In response to the contractor safety analysis and its limitation to delivered product only | A30) Presuming the round is in accordance with PERM interface requirements as outlined in the PERM Performance Specification, then the contractor analysis is limited to the delivered product only. |
| Q31) In response to the difference in the Proof Pressure rounds and the WH Hot Barrel rounds | A31) 1. In a Proof Round the warhead needs to be inert in order to have the right heat flow. An inert round has a mass that simulates the characteristics of the material in this case for heat transfer. |
2. In a WH Hot Barrel Round: the warhead is empty to put in thermocouples to characterize the heat flow. An empty warhead does not contain any simulant.
Therefore, the rounds cannot be the same configuration.
| Q32) In response to the inconsistencies between the CLIN 1000 configuration table and the CLIN structure quantities | A32) The total quantity for CLIN 1000 is 162 rounds delivered per CLIN 1000 configuration table. The configuration table will be updated to reflect the proper quantities upon release of the PERM RFP. Additionally, the configuration table quantity for IM rounds will change from 40 or 25 to just 40. |
| Q33) a) In response to question regarding sub CLIN 1000AE and 1000AF being NSP |
b) In response to items being broken out as sub CLINs if not separately priced
c) In response to the question about the LAT rounds not including canisters and/or dunnage
d) In response to the questions about CLIN 1002 thru 1004 canister quantities not matching the round quantities A33) a) CLIN 1000AE and 1000AF are NSP and associated costs should be included as part of sub CLIN 1000AA and 1000AB.
b) The sub CLINs are broken out separately to ensure that the proper round and canister configuration are adhered to in the CLIN 1000 configuration table.
c) LAT is the contractors responsibility to conduct if LAT rounds require canisters and dunnage for the contractor to conduct LAT then it would be the contractors responsibility to include them into the price.
d) This was an error and the error will be corrected in the PERM RFP release. The round quantity is correct. The canister quantity will be corrected.
| Q34) In response to the question about "Options 2 through 4" and are they contingent upon the awards of all prior round options | A34) The issuance of orders will be identified in the schedule to provide the government with the greatest amount of flexibility based on the fiscal year requirements. The Governments intent is to award a contract which will include a 60 month ordering period, the schedule will identify the specific periods associated with the government requirements and contract line items . |
| Q35) In response to the question about pricing for CLINs 3000, 3001, 7000, 8000, 9000, 3002, 3003 and 3004 | A35) These CLINs will require separate pricing. |
| Q36) In response to the question about Volume 2 Business Section A and Section B | A36) The items a. through h. identified under L-4.8.1 are to be submitted as part of Section A - Price. Section A price tab should be marked as "Price." Items a. through h. should be tabbed separately under the "Price" Section. Section B Small Business Participation" should be tabbed as "Small Business Participation." The Small Business Participation Factor in L & M will be revised in the final solicitation to clarify the requirement for Sm Bus Participation Factor and submission of SubK plan by Lg Businesses. |
| Q37) In response to the certified Cost and Pricing and the required proposal submissions | A37) The Government will requiring other than certified cost & pricing data. The final solicitation will reflect this change and include the types of price/cost data required. |
| Q38) In response to the question about "Attachment (X)" under section L-4.8.1 and M-2.2 | A38) This attachment will be included as part of the PERM RFP release. |
| Q39) a) In response to the question about section M-2.2 the minimum quantity of 250 and is CLIN 1000 included as part of this statement |
| b) In response to the question about the Governments statement in M-2.2 "“from any combination of CLINs...” | A39) The minimum quantity for the subject contract will be the total price awarded for CLIN's 1000, 2000 and 3000 (this will also be the initial order under this contract) For CLINS 1001-1004 the government has established a minimum order quantity of 250 for pricing purposes only. | |
| Q40) In response to question about GFE/GFM | A40) This list will be included in the solicitation release. | |
| Q41) Are the PVT rounds intended to satisfy the FAT requirements or will FAT be performed during the Option 1 Award? | A41) PVT rounds (CLIN 1000) satisfy FAT requirments. | |
| Questions as of 22 May 2015 | ||
| Q41)The Contractor assumes that the due date identified on the Final SF33 will be at least 30 days after release. Is this assumption correct? | This assumption is correct | |
| Q42)The Contractor assumes the staffing plan referenced in Volume 2, although not identified in Volume 1 is required in Section L-6.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Management Capability. Is this assumption correct? | This reference is not associated with Volume 1 and will be removed from the RFP. | |
| Q43)L-6.5 Volume 3 – Past Performance, paragraph titled, Copy of Past Performance Questionnaires Previously Distributed, page 62 |
Offeror shall provide a copy of all questionnaires distributed with your proposal as Appendix III-A.
Please clarify if there will be an Appendix I and II in the final RFP.
| The reference to appendices will be removed form this paragraph. |
| Q44)F.2 DESTINATIONS AND TIME OF DELIVERY BY CLIN, CLINs 2000, 3000, 4000, and 5000, page 19 |
Deliveries to commence within 12 months of date of order and complete within 20 months of date of order. Delivery completion dates will be specified on individual orders, and shall be consistent with the production rate as proposed/accepted.
Section J Attachment 8 Price Matrix 18MAY Ordering Periods 2-4 POP states 24 months after issuance of award. Please clarify which POP is correct.
| Section F page 19 CLINS 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 will be corrected to 24 months after date of order. |
| Q45)F.2 DESTINATIONS AND TIME OF DELIVERY BY CLIN, CLINs 2002, page 20 |
Delivery to commence after delivery of CLINs 1000 and 2000. Delivery completion dates will be specified on individual orders, and shall be complete within 12 months after date of order.
Should CLIN 2000 be 1002? Please clarify
| Yes, CLIN 2000 in the Column will be corrected to 1002 | |
| Q46)SOW paragraph 3.8.2 indicates "The round quantities and configurations identified in the configuration table associated with this contract are the minimum required quantities to pass PVT. Therefore, should the Contractor design fail PVT, the Contractor will be required to supply rounds to replace any items that fail during PVT with a production test asset that will pass." How does the PERM Performance Specification reliability requirement get factored into determining whether a specific qualification test passes or fails and whether the hardware needs to be replaced? | The Government PVT rounds will be scored and/or assessed according to section 4 of the Performance Specification. The Offerors will need to assess their current level of risk and make a determination as to how many rounds they feel they will need to propose for CLIN 1000 taking into account the fact that at least 162 rounds must pass testing as defined in Section 4 of the performance specification. |
| Q47)SOW 3.8.2 states "The PVT shall demonstrate the adequacy and suitability of the Contractor's production processes and procedures for achieving the requirements in the PERM performance specification and the minimum first article requirements, as identified in attachment (2) of this contract." The P-Spec does not contain any reference to first article requirements. Please clarify. | The Government will correct this error. In the event the Solicitation refers to First Article, it should be presumed that the Government means Production Verification Test. |
| Q48)RFP section E, paragraph 6, Fuzing as an LAT critical standard is in conflict with P-Spec requirements. The LAT requires 100% reliability of the primary mode whereas the P-Spec (3.4.4.3) Fuzing reliability is 0.98 (T) including PD as backup. Please provide clarification of the requirement for LAT. | The Government will change 6.5 of Section E to read: “The fuze shall function in the commanded setting or PD mode unless in casualty condition.” |
| Q49)RFP section E, paragraph 6 - With the various reliability allocations and requirements identified in the PERM P-Spec, why are Duds and Mis-fires identified as LAT critical standards? | 6.3 Section E – Duds will be removed from this section as a critical standard. |
| Q50)RFP section E, paragraph 3 indicates ammunition acceptance will be based on government approved QAP’s. There is no reference to contractors generating or submitting QAP’s as part of the SOW and no associated CDRLs. Please clarify. | Following contract award the Government will supply the Government QAP. |
| Q51)RFP section E, paragraph 6 indicates "Rounds should be fired at 24 ± 2.5°F and +124±2.5°F in accordance with the PERM performance specification". Is the intent to fire LATs at (minus) -24 ± 2.5°F and +124±2.5°F? | Yes, Section E paragraph 6 will be corrected. |
| Q52)RFP section E, paragraph 2.1 indicates "Each lot of all up rounds (AUR) will consist of one lot of explosively loaded projectiles, one lot of rocket motors (as applicable), one lot of guidance navigation and control (GNC) sections (as applicable), one lot of fuzes, and one lot of propelling charges." Energetic subassemblies containing explosives/propellants are typically lot size limited based on maximum batch sizes. Will Projectile lot sizes, for LAT purposes, be limited based on maximum batch sizes of explosives, propelling charges, or rocket motor grains? | No. Hybrid lots may be provided so long as the constituent parts can be traced by serial number to each round. The following will be removed from Section E para 2.1: “Each lot of all up rounds (AUR) will consist of one lot of explosively loaded projectiles, one lot of rocket motors (as applicable), one lot of guidance navigation and control (GNC) sections (as applicable), one lot of fuzes, and one lot of propelling charges.” |
| Q53)RFP Section E, paragraph 3.4 indicates "The LAT will be conducted on a random sample as described in paragraph 2.2". Paragraph 2.2 indicates "The Government reserves the right to change verification level and to increase or decrease the sample size based on observed circumstances during the build process, requirements for overhead fire, or as a result of events involving fielded rounds". If the destructive LAT sample size changes, how will the LAT pass/fail criteria be adjusted? | Pass/fail criteria will be adjusted to maintain the same level of confidence. |
| Q54)RFP section L paragraph 6.3.1 instructs offerors how to fill out the CRM table (attachment 6) for the P-Spec requirements. How does the "Meet or Exceed" assessment apply to the SOW paragraphs identified in the CRM? | The Offeror will be required to populate the SOW section of CRM for proposal cross reference and indicate met or not met per section L. Statement of Work does not include any objectives, therefore the exceeds does not apply. |
| Q55)The P-Spec in section 3.8.1 references STANAG4439 Edition 3 but Appendix E references Edition 1. Please confirm the correct edition. | Edition 3 is the correct reference and will be corrected in the spec. |
| Q56)CDRL A008 Configuration Audit Summary Report (Physical) indicates delivery is required 60 days after contract award, however, the PCA will not occur until much later during the program. Please reassess the due date. | The Government will clarify. The CDRL due date will be changed to 60 post Physical Configuration Audit vice “60 days after contract award” |
| Q57)A002 Integrated Program Management Report DD Form 1423: It appears that the last paragraph in block 16 is a carry-over from the previous CFSR version. Items A through E are in addition to the standard formats included in the IPMR. Is the intent to include items A through E in addition to the standard formats of the IPMR? | Yes, intent to include items A through E in addition to the standard formats of the IPMR. |
| Q58)Software CDRLs A012, A013, A014, A015 are due 90 days following contract award. Recommend tying the due dates to prior to or after S/W FQT. | The Government will change the due dates to: 90 days prior to delivery of PVT rounds. |
| Q59)CDRL A01Q Test/Inspection Reports: Recommend defining what "immediately" means with regard to submittal of quick look reports. | Immediately for the purposes of A01Q will be 48 hours. |
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .