190702_-_19R1566_QAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M67854-19-R-1566
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to solicitation number M67854-19-R-1566 for Plate Carrier Generation III Soft Armor. The Marine Corps seeks a Berry Amendment compliant soft armor component consisting of ballistic material and cloth cover meeting performance specifications. The solicitation is expected to be released in May 2019 and will require finished base vest inserts, side plate pocket inserts, and cummerbund inserts in various sizes as source selection samples. Evaluation criteria include technical and past performance factors, with price being approximately equal in importance to the combined non-price factors. Several questions were asked for clarification on requirements, evaluation factors, and sample quantities.
Updated Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
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
| Soft Armor x2 RFP Q&As | |||
| Questions | Responses | Amendment # | |
| 1 | There are now only 3 Factors for evaluation: 1) Technical, 2) Past Performance, 3) Price. However, on page 67, it states: “Factors 1 through 3, when combined, are significantly more important than price.” Please clarify. | Paragraph updated to state "Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are approximately equal to price." | 2 |
| 2 | Previously, the Technical Elements for Evaluation were listed in descending order of importance. The current solicitation does not state the order of importance. Please provide clarification on the order of importance for the technical elements. | The Elements under Factor 1 are not in any order of importance. All five elements will be assessed for deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses and the Technical Factor will be evaluated as a whole with the adjectival ratings in Section M, Table 3. | 2 |
| 3 | In Section L3.2.2.5-d (page 61), there is a requirement for a self-certification. However, the referenced wording for the certification was not included. | The Berry Amendment self-certification language can be found in Section K of the solicitation. Self-certification language has been added to Section L3.2.2.5, paragraph d. | 2 |
| 4 | Section L.3.1 of the RFP states that the "Offeror shall submit technical, past performance, small business participation, and business proposals as separate volumes…" However, Table 1 (on page 59 of the RFP) does not contain a small business participation volume. Please confirm whether the Offeror is required to submit a small business participation volume. | Small business participation has been removed from section L.3.1 as it is not a requirement for this solicitation. | 2 |
| 5 | Section L.3.2.2.5.d references "the below signed self-certification" but there is no certification language below this section. Should the Offeror use the language found in the Berry Amendment Self-Certification and Small Business Certification found on page 56 of the RFP? | Please see the response to question 3. | 2 |
| 6 | Section L.3.2.4 references "Volume IV - Business Proposal." Should this be Volume III - Business Proposal? | Yes. Section L.3.2.4 has been updated to state "Volume III - Business Proposal." | 2 |
| 7 | CLIN 009 on page 5 of the RFP provides the description as "Base Vest Insert - S." Should that read Base Vest Insert - SL?" | Yes. CLIN 0009 has been updated to state "Base Vest Insert - SL." | 2 |
| 8 | Are any of the five elements under Factor 1 given more or less weight in the evaluation? | The Elements under Factor 1 are not in any order of importance. All five elements will be assessed for deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses and the Technical Factor will be evaluated as a whole with the adjectival ratings in Section M, Table 3. | 2 |
| 9 | On page 67 of the RFP, under "Combined Technical/Risk Rating," it states that "Factors 1 through 3, when combined, are significantly more important than price." Given that Factor 3 is price, should the sentence read: "Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more than price?" Or is "Factors" in this sentence really referring to "Elements" under Factor 1? | Please see the response to question 1. | 2 |
| 10 | On page 67 of the RFP, under "Combined Technical/Risk Rating," it states that: "The Government will evaluate Past Performance and Small Business Utilization as either 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable'." Given that there is no small business volume and small business utilization is not an evaluation factor, should the reference to "Small Business Utilization" be deleted? | Yes. Sentence has been updated to read "The Government will evaluate Past Performance as either 'acceptable' or 'unnacceptable'." | 2 |
| 11 | Is Small Business Utilization (specifically, use of Disadvantaged, HUBZone, Woman-Owned, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses) going to be evaluated? If so, how? | No. Small Business Utilization is not a factor for evaluation and has been removed from the solicitation. | 2 |
| 12 | Do the unsewn shootpacks need to be in the nylon covers (either sealed or unsealed) or should just the ballistic filler material be included with the unsewn shootpacks? | The five unsewn 15"x15" shoot packs do not need to be in the nylon cover and should be in accordance with section 3.5.1.1 of the specification. | 2 |
| 13 | The performance specification at Section 4.2.1 (pages 16-17) states that four finished components per size are required as part of the FAT items (i.e. 52 completed inserts inclusive of all types and sizes). Furthermore, the pricing table in Section M (page 69) calls out 52 total inserts. However, CLIN 0001 on page 2 states that only 2 of each size is included in the FAT Materials. Which is correct? | CLIN 0001 on page 2 will be updated to state that 4 of each size should be included in FAT Materials. The list of FAT Materials outlined in section 4.2.1 of the Specification is correct and shall be used. |
| 2 | |||
| 14 | Please reference :4.8.9.1 (U//FOUO) Shot Spacing. All samples shall be tested with five (5) shots in the approximate pattern as described below. j) (U//FOUO) For LAT, for the sized inserts that are too small (XS-Short and SM-Short) to fit all test shots, the fifth shot can be omitted with BFD still being measured on the 1st and 4th shot. An additional insert and V0 test shall be completed to ensure a sufficient number of shots are collected. Should the government change this to read: BFD measured on Shot 3 & 4. Shot 1 is not measured on the larger sized plate carriers? | The BFD for XS-S and SM-Short should be measured on the 3rd and 4th shots during LAT. The Specification will be updated to reflect this prior to contract award. | 2 |
| 15 | The attachment included in Amendment 1 (Att_02_-_19R1566_-_SOFT_ARMOR_PATTERNS_6-4-19.zip) as well as the previous “.tmp” pattern files provided with the original solicitation posting do not include patterns for three of the Finished Base Vest Insert sizes: XS-S, SM-S and SM-L. However, these sizes are required as source selection samples. Can the Government provide the patterns for the Finished Base Vest Insert sizes (XS-S, SM-S and SM-L) which are required as part of the source selection deliverable per Section L.3.2.1 of the solicitation? | The XS-S, SM-S, and SM-L patterns are provided. The Ballistic inserts only alter in length (XS-S, SM-S, and SM-L) on the base vest inserts. In the files provided there is an alteration file and size code. These are the two tables that are needed to display those 3 altered lengths. Using the alteration file and size code will allow the vendors to alter the base vest sizes to display those lengths. This is separate from the grade rule table which only makes the main sizes (XS, SM, MD, LG, XL). |
| 2 | |
| 16 | For the referenced solicitation, can you tell me if the following PDM requirements are for sets or each: |
Side Plate Pocket Inserts 6x6 2 6x8 2
Cummerbund Inserts
SM 2
MD 2
| LG 2 | The source selection sample quantities required in Table 2 of Section L are for each. | 2 |
| 17 | Per Section L.3.2.1 in the RFP, “Offerors shall provide source selection samples in accordance with Table 2: Source Selection Samples. The samples should contain a removable label that includes Solicitation number, unique identifier (e.g., serial number) and the Offeror’s Name.” |
Is this to denote that all source selection samples (inserts and shoot packs) should ONLY have a removable label with the noted information and NOT include the Size, Identification, and Instruction label along with UID referenced in the Performance Specification?
Does the end user require a sample of a printed label with the required information to show compliance with the Performance Specification? If so, please indicate if such label should be adhered to the samples or simply included in the source selection sample submission? The samples should contain a removable label that includes: insert size, solicitation number, unique identifier (e.g., serial number), and the Offeror’s Name. The label shall be removeable so that it may be removed during testing so the test lab is unaware of a particular vendor's samples. The instruction label will not be required for source selection samples. The labels shall be adhered to the ballistic inserts without stitching.
| A sample of a printed label with the required information to show compliance with the Performance Specification is not required for Source Selection. | 4 | |
| 18 | Per Section 3.7.5 (b) within the Performance Specification (Size, Identification, and Instruction Label), “The instruction label shall be located on the inner side of the vest or ballistic component. The size of the label shall be appropriately scaled to fit the ballistic component. The type shall be no smaller than 10 point and shall be in accordance with MIL-DTL-32075, Type IX, Class 14.” However, Section 4.9.5 within the Performance Specification notes, “The labels shall be verified in accordance with Section 3.6.6 and MIL-DTL-32075, Type VI, Class 14.” |
There seems to be a contradiction between Section 3.7.5 and 4.9.5; which norm/spec is the correct spec?
Will the end user accept Type VII instead of Type IX if the supply chain cannot supply Type IX Berry compliant labels? The label shall be in accordance with MIL-DTL-32075, Type VI/VII/IX, Class 14. Section 3.7.5 (b) is correct and Section 4.9.5 of the Performance Specification will be updated.
| The end user will accept either Type VI, Type VII, or Type IX compliant labels. However, the label cannot be stitched to the insert and must remain permanently bonded to the garment and be resistant to removal by laundering, dry cleaning, and normal wear. | 4 | |||
| 19 | Per Section L.3.2.1 Table 2 Source Selection Samples in the RFP, “Finished Base Vest Inserts Size/Quantity,” Are Finished Base Vests 2 each per size or 2 sets per size? | The Finished Base Vest inserts are 2 each per size. | 4 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .