Q&A_RFP_M67854-19-R-5000.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Intelligent Power Distribution Panels Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- M67854-19-R-5000
- Issued by
- United States Marine Corps
About this file
This document contains a presolicitation notice and questions and answers related to solicitation number M67854-19-R-5000 for Intelligent Power Distribution Panels. The United States Marine Corps intends to issue a request for proposal in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019 for the design, engineering, fabrication, testing, production, and deployment of 200A, 800A and 1200A Intelligent Power Distribution panels to support an Intelligent Power Management System. The procurement will be a total small business set aside with a NAICS code of 221122. Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management to be eligible for award. The notice provides contracting office address and point of contact for any questions. The included questions and answers document clarifies requirements and specifications around weights, volumes, connector types and testing to ensure realistic technical expectations.
Responses to questions -- M67854-19-R-5000
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 44
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Questions
| Index | Document/Section | Paragraph | Question/Issue/Concern | Responses | |
| 1 | Solicitation/L 1.1 | 7 | The stated deadline of February 5, 2019 does not provide adequate time to make possible adjustments to the full proposal after the question deadline of January 18, 2019. An extension of 30 days after the question submission deadline of January 18 to deliver full proposals no later than February 19, 2019 is requested. | The proposal submission deadline has been extended to 20 February 2019. | |
| 2 | SOW/2.2 | 1 | Must all requests for waivers to Pspec requirements, if any, be made as part of the submitted proposal? | Any exceptions to the solicitation should be identified in the contractor's proposal. | |
| 3 | PSpec/3.1.4 | 1 | Does the application of demand limits apply to both input and output ports? | Output only. | |
| 4 | PSpec/3.1.5 | 1 | Does the application of energy limits apply to both input and output ports? | Output only. | |
| 5 | PSpec/3.1.8 | 1 | Is it a hard requirement that the Control Electronics Line Replaceable Unit be located on a side panel? Could it be located on top? | The Control Electronics LRU may be placed on the top panel though such placement would subject the LRU to potentially more sun load, rain, snow, and glare. Contractor would be responsible for ensuring LRU placed on the top panel meet all applicable requirements. PSpec will be updated via ammendment to revise LRU positioning. | |
| 6 | PSpec/3.1.23 | 1 | PSpec sections 3.1.60, 3.1.61 & 3.1.62 which explain the configuration for the 200A, 800A and 1200A IPD panels respectively, all call for input and output connectors to be either Pin & Sleeve or Cam Type 16. Please clarify what is meant by the statement in PSpec section 3.1.23 "...utilizing only Military Standard Class-L electrical connectors," | Other Services' and Allies' distribution panels may use Class-L connectors. The intent is to allow IPD, with Pin & Sleeve or Cam Type 16 connectors, to be able to connect to other systems that use Class-L connectors via a cable adaptor. Such adaptors are currently fielded and in our inventory. The Government does not require the Contractor to design/build such cables. | |
| 7 | PSpec/3.1.44 | 1 | What exactly is meant by "all IPD components"? How many of the 200A, 800A and 1200A IPD panels constitute "all" for the sake of this requirement?D8:D17E16D8:D18D8:D18D8:D20E16D8:D18D8:D19D8:D18E16D8:D18D8:D17D8:D16D8:D17D8:D18E16D8:D18 | Paragraph 3.1.44 of the PSpec will be updated via an amendment to clarify representive Micro-grid which is comprised of (1) 1,200 Amp IPD Panel; (2) 800 Amp IPD Panels; and (4) 200 Amp IPD Panels. | |
| 8 | PSpec/3.1.60 | 1 | The required weight of the 200A IPD panel is stated to be less than 160 pounds. The current weight of the 200A MEPDIS-R panel is 180 pounds. Is the 160 pound requirement correct? | Paragraph 3.1.60 of the PSpec will be updated via an amendment to revise weight requirements to 234lbs (T) and 174lbs (O). | |
| 9 | Solicitation/F | 2 | Please confirm that the first Delivery Order for the minimum of 15 IPD Panels can occur at any time within the first 12 months after contract award | The ordering period is through the first twelve months of the contract meaning the Government can issue the delivery order within the first 12 months of contract award. The Government intends to award 15 IPD panels upon contract award. | |
| 10 | Solicitation/B | 1 - 8 | Is it expected that SUPPLY/SERVICES ITEMS 0001 - 0008 be COMPLETED within the first 12 months after contract award OR that these items will simply be ORDERED within the first 12 months after contract award? | The Government can choose to issue delivery orders against ITEMS 0001 - 0008 within the first 12 months after contract period which constitutes the order period. The delivery periods for each item relies on additional instruction from sources such as Section F of the RFP or CDRLs provided in the RFP. | |
| 11 | Pspec/6.4 | 1 | If a requirement (eg. 3.1.8) has a stated Objective (O), but no stated Threshold (O), is it then not considered a "hard" requirement? In other words, is such a requirement to be interpreted as a "would like to have" rather than a "must have." | Paragraph 3.1.8 of the PSpec will be updated via an amendment showing a Threshold value. | |
| 12 | SOW/3.3.9 | 1 | Paragraph 3.3.9 of the SOW states that the "PQT/PCA shall be at the Contractor facility and is planned for 5 working days." It is assumed that portions of the PQT will include testing done at 3rd party laboratories and not at the Contractor facility, which will present logistical challenges. What, if any, exceptions will be made to this requirement? How will these exceptions be handled? | The intent is to conduct PQT/PCA at the Contractor facility and there are no plans to conduct PQT/PCA at 3rd party labortories. The Government will be using the PQT to ensure the effectiveness of the manufacturing process, equipment, and procedures. PCA formally examines the as-built configuration of each configuration item to ensure it is consistent with its item detail specification and Technical Data Package for the final product baseline. | |
| 13 | Is there a targeted amount to be spent for development in year one? | No. Any developmental cost will be rolled into contract CLINs. | |||
| 14 | Is this current solicitation a re-issue of the previous requirement under contract M67854-13-R-5006 with | ||||
| MARCORSYSCOM from 2012 or is it a new requirement with new technical requirements? | No, this is a New Start Program. | ||||
| 15 | The SOW identifies this effort as including the design, engineering development, fabrication, developmental testing, production, and deployment of Intelligent Power Distribution (IPD) panels used to support the Intelligent Power Management System (IPMS). It is our understanding that there is an incumbent company that provided the IPD panels on this program in the past. Would the incumbent company be required to conduct a development program with First Article requirements just as a new bidder would? | Yes. The Power Distribution Panels procured in the past will not meet the requirements set forth in this RFP. | |||
| 16 | Is it possible to examine the existing IPD panels that are being used on the program in order to evaluate the enhancement effort needed to meet the electrical and mechanical requirements? In association with this, would MARCORSYSCOM be interested in hearing about potential technical enhancements and cost savings that we could offer if it meant a modification to the Performance Specification? | No. The Marine Corps does not intend to conduct an Industry Day. Interface information is publicly available. The Government is not soliciting technical enhancements to the existing Pspec. | |||
| 17 | General Issue | 1. Performance Specification Section 3.1.24 2. RFP CLIN 0009 | There are two references in the RFP requirements surrounding the MEPDIS-R unit that only the current vendor would have access: |
1. Reference made in 3.1.24 of the Performance Specification document where our proposed system must integrate with the existing MEPDIS-R unit.
2. CLIN 0009 requires pricing for the retrofit of existing MEPDIS-R units to make them intelligent, yet the information and design details needed to accomplish this task is only available to the manufacturer of MEPDIS-R.
We ask that USMC provide the following so that everyone can respond to this solicitation:
A. An industry day as soon as possible in Stafford/Quantico, VA or Camp Lejeune, NC where a MEPDIS-R unit is made available for viewing and inspection, with the lid removed so that the internal components and configuration can be inspected and measured. We also ask that MARCORSYSCOM staff be available to answer specification questions we and others may have.
AND
B. Full design specifications (Technical Data Package (TDP) & 2 or 3 D drawings and BOM) of the MEPDIS-R to include, but not limited to, the electrical design, internal components and manufacturers of those components, physical measurements, dimensions, and configuration, and materials used.
| The Marine Corps does not intend to conduct an Industry Day. In regard to PSpec paragraph 3.1.24 , the offeror's IPD equipment must be able to operate with MEPDIS-R equipment without modification. Interface information is publicly available. In regard to CLIN 0009, there is no requirement to retrofit existing MEPDIS-R units. Please note that CLIN 0009 only requires the offeror to refurbish and retrofit the previously delivered IPD units it delivered under CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 so systems meet approved final configuration and can be placed into service. | |||
| 18 | General Issue | SOW: 3.3-3.6 | Q - Can the Government please provide copies of the DIs called out in the SOW? A list is provided below: |
DI-MISC-81183A
DI-SDMP-81465A
DI-IPSC-81436A
DI-SESS-80255A
DI-SESS-80639D
DI-MISC-80508B
DI-NDTI-80603A
DI-NDTI-80809B
DI-MGMT-81899
DI-TMSS-81675
DI- TMSS-81701
DI-TMSS-81819A
DI-SESS-80776A
DI-SESS-81759
DI-SESS-81874
DI-SESS-81758A
DI-SESS-81715
DI-RELI-80685
DI-TMSS-81700
DI-MGMT-81804A
DI-MGMT-81803
DI-SESS-81639
DI-ADMN-81249A
| DI-ADMN-81250A | Each DI can be found by searching in EverySpec site located at http://everyspec.com/ | |||
| 19 | General Issue | Amendment 1: Box 14 | Box 14 - The purpose of this amendment is to extend the proposal submission deadline. Under Section L-1.1 the proposal due date of 5 February 2019 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with 20 February 2019. |
Q – The requirements of the PSPEC and SOW are very comprehensive, and we request an extension. Will the Government grant an extension of 30 days to the proposal due date to properly respond to all parts of the proposal?
| No | |||
| 20 | Solicitation Section L | L-2.1 Organization of the Proposal L-2.2 Content of the Proposal (Part III> Past Performance (Factor 2) | Table 2. Proposal Sections – States the page limit for Part III Past Performance is 3 Pages. |
| Q – Given the detail requirements for relevancy of past performance that the Government is asking and since the Government allows for more than 3 past performance examples, will the Government increase the page limit to 10 pages? | No | |||
| 21 | Solicitation/Section L | L-2.1 Content of the Proposal (Part II Technical Volume) | Table 2 Proposal Section – States the page limit for Part II Technical Volume is 40 pages. |
| Q – The PSPEC and SOW are very comprehensive, therefore it is not practical, even when being concise to fulfill all the technical requirements in 40 technical pages. So, we respectfully request an increase of the pages for the Technical Volume. Will the Government increase the Technical Volume page limit to 80 pages? | No | ||||
| 22 | Solicitation/Section I | 52.209-1 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (FEB 1995) Sub paragraph (b) | Paragraph states - One or more qualification requirements apply to the supplies or services covered by this contract. For those supplies or services requiring qualification, whether the covered product or service is an end item under this contract or simply a component of an end item, the product, manufacturer, or source must have demonstrated that it meets the standards prescribed for qualification before award of this contract. The product, manufacturer, or source must be qualified at the time of award whether or not the name of the product, manufacturer, or source is actually included on a qualified products list, qualified manufacturers list, or qualified bidders list. Q- Does AS9100 Certification meet the requirement? | Yes. AS9100 is the International Quality Management System standard for the Aviation, Space and Defense Industry and meets the requirement. | |
| 23 | Solicitation/Section B | CLINs 0001,0002 and 0003 | All four CLINs require Step-Ladder Pricing FY 19. Q - Since these are deliveries for the first-year development efforts, we request that the Government remove the Step-Ladder Pricing requirement from these CLINs. Will the Government remove the Step-Ladder Pricing requirement for these CLINs? | No. The vendor may submit single quantity or multiple quantity step ladder prices. | |
| 24 | Solicitation/Section B Section F | CLINs 0001,0002 and 0003 DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE DELIVERY SCHEDULE | CLIN 0001 shows Quantity Minimum 1- Maximum 8. |
CLIN 0002 shows Quantity Minimum 1- Maximum 4.
CLIN 0003 shows Quantity Minimum 1- Maximum 3.
Page 15 of the Solicitation, second sentence states - A minimum of 15 Intelligent Power Distribution (IPD) Panels that consists of (8) 200 AMP IPDs, (4) 800 AMP IPDs, and (3) 1200 AMP IPDs shall be delivered to Aberdeen Test Center, MD within 8 months of issuance for the first Delivery Order.
| Q – Will Government please confirm that Page 15 is correct and represent the guaranteed purchases in Year 1? Will the Government change CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, and CLIN 0003 to reflect this? | Page 15 is correct. See Section G for contract minimum amount. | |||
| 25 | Solicitation/Section B Section F | SCHEDULE PLANNING | Monthly Rate of Production: After successful Production Qualification Testing (PQT), a minimum production rate of 30 units per month to be delivered commencing 90 days after execution of each delivery order, if not specified otherwise on each individual delivery order. |
| Q – Is this requirement 30 Units of each configuration (200 AMP), (800 AMP) and (1200 AMP) or is this a mix of configurations? If a mix of configurations what is the allocation of each configuration? | The requirement is a mix of 200 AMP, 800 AMP and 1200 AMP configurations totaling a minimum production rate of 30 combined units per month. Ordering quantities of each variant is not determined at this time so there is no set allocation of each configuration. The Monthly Rate of Production will be updated in an amendment. | ||||
| 26 | Other | PSPEC 3.1.25 | What is the definition of a major overhaul? | A major overhaul is defined as greater than 65% cost to repair. | |
| 27 | Other | PSPEC 3.1.44 | Is it the USMC intent that grounding of an IPD will occur through the ground going back to the generator or do we have to supply a separate grounding rod for each IPD? If so, what size grounding rod will be needed? Is the Offeror required to supply a grounding rod and associated cabling with each IPD unit? | The offeror will not be required to provide a grounding rod or associated cabling. However, Para. 3.1.60, 3.1.61 and 3.1.62 sets the requirement for hardware on the IPD to support attachment of a grounding cable. The Maine Corps intends to provide the grounding rod and cable as SL-3 items. | |
| 28 | PSPEC/3.1.10 | 5 | The last paragraph of section 3.1.10 of the Performance Specification talks about a power cable. Can you please clarify what this power cable has to do with the preceding paragraphs in this section? In other words, what is this power cable for? | Paragraph 3.1.10 of the PSPEC will be updated via an amendment removing the power cable requirement. | |
| 29 | PSPEC/3.1.60 | 1 | The inputs and outputs including connector types mimic the existing 200A MEPDIS-R panel. The weight requirement of 160 pounds is less than what the 200A MEPDIS-R panel weighs by 20 pounds. The performance specification requires additional metering, controls and communication that don't exist on the current MEPDIS-R panel but will ADD weight. Therefore, the 160 pound requirement seems unrealistic. A waiver is respectfully requested for this requirement. | Paragraph 3.1.60 of the PSPEC will be updated via an amendment to revise the weight requirements to 234 lbs (T) and 174 lbs (O). | |
| 30 | PSPEC/3.1.60 | 2 | The inputs and outputs including connector types mimic the existing 200A MEPDIS-R panel. The volume requirement of 10.39 cubic feet is less than the current 200A MEPDIS-R panel. The performance specification requires an HMI, Control Electronics Line Replaceable Unit and communication that don't exist on the current MEPDIS-R panel which has no additional surface space for such additions. Therefore, the volumetric requirement seems unrealistic. A waiver is respectfully requested for this requirement. | Paragraph 3.1.60 of the PSPEC will be updated via an amendment to reflect a volume of 13.00 ft3 (T) 10.39 ft3 (O) and be less than 36 inches in height. | |
| 31 | PSPEC/3.1.61 | 1 | The inputs and outputs including connector types mimic the existing 800A MEPDIS-R panel. The weight requirement of 310 pounds is nearly the same as the current 800A MEPDIS-R panel. The performance specification requires additional metering, controls and communication that don't exist on the current MEPDIS-R panel but will ADD weight. Therefore, the 310 pound requirement seems unrealistic. A waiver is respectfully requested for this requirement. | Paragraph 3.1.61 of the PSPEC will be updated via an amendment to revise the weight requirement to 381 lbs (T) and 306 lbs (O). | |
| 32 | PSPEC/3.1.61 | 2 | The inputs and outputs including connector types mimic the existing 800A MEPDIS-R panel. The volume requirement of 17.3 cubic feet is identical to the current 800A MEPDIS-R panel. The performance specification requires an HMI, Control Electronics Line Replaceable Unit and communication that don't exist on the current MEPDIS-R panel which has no additional surface space for such additions. Therefore, the volumetric requirement seems unrealistic. A waiver is respectfully requested for this requirement. | Paragraph 3.1.61 of the PSPEC will be updated via an amendment to reflect a volume of 21.70 ft3 (T) 17.30 ft3 (O) and be less than 36 inches in height. | |
| 33 | PSPEC/3.1.62 | 1 | The inputs and outputs including connector types mimic the existing 1200A MEPDIS-R panel. The weight requirement of 350 pounds is nearly the same as the current 1200A MEPDIS-R panel. The performance specification requires additional metering, controls and communication that don't exist on the current MEPDIS-R panel but will ADD weight. Therefore, the 350 pound requirement seems unrealistic. A waiver is respectfully requested for this requirement. | Paragraph 3.1.62 of the PSPEC will be updated via an amendment to revise the weight requirement to 389 lbs (T) and 320 lbs (O). | |
| 34 | PSPEC/3.1.62 | 2 | The inputs and outputs including connector types mimic the existing 1200A MEPDIS-R panel. The volume requirement of 17.3 cubic feet is identical to the current 1200A MEPDIS-R panel. The performance specification requires an HMI, Control Electronics Line Replaceable Unit and communication that don't exist on the current MEPDIS-R panel which has no additional surface space for such additions. Therefore, the volumetric requirement seems unrealistic. A waiver is respectfully requested for this requirement. | Paragraph 3.1.62 of the PSPEC will be updated via an amendment to reflect a volume of 21.70 ft3 (T) 17.30 ft3 (O) and be less than 36 inches in height. | |
| 35 | PSPEC/3.1.59 | 1 | What are the parameters/guidelines (e.g. duration of test) for the testing associated with this requirement? | Until a large data set of operational and maintenance hours is achieved following system deployment that would provide numerical quantification of uptime and downtime (to include responsiveness of the logistics support system), inherent operational availability shall be based on computation of the reliability from all components that make up the item. The program office will rely on analysis to assess Operational Availability (inherent) using the following planning factors: 1000 hours per year of operation for the planned duration of 15 year life cycle. This will be reflected in an amendment to paragraph 3.1.59 of the PSpec. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .