190211_19R1500_Industry_QA.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Lightweight Plate Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- M67854-19-R-1500
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for Lightweight Plate issued by the United States Marine Corps. The solicitation seeks proposals for lightweight hard armor plates to meet requirements in Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010. Key details include questions from industry are addressed relating to sample submission requirements, testing protocols, drawings, and pricing. Clarification is also provided around capacity requirements, defects criteria, and packaging specifications. The closing date for proposals is March 18, 2019 by 1:00 PM Eastern time and should include both the written response and source selection sample plates.
Updated Industry Q&As
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Lightweight Hard Armor Plate RFP Q&As | ||||
| Industry Question | Gov't Response | Amendment # | ||
| 1 | One of the contracts we are using for past performance is a direct commercial sale contract with a foreign government customer and the questionnaire will need to be translated. Also the completed questionnaire will likely be sent back to you in a foreign language. Do you see any issues with this? | Yes, all correspondence must be in English. | 0003 | |
| 2 | In the event that you do not receive a completed questionnaire in support of past performance, is this viewed negatively and will it impact the evaluation process? | Please refer to Section M.3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance. | ||
| "NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable." | 0003 | |||
| 3 | Can green ESAPI color spall be used on the PDMs with the understanding that a new color such as black will need to be on the plates for the FAT and production plates? | Yes, Offerors may submit a Green ESAPI color spall cover for the source selection samples, along with clarification regarding whether and how the Offeror will comply with Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010, section 3.5.2 for FAT and production plates. FAT and production plates shall adhere to Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010, section 3.5.2 for the Lightweight Plate color. | 0003 | |
| 5 | Can the new plate sizes be excluded from the PDM submissions given the lack of available drawings at this point in time and replaced by more of the other sizes? | Please refer to Section L.3.2.1.2 Source Selection Samples, Table 2: Source Selection Samples. For source selection, the Government requires only the following sizes: XS, SM, MD, LG, XL, 6x6, and 6x8. | 0003 | |
| 6 | Is it the USMC's intention to flow the new drawings for Extra Small-Short and Small-Short to the bidders when they become available at some point later in the bid process? | The Government will provide the drawings for Extra-Small Short and Small- Short upon availablity after award. Please refer to Section L.3.2.1.2 Source Selection Samples, Table 2: Source Selection Samples. For source selection, the Government requires only the following sizes: XS, SM, MD, LG, XL, 6x6, and 6x8. | 0003 | |
| 7 | Small-long, extra-small short and small short torso plate drawings were not included. Do you when they will be available? | The Government will provide the drawings for Extra-Small Short and Small-Short upon availablity after award. The Government will provide the drawings for Small-Long (Rev A4) with Amendment A003. Please refer to Section L.3.2.1.2 Source Selection Samples, Table 2: Source Selection Samples. For source selection, the Government requires only the following sizes: XS, SM, MD, LG, XL, 6x6, and 6x8. | 0003 | |
| 8 | These are the same exact same drawing revisions as were released with the draft solicitation. We have been told for the last several months that you were going to be opening up the tolerances on these. Do you know if there will be further revisions to these issued? | The Government will provide updated drawings (Rev A6 for sizes XS, SM, MD, LG, XL, and Rev A4 for SM-Long) that provide an updated tolerance for the body side surface profile as well as updated height, width, chamfer, and corner radius dimensions with parallelism and perpendicularity geometric dimensioning & tolerancing. The Government will provide the drawings for Extra-Small Short and Small-Short upon availablity after award. Please refer to Section L.3.2.1.2 Source Selection Samples, Table 2: Source Selection Samples. For source selection, the Government requires only the following sizes: XS, SM, MD, LG, XL, 6x6, and 6x8. Rev A6 and Rev A4, posted with amendment A003 will contain the new tolerances for all sizes. Amendment A003 will not, however, contain drawings for Extra-Small Short and Small-Short. | 0003 | |
| 9 | Section 2.2.2 Drawings - It is noted that revised drawings with updated tolerances and sizes X-small Short, Small Short and Small Long are pending. When do you expect to release these updated drawings? | The Government will provide the drawings for Extra-Small Short and Small-Short upon availablity after award. The Government will provide the drawings for Small-Long (Rev A4) with Amendment A003. Please refer to Section L.3.2.1.2 Source Selection Samples, Table 2: Source Selection Samples. For source selection, the Government requires only the following sizes: XS, SM, MD, LG, XL, 6x6, and 6x8. | 0003 | |
| 10 | Section 4.4.2 Dimensional Measurements - It is noted that two length and width measurements will be made on each plate, and that no perimeter surface profiles shall be used to determine dimensional conformance. The current version of the drawings do not have any tolerances for the plate profile other than the perimeter surface profile tolerance. How will conformance to length/width, parallelism/perpendicularity and chamfers be determined for Table 7? What is the criteria for pass/fail? | The Government will provide updated drawings (Rev A6 for sizes XS, SM, MD, LG, XL) for the tolerance for the body side surface profile as well as updated height, width, chamfer, and corner radius dimensions with parallelism and perpendicularity geometric dimensioning & tolerancing. Pass fail criteria is in Table 7 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010. | 0003 | |
| 11 | Section 4.4.2 Dimensional Measurements - Area of coverage is noted as a requirement as well but no values are given for the minimum and maximum area of coverage criteria. Will these values be provided? | The Government will not provide the values. The Government will provide updated drawings (Rev A6 for sizes XS, SM, MD, LG, XL) for the tolerance for the body side surface profile as well as updated height, width, chamfer, and corner radius dimensions with parallelism and perpendicularity geometric dimensioning & tolerancing. Per paragraph 4.4.2, area of coverage tolerances are derived from calculating the minimum and maximum area using the minimum and maximum dimensions from the ESAPI drawings Rev A6. | 0003 | |
| 12 | Appendix A Ballistic First Article Test Protocol - Per A.3.5 FAT Part 2 Rejection Criteria, the second shot calculated P(nP) requirement is now 90% where previously it was 70%. The FAT Part 1 Rejection Criteria (per A.2.5) has a second shot requirement of 70%. Note the 90% requirement is a very difficult second shot criteria and drives increased weight in the design. Was the change to FAT Part 2 second shot criteria intended? | Yes. 90% P(nP) for first shot and 90% P(nP) for the second shot, both at 80% confidence level. | ||
| 0003 | ||||
| 13 | Given that the ISO 9001:2008 standard was replaced on September 15, 2015 with ISO 9001:2015, can references to ISO 9001:2008 contained in the solicitation be changed to ISO 9001:2015? | |||
| Note that ISO 9001:2008 is no longer an applicable standard. From the reference, https://www.iso.org/iso-9001-revision.html, organizations that were certified to ISO 9001:2008 were granted a three-year transition period after the 2015 revision had been published to migrate their quality management system to the new edition of the standard; this transition period ended on September 15, 2018. | Yes, the Government will amend the references from ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001:2015. | 0003 | ||
| 14 | In Section D.2.4.1 of the Solicitation, can you provide a definition for the “surveillance number”? | The Government will amend the solicitation by deleting and no longer requiring Section D - Packaging and Marking, Paragraph 2 in its entirety. | 0003 | |
| 15 | Can the government provide the Security Classification Guide (SCG) DD-C3I(AR)I418, Soldier Protection System (SPS) & Associated Soldier Protective Equipment, Version 18.0, dated 23 September 2014? | Yes. Offerors needing the the Security Classification Guide (SCG) DD-C3I(AR)I418, Soldier Protection System (SPS) & Associated Soldier Protective Equipment, Version 18.0, dated 23 September 2014 should email a request to Erin Howard at erin.howard1@usmc.mil. | 0003 | |
| 16 | Are source selection samples being testing in conjunction with the Pathfinder shootpack, MSV II shootpack, or PC Gen III shootpack? Section M.3.1.1 states that Government will conduct all testing in conjunction with the Pathfinder shootpack. However, Table 4 in the same section calls out Performance Specification Section 3.7.5 which references testing in accordance with the FAT protocol, which uses MSV II or PC Gen III shootpacks. Please confirm that the source selection testing will ONLY use Pathfinder shootpacks. | Per Section M.3.1.1, the Government will test Source Selection Sample Lightweight Plates at an National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified test facility to determine the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements set forth in Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010. The Government will conduct all source selection testing in conjunction with the Pathfinder shootpack. | 0003 | |
| 17 | The Lightweight Plate must perform in conjunction with the MSV II and/or PC Gen III soft armor. Can the government provide to the Contractor or make available for procurement by the Contractor MSV II and PC Gen III shootpacks? | No. Per Section M.3.1.1, during source selection, the Government will not test using the MSV II or the PC GEN III soft armor, but will instead conduct all source selection testing using the Pathfinder shootpack. The Pathfinder shootpack is commercially available. | 0003 | |
| 18 | Will the government supply the MSV II and/or PC Gen III shootpacks for FAT and LAT? Or is the contractor expected to cover the cost of those items? | The Government will provide the shoot packs for FAT. The Contractor shall be responsible for all LAT costs, to include the cost of the shoot packs. | 0003 | |
| 19 | Where should Source Selection Samples be delivered? (Page 65 of the RFP). | The Government has not yet identified the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Lab that will conduct ballistic and non-ballistic tests of the Source Selection Samples. The Government will inform offerors via a solicitation amendment posted on Fed Biz Opps of the NIJ Lab and delivery address as soon as that information is available. | 0003 | |
| 20 | Can the requirements for the “dry lay ups” (page 67) be defined? Does the Government expect components and subsystems to be separately provided? For example, does the Government want a consolidated (laminated) backer or individually cut plies of backer material? | No, the Government does not define the dry lay ups because the offerors determine how to comprise their dry lay ups based on their solution. | 0003 | |
| 21 | Amendment 0002 extended the due date of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses. However, Section L.3.2.2 (4) still requests a list of POCs from the Offeror to whom questionnaires were sent within 20 calendar days after solicitation release. Can the date by which the Offeror must email a list of all POCs to the Contract Specialist be extended to “on or before 30 days prior to the closing date and time of this solicitation”? |
This will allow Offerors to fully identify the most relevant and pertinent contracts of interest to the Government for this Solicitation. Will the government make the following edit to Section L.3.2.2 (4):
| “On or before 30 days prior to the closing date of this solicitation Within 20 calendar days after the solicitation’s release, the Offeror shall also email the Contract Specialist a list of all POCs to whom it sent a questionnaire.” | The Government will amend Section L.3.2.2. (4) Section 4 - Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire as follows: "The Offeror shall also email the Contract Specialist a list of all the POCs to whom it sent a questionnaire on or before 30 days prior to the closing date and time of this solicitation." | 0003 | ||
| 22 | Per Section L.3.2.4.1, a single blended price is required. In Section B, the high level CLINs (0002, 0003, 0004, 0005) have sub-CLINs with no quantities listed. Is the price just to be completed at the high level CLIN where a quantity is listed? | Yes, pricing is at the high-level CLIN (0002 and 0003). The Government will amend the solicitation by deleting CLINs 0004 and 0005 due to removal of DLA packaging requirements. | 0003 | |
| 23 | As shown on page 79, at contract award, the Government will incorporate the Offeror’s verified claimed weight as the threshold for contract performance. Will any type of weight (or thickness) tolerance be accounted for in establishing that threshold? Or will the threshold just be determined based on the source selection samples provided? | Per section M.3.4.2, the Government will incorporate the awardee’s Government verified claimed weight into the Performance Specification and it will become the threshold for contract performance. | 0003 | |
| 24 | Is there a label size requirement or preference | No. Per section L.3.2.1.2, the source selection samples should contain a label that includes the Solicitation number, unique identifier (e.g., serial number) and the Offeror’s Name. There is no specific size requirement. For production, the Government will approve labels per 3.5.3 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010. | 0003 | |
| 25 | Should the Source Selection Sample labels be remove-able? | Per section L.3.2.1.2 The samples should contain a label that includes the Solicitation number, unique identifier (e.g., serial number) and the Offeror’s Name. There is no requirement that the label be removeable. | 0003 | |
| 26 | Will the Government respond to questions generated based upon the answers provided to earlier questions? | Offerors may submit questions at any time. In accordance with solicitation paragraph L7, Questions Regarding the Solicitation, the government may respond to additional questions. | 0003 | |
| 27 | Is it the USMC's expectation that the 12,500 per month capacity is available in month one of production? | No. Per Section L.3.2.1.6, the Government expects, and will evaluate, the offerors' ability to produce at least 6,000 front/back plates and 6,000 side plates per month by 120 days after FAT approval. Offerors may assume FAT approval will occur 180 days after contract award. | 0003 | |
| 28 | "Ten or more items less than 0.0625 in any dimension per insert". Can the USMC define a reasonable lower bound that can be applied to this criteria as "no defect" which will not be counted toward this limit of 10 pcs? As it is written, plates could be counted against the minor defect limit for having 10 pcs of 0.001" FOD which would be nearly impossible to screen for. Recommend that the lower limit be set at 1/16" below which all FOD is "No Defect". | Yes. The Government will find a minor defect whenever ten or more of any item measures less than 0.0625 inches but greater than 0.03 inches in any dimension per insert. The Government will update Table 7 in the Specification. | 0003 | |
| 29 | The FOD requirements for defects # 10, 11, & 103 do not line up with industry capability for the raw materials. One example is the backing material where there are only two primary competitors. The Honeywell Spectra Shield customer spec marks FOD defects greater than 0.25" x 0.25". The DSM Dyneema external spec marks FOD defects greater than 1.0" x 1.0". This would mean that the plate manufacturer will be forced to perform an extremely thorough secondary inspection to remove FOD down below 0.0625" and absorb the cost of any defective material which in turn will result in higher costs being passed on to the USMC. Can the FOD requirements be updated to match raw material production capabilities? | The FOD requirements for defects 10, 11 and 103 will remain consistent with Table 7 in Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010. | 0003 | |
| 30 | Zero allowance for any wrinkles will cause a notable amount of rework for certain spall methods. Can the wrinkle requirement be reworded to be in line with "W91CRB-13-C-0045, SPS VTP LRIP, which allowed for wrinkles up to 2.0" long and .050" tall so long as the wrinkles do not interfere with the label or wording on the spall? | No. Per section 3.2.2 in Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010, the cover, including all edges, shall be free of cuts, holes, tears, abraded areas, wrinkles, bubbles, or creases. There shall be no visible peeling, wrinkles, bubbles, or creases of the cover before or after any operating environment conditioning when verified in accordance with section 4.4. | 0003 | |
| 31 | Patches, "clamps," and other materials with partial or interrupted coverage of the Lightweight Plate surface area shall not be acceptable." Does this include patches in the spall cover? | A patch in the spall cover would not inherently constitute a major or minor defect. If the patch affects any other criteria in Table 7 of the performance specification, however, the effected aspect of the source selection sample may constute a major or minor defect depending on the circumstance. Per section 3.4.1 in Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010, the Lightweight Plate shall provide uniform areal density (materials coverage) throughout the entire surface area of the Lightweight Plate. Materials shall extend from edge to edge to provide uniform thickness throughout the entire surface area of the Lightweight Plate. “Patches,” “clamps,” and other materials with partial or interrupted coverage of the Lightweight Plate surface area shall not be acceptable. | 0003 | |
| 32 | Can defects #22, 104, 105 be updated to include all dimensional features on the drawings (wear surface profile, surface area coverage, thickness)? It is not currently clear if these defects are critical or minor. | No, the Government will not update the criteria 22, 104, and 105. Per Table 6 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010, any thickness out of tolerance is a critical defect, dimensional non-conformance for under length or width is a critical defect, and any other dimensional measurement out of tolerance is a minor defect. | 0003 | |
| 33 | "Ballistic test records for the Lightweight Plate shall be durably marked and traceable from production through to each finished lot." What does this mean? Is this a mistake in the wording of the spec? | It means that the Government must be able to trace ballistic test records from production through to each finished lot. In order to faciltate this tracking, the Government requires the contractor to include a durable mark on the Lightweight Plate containing the required information in Section 3.3 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010. The Government will amend the specification for clarity. | 0003 | |
| 34 | Can side plate length/width measurement locations be added? Can locations "at the chamfered edges" be moved slightly inboard from the chamfers to avoid A) confusion in determining the exact start of the chamfer and B) unusual phenomena which occur right at the chamfer start that are not indicative of the rest of the edge (such as localized edge foam compression, etc.).? | The Government has provided the locations for the length and width measurements for the side plates. Per section 4.4.2 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010 and the drawing in section 2.2, the Government will make two length and width measurements on each sized plate. The Government will not move the locations of the measurements depicted in the drawing at section 2.2. | 0003 | |
| 35 | Can a more detailed scope on the IPRs be provided in order to help give more accurate quote input? | No. The IPRs constitute routine communication between the parties. Per Section C 4.3.3, IPRs will occur no more than quarterly at dates and locations mutually agreed upon by the Government and the Contractor. The meetings generally occur only when the Contractor is under production to meet delivery orders under the contract. Topics such as complying with contract requirements, identifying and resolving problems, and assessing manufacturing performance, could be matters that necessitate face-to-face meetings. | 0003 | |
| 36 | "The Contractor, with Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) surveillance, shall conduct any non-destructive tests the Contractor elects to retain internally at its own facility. The Contractor shall be responsible for conducting the destructive and x-ray portions of LAT at ATC or any of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certified independent commercial laboratories in accordance with the performance specification. During LAT, non-destructive testing on each lot shall be complete before submitting the lot for destructive testing." Does this give the contractor the option to perform everything other than BLAT & X-ray on-site w/ DCMA oversight? | Yes as long as the test requirements and methods meet the Lightweight Plate Performance Specification and QALI. | 0003 | |
| 37 | What is the anticipated order quantity for the initial order? | The initial order quantity will depend on unit price. As a result, the Government cannot identify an initial order quantity at this time. | 0003 | |
| 38 | Can the USMC accept tiered pricing with various quantity price breaks? For example, breaks at every 50,000 parts? Pricing at solicited maximum order quantity with no minimum order quantity or order timing is incredibly risky for industry. This is likely to result higher costs for the USMC due to industry having to price in this risk. | No, but, although subject to change due to the availabilty of funds, the planned Marine Corps requirement for the Lightweight Plate's period of performance is 53,712 complete sets. The Government cannot anticipate incremental delivery order quantities useful for tiered pricing until funds are available. | 0003 | |
| 39 | Can the USMC lock in the size tariff for the plates? The ability for the USMC to change the size tariff post solicitation is likely to result higher costs for the USMC due to industry having to price in this risk. | Not at this time because the exact tariff depends on the physical makeup of the force at the time of the delivery order. The Government will establish final tariffs on each Delivery Order. The anticipated tariff for this contract (provided for informational purposes only) can be found in Section F, page 30. | 0003 | |
| 40 | Packaging for the DLA CLINs calls out for 4 plates to be packaged into an intermediate box and then 6 of the intermediate boxes to be packed into a shipping box. If we pack 24 plates into a box no one person will be able to lift it. Historically we have always packed 12 plates into a shipping box and as an example the weight of 12 XL plates packaged in a shipping box was 94 pounds. Can these packaging requirements be changed to match that of the USMC CLINs. | The Government will amend the solicitation by deleting and no longer requiring Section D - Packaging and Marking, Paragraph 2 . Offerors shall pack all CLINs in accordance with Section D, Paragraph 1. | 0003 | |
| 41 | In the wording "visual end item inspection shall take place to ensure the entire plate is covered completely with a spall cover, with no rips, tears, cuts, blistering, bubbling or separation between the materials". Table 7 under the finished end item section states that bubbles or blisters in cover greater than 0.125" in diameter are a minor. Can this conflicting set of requirements be changed to point to the requirements in Table 7? | Yes, the Government will update section 4.4 to reflect Table 7. Per Table 7 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010, rips, tears, cuts, or openings in covering material will be rated a critical defect and bubbles or blisters in cover greater than 0.125 inches in diameter will be rated as a minor defect. | 0003 | |
| 42 | A 15 week extension to the submission of the Lightweight Plate Solicitation RFP is requested | Per section L.2.2, proposals are due no later than 1:00PM Eastern Standard Time on 18 March 2019. | 0003 | |
| 43 | Section 3.7.4, 3.7.5 – Required V50 Ballistic Protection Limit, Required V0 Resistance to Penetration Ballistic Performance - Per Table 2 and 3, Threat 3 has a V50 velocity requirement of 3250 ft/s and a V0 velocity requirement of 3150+50 ft/s. We believe these velocities are higher than the capability of Threat 3 and actually match a different threat (same caliber/size/rifle, but lighter weight bullet). | The Government will update the velocity requirements found in Section 3.7.4 and 3.7.5 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010 to reflect a V0 velocity requirement of 3100+50 ft/s and a V50 minimum velocity requirement of 3200 ft/s. | 0003 | |
| 44 | During internal testing Threat 3 has become the design threat due to the higher velocity requirement (rather than Threat 2, which was initially believed to be the Threat driving this design). Would USMC be willing to review this velocity requirement and potentially lower it? | The Government will update the velocity requirements found in Section 3.7.4 and 3.7.5 of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010 to reflect a V0 velocity requirement of 3100+50 ft/s and a V50 minimum velocity requirement of 3200 ft/s. | 0003 | |
| 45 | Section 2.2.2 – Drawings - For the VTP solicitation they are moving to a Shooters Cut style torso plate. Will the USMC be updating to the Shooters Cut or staying with the classic ESAPI shape? | The USMC intends to maintain the plate shape described in Section 2.2.2 - Drawings of Performance Specification PRF-18001A0010, which is the ESAPI shape. | 0003 | |
| 46 | Drawing number 2-6-270 for the side plates is called out in this latest rev. of the PD, but that drawing is not provided. Please provide the updated side plate drawing(s) for both sizes of side plate. | |||
| Or, should we assume that you have combined both drawing 2-6-268 Rev. A2 and 2-6-269 Rev. A2 into the single new 2-6-270 drawing and that is the only side plate drawing called out on this latest rev of the PD. | The updated side plate drawings are included as attachments in Amendment 0004. | 0004 | ||
| 47 | After reviewing the FOD Defect requirements again in PRF-18001A0010 Ver 1.3, Section 4.4 Workmanship and Table 7 Defects, the requirements laid out in the Foreign Object Debris (FOD) exceed what raw material providers can manufacture to. In other standards (ex. DLA ESAPI – PD CO/PD 14-19 Rev J) a similar table exists but has one important difference. In the FOD portion it states: “Any foreign object debris or defect identified that is not associated with the Technical Data Package (TDP).” This language requires manufactures to identify what current raw material manufacturing capabilities are and Table 7’s Critical/Minor scoring would only count on things outside of the TDP. | |||
| Can the USMC insert this language into Table 7 in order to account for raw material suppliers manufacturing capabilities? | Yes, the Government will update the Performance Specification by adding the requested language into Table 7 prior to contract award. | 0004 | ||
| 48 | It is our understanding of the solicitation that the weight of the plate will NOT be rated separately from the cost of the plate, and instead will be factored into the price using the VATEP method. With all other factors and subfactors being equal, this would mean that after the TEP adjustment a 10% light weight plate at $350 (TEP)/each would lose to a Max Acceptable weight plate at $325 (TEP)/each. Is this interpretation correct? | Yes, the interpretation is correct, except the pricing evaluation will be based on the total contract value. The contract will be awarded in accordance with Section M.2 and it is unlikely all other factors and subfactors will be equal. | 0004 | |
| 49 | On the 18th of March, is this only the paper (electronic) tender response? Are the sample plates (roughly 50) due on this same date? If not, when are the samples due in regards to date after the submission date? | The entire proposal, including the written portion and source selection samples, is due no later than 1:00 PM EST on 18 March 2019. | 0004 | |
| 50 | What are the USMC requirements for a "dry-layup"? | The Government does not define the dry lay ups because the offerors determine how to comprise their dry lay ups based on their solution. | 0004 | |
| 51 | If the dry-layup occurs how is the IP that exists within the creation of the plate controlled and who owns the IP at this stage? | All Government personnel and agents involved with this source selection are subject to the laws and regulations predicting disclosure of confidential trade information, such as 18 U.S.C. 1905 and the Procurement Integrity Act. Submitting proposals creates no inherent transfer of IP rights. | 0004 | |
| 52 | If a Facility has an Interim Clearance at the time of Solicitation may they bid? | An interim clearance is not acceptable at the time of proposal submission. | 0004 |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .