SBNVG_19R1501_RFP_Responses_amendment_1.pdf

M67854-19-R-1501

Government Responses to Industry Questions

# Section Issues / Comments / Question Response

1 General Is the intent for the SBNVG to be a COTS product / contract, and is the customer open to amending the list of CDRLs accordingly?

The contract that results from this solicitation will be a commercial item contract for commercial products and services. Recommendations to amend the CDRL's will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Pg 3

CLIN 0001

Are the 20 SBNVG systems for testing and evaluation considered

First Article Test (FAT)? If so, would the government accept conformance A-test results, or will a FAT testing protocol be provided?

No, the first 20 systems are for Government only test and evaluation purposes as well as supportability demonstration. Conformance A test results are acceptable and are considered part of

Product Acceptance Testing for CLIN 0001.

Pg 3

CLIN 0001

Delivery of 20 SBNVG’s must occur within the first 30 days after the first delivery order for testing and evaluation.

How long does the Government anticipate the testing and evaluation phase will take to complete?

Will the delivery requirement (see SOW 3.1.2) of providing 650 systems in 120 days start from completion of the test and evaluation phase or from the issuance of the first delivery order?

Government testing will take approximately two months. PM IW will issue the first delivery order for 650 systems, the first 20 of which shall be delivered in 30 days, and the remaining 630 shall be delivered within 120 days after receipt of order.

Pg 3

CLIN 0001

Draft RFP states “delivery of 20 systems in 30 days after first delivery order.” Will the government accept 60 days?

Due to the Government's testing requirements and the requirement to provide capability to the

Operating Forces, the first 20 systems shall be delivered within 30 days of receipt of delivery order.

Pg 4

CLIN 0002

Can the Government please define exactly what items are to be included in CLIN 0002, e.g., operator’s manual, soft carry case, other?

Per SOW 3.1.2, delivery requirements are stated in terms of the complete SBNVG system.

If CLIN 0002 is purchased separately, are there specific delivery schedule requirements that must be achieved, or will the contractor be authorized to provide a delivery schedule at the time of delivery order award, as delivery could vary based upon the quantity of CLIN 0001 SBNVG’s already on order?

The RFP has been updated to clarify what is comprised in each CLIN.

Every CLIN other than CLIN 001 will have a delivery schedule of 20 per month starting 60 days after receipt of order.

Pg 4

CLIN 0002

Change title of CLIN 0002 to "Image Intensifier (I2) Assembly" to be consistent with Pspec The CLIN title will be updated accordingly.

Pg 4

CLIN 0003

Change title of CLIN 0003 to "External Battery Pack Power/Data

Cable" to be consistent with PSpec The CLIN title will be updated accordingly.

Pg 4

CLIN 0003

Please confirm the I2 Goggle Power/Data Cable is solely the bifurcated cable as called out in PSPEC 3.6.6.2.

Yes, PM IW will change CLIN terminology to match the PSPEC.

Pg 5

CLIN 0004

Change narrative of External Battery Pack to "External battery pack to power I2 Assembly and/or Thermal Assembly IAW

SBNVG..."

The CLIN description will be updated to clarify what is required.

Pg 6

CLIN 0006

Change title of CLIN 0006 to "Helmet Positioning Assembly" to be consistent with PSpec **THIS ONE MATTERS AS THE HELMET

MOUNTING BRACKET COMES WITH THE HELMET, NOT THE

GOGGLE"

The CLIN description will be updated to clarify what is required.

Pg 6

CLIN 0007

Change title of CLIN 0007 to "Thermal Assembly" to be consistent with Pspec

The CLIN description will be updated to clarify what is required.

Pg 6

CLIN 0007

Can the Government please define exactly what items are to be included in CLIN 0007, e.g., operator’s manual, soft carry case, other?

Per SOW 3.1.2, delivery requirements are stated in terms of the complete SBNVG system. If CLIN 0007 is purchased separately, are there specific delivery schedule requirements that must be achieved, or will the contractor be authorized to provide a delivery schedule at the time of delivery order award, as delivery could vary based upon the quantity of CLIN 0001 SBNVG’s already on order?

The RFP has been updated to clarify what is comprised in each CLIN.

Every CLIN other than CLIN 001 will have a delivery schedule of 20 per month starting 60 days after receipt of order.

Pg 7

CLIN 0008

Change title of CLIN 0008 to "Thermal Assembly Mounting

Bracket" and change narrative to "Mounting adapter for Thermal

Assembly attachment to I2 Assembly IAW SBNVG..."

The CLIN description will be updated to clarify what is required.

Pg 9

CLIN 0012

For pricing purposes, please provide clarification as to what the

Commercial Training Plan is to consist of.

Refer to section 3.3.11 of the SOW for the complete Training Plan requirements.

Pg 9

CLIN 0012

What is a “Commercial Training Plan”? Will this be required since there is no cross reference to the SOW?

Refer to section 3.3.11 of the SOW for the complete Training Plan requirements.

Pg 10

CLIN 0015

Please provide the SOW reference(s) within the CLIN description so we understand what “Training Conduct Support Document” consists of.

PM IW will remove the CLIN.

Pg 10

CLIN 0015

What is “Training Conduct Support Document”? Will this be required since there is no cross reference to the SOW?

PM IW will remove the CLIN.

Pg 12 -

Section E

If we have DCMA representatives on site can this be changed to

Inspection at Origin?

PM IW will update Section E of the RFP. The intent is for hardware CLINs to be inspected at Origin and the remaining CLINs to be inspected at Destination.

Pg 12 -

52.246-15

We will provide conformance A-test data and required supplier

Certificate of Conformance, would this be acceptable?

With regard to compliance with 52.246.-15, Certificates of Conformance must come from the

Prime Vendor of the contract. The Government will accept no Certificate of Conformance from suppliers without endorsement from the Prime.

Pg 13 -

Quality

Assurance

We will provide evidence of our Supplier Corrective Action process; would this be acceptable?

Yes, as long as it meets all of the requirements of

Quality Assurance in the contract.

Pg. 13

Quality

Assurance

Pg. 13, QUALITY ASSURANCE: paragraph calls out Government source inspection. Page 17, G-2 says: “It is expected that the cognizant DCMA office will assist the Issuing Contract Office, MARCORSYSCOM, with the inspection and acceptance of SBNVG

FAT and full rate production units.” All other areas within the

Draft RFP indicate Inspection and Acceptance will be performed at Destination.

Recommend the Government update the Final RFP to reflect

Inspection and Acceptance at Destination.

PM IW will update the RFP to remove reference to

FAT, as well as update inspections to occur at origin.

Pg 17 - G-2

Administrativ e Contracting

Office

FAT is mentioned in the last sentence and nowhere else in the draft RFP, was that an error?

If FAT is referring to the first 20 systems to be delivered and since

FAT is not referenced in the SOW, please remove as on-site

DCMA will be looking for a FAT result which will not be provided by us on each delivery order.

PM IW will update the RFP to remove reference to

FAT.

Pg 18

FAR

52.246-1

FAR 52.246-1 Contractor Inspection Requirements

This FAR clause located on page 18 should be deleted as a resultant award is expected to be above the simplified acquisition threshold.

PM IW will update the RFP to remove this FAR clause.

Pg 36

L.1 General

Instr

Page 36, General Instructions states, “Offerors may ONLY submit one proposal in response to this solicitation”.

Please confirm the requirement for only a single proposal from an individual offeror. If the requirement is for only one proposal for an individual offeror, may that proposal contain multiple configurations?

May the offeror propose a primary configuration with available options to meet objectives?

Will the availability of options be part of the overall proposal score?

Offerors may submit up to two proposals for consideration in response to this solicitation.

These proposals shall be stand-alone proposals and shall not co-mingle information. Each proposal shall strictly adhere to the proposal requirements of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate each proposal independently.

Pg 36 - L.1.1

Classified

Material

What is the estimated date the classified material will be available for review?

The final solicitation will provide instructions on how to obtain classified material that is part of the

RFP.

Pg 37 L.2.1

Proposal

Delivery

Address

Page 37, Section L.2.1: Are contractors authorized to hand carry proposal offerings to the delivery address provided if coordination is made in advance with the contracting officer?

No hand delivered proposals will be accepted. All proposals shall be sent by mail with adequate tracking procedures in place to ensure Government receipt of proposals can be verified (i.e. date and time received and name of individual that signed for the proposal(s)).

Pg 38

Section L3.1

Table 1

I recommend changing the page limit on Volume I to say the following

"35 pages, not including sensor performance modeling input decks."

Immediately after the table, or somewhere in the paragraph behind, I recommend adding the following:

"Sensor performance modeling input decks shall be provided via hard copy as raw output text files, and in electronic format appropriate to the modeling software utilized (ex., .xml for NV-IPM). Offerors shall specify which modeling software and version/date of the model is utilized for each sensor."

These input decks are at least 16 pages long (I've printed an example for a TWS) from NV-IPM, and there are two sensors (I2 and thermal), so that's 32 pages. The only way to compress the page count would be to make the font so small that it would be illegible. The number of data fields is determined by the software package, so they can't arbitrarily add extraneous information. We need these modeling decks in order to confirm the vendors are not making bad assumptions about the range performance of the system. Without an LUE and lab measurements, the models will be the only way we can assess whether their range predictions are any good.

PM IW will modify Section L to include language that will not include the sensor performance modeling input decks in the page count.

Pg 38

Section

L.3.2.1.1

Mandatory

Security

Rqmt

The second sentence of first paragraph needs to change

"The solicitation performance specification includes an objective requirement which refers to a separate specification classified at the SECRET level, which the Government will only release to

Offerors possessing the appropriate facility clearance (provided under separate cover upon request)."

Discuss whether it's good to add this immediately afterward:

"Offerors are not required to propose to this objective requirement in order to be eligible for consideration/award."

The first sentence on the second paragraph is both incorrect and redundant as the verbiage I've provided above explains what part is classified.

- ALL THE SPECS AND PARAGRAPH NUMBERS IN SECTION L.3.2.1.2

AND SECTION M TABLE 6 and TABLE 9 WILL NEED TO BE

UPDATED BECAUSE THE PSPEC HAS CHANGED!

Instructions for obtaining classified information will be provided in the final RFP.

Pg 38

Section

L.3.2.1.1

Mandatory

Security

Rqmt

a. Issue: Access to classified PSPEC

b. Background: Section L.3.2.1.1 Mandatory Security Requirement states “Offerors must have a minimum SECRET FCL at the time of proposal submission in order to receive classified material. The solicitation will include a Classified PSPEC (provided under separate cover upon request) at the SECRET level, which the

Government will only release to Offerors possessing the appropriate facility clearance.”

c. Question: Will the USMC sponsor company FCLs at this time, to allow adequate time for companies to ensure compliance with the Classified PSPEC?

PM IW will sponsor an FCL if offerors are awarded the contract and need access to classified information to fulfill the contract. Offerors will be able to submit a proposal if they do not hold an FCL clearance.

Pg 39

Attributes for

Technical

Perf

Will there be any relative priority or weighting of the attributes listed in the table on Page 39?

No.

Pg 40

L.3.2.2

Volume I –

Past Perf

Page 40, Section L.3.2.2: “Offerors shall submit up to three past performance references on DoD contracts.”

May we submit two past performances for our own company and one past performance for our major subcontractor, or do all three past performance references need to be for our own company?

Offerors shall submit three past performance references for work performed on DoD contracts.

At least two of the three references shall be for work performed as the prime contractor. Past performance references for offeror's subcontractors are not acceptable.

Pg 45

Section M.4

Page 45, Section M.4 just below Table 3: “Technical Performance is slightly more important than Past Performance and Past

Performance is slightly more than Price”. Suggest the

Government remove this sentence as it is in direct conflict with other elements in the RFP.

PM IW will update the RFP to deconflict this language.

Pg 45

Section M.3 and M.4

(After Table 3) have conflicting language about which is more important - Price or Past Performance.

PM IW will update the RFP to deconflict this language.

Pg 45

Section M.3 and M.4

Page 45, Sections M.3 and M.4: Will the Final RFP include

Weighting Parameters for Relative Importance of the Factors and

Ratings of Objectives?

There will be no weighting of the evaluation factors per se. That said, the relative importance of the factors will be detailed. As such, Technical is more important than Price, which is more important than

Past Performance, which is more important than

Small Business Participation. When combined, Technical and Price are significantly more important than Past Performance and Small

Business Participation. Within the Technical Factor, all the elements (design, and performance;

workmanship, manufacturing capability, and integrated product support) are equally important.

Pg 46

Section

M.5.1.1

Page 46, M.5.1.1: “Specifically, Offeror’s will receive a “strength” for each parameter that meets or exceeds objective requirements.” Do certain objectives have more weighting than other objectives?

Section L will clearly outline the selection criteria for the contract.

Pg 5

3.2.1 Prod

Descrip

The Contractor shall provide a PD that contains all of the information necessary to define the performance and configuration of the SBNVG.

Please clarify which Proposal Volume the PD is to be included in.

The PD shall be included in the Technical Volume.

37 General

There is a lot of highly proprietary information required with the submission of the proposal (test reports, data, maintenance concepts, training packages, etc.). That can put some companies acting as subcontractors in a very uncomfortable position of having to provide proprietary information to companies, submitting as primes, who are industry competitors. Those companies that are not awarded the contract will have gained competitive intelligence about proprietary equipment.

Recommendation: Highly sensitive and proprietary data submissions should be submitted directly from the company which has ownership, with the understanding that the details of it would be provided to the winning bidder upon contract award. The subcontractor could provide "higher level" summaries to the primes to support their bids.

The ONLY need for each of these primes manufacturers to have such information is to make their proposals compliant. We recommend sending this information directly to the Marines at the time of proposal submission.

Since we are still pre-RFP (industry info gathering), would MCSC consider this path to achieve the same end state.

The Government will only accept proposals from the prime.