M6785421R1810 RHGPK RFP Questions_Continued.pdf

13. Request a 45-Day extension due to changes from the pre-solicitation TDP to the current TDP (which still contains missing drawings: See Question 2). The newest TDP has 46 additional new drawings not found in the original release. (Original release had 131 drawings, new release has 177). To provide best value to the government, these 46 new drawings require a significant amount of work to ensure a proper quote.

A- The RHGPK RFP due date will not be extended as requested.

14. On page 70/77 of solicitation M6785421R1810 paragraph L.4.c reference all required fill-ins to be completed. Paragraph L.4.d says the same thing for Section I. What document does this refer to? Is this the SF1449? SF30?

A- This refers to all required fill-ins of the solicitation for the section identified. A completed solicitation is required as part of Volume III.

15. Given the length of this quote (60 months) and the price volatility of the steel/aluminum markets (tariffs, recession, pandemic, etc.), does the government contemplate a material escalation clause such as FAR 52.216-2 and FAR 52.216-4

A- FAR clause 52.216-2 and 52.216-4 are not included in the RHGPK solicitation.

16. What is the overall projection for quantities the government will request?

A- This contract is dollar based, not quantity based.

17. What is the projected production rate per month?

A- Refer to Section L, L.3.4.1.2- Manufacturing Plan, of the solicitation.

18. Some drawings contain the verbiage “Vendor Controlled Drawing.” For example, drawing number 13064345 has this but has no drawing of the part and lists TACOM as the vendor. What is the Vendor Item Control Drawing? Does this mean we are required to buy from that source, in this case TACOM?

A- The TDP provides the information needed to either fabricate or aquire the parts needed for the requirement.

19. In the price matrix example, “The Offeror's are required to submit a pricing matrix in the same format as above but with the proposed prices based on the quantity breakdown as deemed appropriate by the offeror.” Does the government want us to follow the step-ladder pricing format provided or quote in quantities we deem necessary?

A- Attachment 5 has been updated. Follow the step-ladder pricing format provided.

20. For shipping purposes for the RHGPK System, what constitutes a kit? i.e. does one kit consist of a RHGPK, ITDS Kit, and the JLTV Conversion Kit? Or are all RHGPKs shipped together, ITDS Kits shipped together, and JLTV Kits shipped together?

A- The RHGPK system will be procured in three (3) separate kits: The RHGPK, the ITDS kit, and the Conversion kit. Please refer to the CLIN structure and Delivery information.

21. Can the government provide an example or template for the Provisioning Technical Documentation or of the Provisioning Part List PPL spread sheet required as a part of VOL II as outlined in Paragraph

3.2.6 of the SOW?

A- The spreadsheet will be provided by the Offeror.

22. In paragraph 3.2.6 of the SOW it states the PPL shall contain repair kits. What constitutes a repair kit? Does this include tools for example?

A- Section 3.6.1 of the SOW identifies a repair kit.

23. Does the government have a COVID contingency? Is there a clause or provision providing for this pandemic i.e. mandatory local govt. compliance, mass outbreak, etc.?

A- Contingencies are in place for awarded contracts. See https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pacc/cc/COVID- 19.html.

24. Does the government have a preferred format for CDRL prices? There is an example of RBL and of step ladder prices but no example for CDRL prices.

A- Please refer to Section L.4, Volume III- The Offer, (b).

25. In paragraph L.3.4.4 of the solicitation it states, “cover page for the Offeror’s SB Participation volume shall summarize the Offeror’s SB Participation goals for the total requirement using the below format” However, the solicitation only outlines two volumes, VOL1 Technical Vol. and VOL 2, Past Performance and Price VOL. Is the SB participation VOL 3?

A- Please refer to Section L.3.1, General Proposal Format, (b) which advises what volume SB participation is in.

26. Can the Government provide missing drawings from the TDP?

DWG 19200 – 13102670 Reducible Height Objective Gunner Protection Kit Missing Drawings:

13063376- Refer to official TDP, not draft TDP. This drawing is not referenced in the TDP of the official

RFP.

13019754- See p.59 14003562- See p.172

DWG 19200 – 13023999 Integrated Turret Drive System (ITDS) Kit Missing Drawing:

13064366- Refer to official TDP, not draft TDP. This drawing is not referenced in the TDP of the official

RFP.

27. RFP Section L.3.4.1.4 states, "Offerors shall provide an estimated production rate and schedule.

Offerors shall also describe their approach to building the product. Offerors shall describe their production resources, including manpower, production facilities and equipment, ability to procure materials and long-lead items. Offerors shall detail their capability to increase their production rate for possible surge requirements as well as identify their maximum production rate." There is no corresponding reference to this question in RFP Section M.5.1.3. Does the Government intend to evaluate the response to this question? Does the Government wish for manpower, facilities, and equipment to be described in the Management section?

A- Yes. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Plan and the details on how the manufacturing (including manpower, facilities and equipment) of the RHGPK will meet solicitation requirements.

28. RFP Section L.3.4.1.2.b requests that, "The Offeror shall indicate capability to meet production rates of a minimum of 30 kits per month and up to 50 kits per month." RFP Section L.3.4.1.4 requests that, "Offerors shall detail their capability to increase their production rate for possible surge requirements as well as identify their maximum production rate."

What is the difference between these two questions? Is the question in L.3.4.1.4 asking for surge capability beyond 50 kits per month?

A- Section L.3.4.1.2 is regarding the Manufacturing Plan while Section L.3.4.1.4 is regarding the Management Plan.

29. Can the Government please confirm that the Offeror should not submit prices on the quantity breakdown as deemed appropriate by the Offeror, but should use the stepladder ranges identified in L.4.b.2 and on the Stepladder Pricing Matrix tab?

A- Attachment 5 has been updated. Follow the step-ladder pricing format provided.

30. Can the Government provide further guidance on what is required for the product support analysis sheets referenced in RFP section L.3.1? We can find no further references to it in Sections L or M, the Statement of Work, or the list of CDRLs.

A- The Product Support Analysis Sheets will consist of information provided on the reliability of procured and manufactured parts to support this RFP.

31. RFP Section L.3.4.4 requests extensive small business data that was not included in the draft RFP. As a result, there is limited time, given the Holiday season and the impacts of the COVID pandemic on response time, to fully exercise the supply chain for this data. Therefore, would the Government consider extending the submittal date to 29 January 2021 in order to allow for more complete and accurate data to be submitted for evaluation?

32. Can the Government provide a 3D model that matches the drawings already provided with the TDP?

A- CAD files can be provided for needed fabricated parts following contract award.

33. If the offeror is currently making parts to a newer revision than what is listed in the RFP TDP, which should take precedence?

A- The RFP TDP shall be used unless otherwise agreed to by the Government.

34. Please explain how 13064387 HINGE, HATCH, WELDMENT (Steel) attaches to 13061697 WELDMENT, HATCH, LARGE (Aluminum).

A- Plates will be welded using 0.13 inch fillet weld. Additional information can be provide at contract kick-off as needed.

35. In order to calculate a total estimated dollar value and a percentage of total contract value, quantities for each of the CLINs with stepladder pricing are required. Will the Government provide notional quantities against which to calculate the small business numbers or is the Offeror expected to calculate a total number of each item within the total contract ceiling?

A- The step-ladder quantity breakdown is provided. The Government will randomly select a quantity for price evaluation. The same quantity will be selected for each Offeror.

36. Can the Government please clarify what pricing they are looking for, for both CLIN 0003 and CLIN 0007? What is the difference between the IIP and the RBL? What comprises a single IIP package vs.

multiple IIP packages within the 1-20 quantity range? How many kits of each type is a single IIP meant to cover? What comprises a single RBL? Does the Government wish for pricing for two years based on recommended quantities of items or does the Government wish for a single unit price? Given that the kits in question are from a Government owned design and the mission profile is undefined, will the

Government provide a list of recommended parts and quantities for the purpose of proposal pricing or should the Offeror simply provide a single unit price for every costed part in the Bill of Material (with the final IIP and RBL to be determined at the Provisioning Conference)?

A- Per Section 3.6.3 of the SOW, the RBL is a recommended list of parts that may require frequent replacement and will inform the IIP. SOW Section 3.6.3 defines the RBL. CLIN 007 is not separately priced unless otherwise noted in a separate CLIN.

Single IIP packages consist of the recommended parts to support initial Provisioning, multiple IIP packages could be procured to support various locations across the Marine Corps.

The Government is not providing a recommended parts and quantities list for the IIP for proposal pricing. The vendor should propose parts and quantities they determine needed for an IIP. At a minimum the Government would expect articulating parts, specialty fasteners and spare transparent armor in a recommended IIP.

37. Are there any special packaging instructions (SPI)? For a program of this nature, there are typically additional requirements for boxing, kitting, etc. that need to be factored into pricing for each of the three part numbers. Please advise.

A- The vendor should follow MIL-STD packaging guidelines.

38. Please advise how we can provide that information to our suppliers without violating the NDA.

A- Please refer to the official solicitation, Section L, L.3.4 Specific Proposal Instructions for what is needed to request the TDP.

39. When or how far in advance would paint colors be identified?

A- Paint color(s) will be finalized at the contract kick-off meeting.

40. Given the short response timeline and the intervening holiday season, we respectfully request and extension of 3 weeks to the current deadline.

41. SOW references ATPD 2352 Rev R. The latest revision of ATPD 2352 is Rev U. Can you confirm ATPD revision for qualification of the Transparent Armor?

A- Transparent Armor shall be qualified to the current ATPD 2352 revision.

42. The Transparent Armor is identical to a prior revision on T-OGPK system. Are there additional revisions forthcoming on the Transparent Armor?

A- Yes

43. The RHGPK Step Ladder Matrix attachment did not include an attachment number. Can you confirm that the RHPGK Step Ladder Matrix is the same as Price Matrix Attachment 5 referenced in Section M.5.2 of solicitation?

44. It is our understanding that CDRLs will be individually priced in Block 18 of each CDRL and combined on CLIN0006 on page 6 of solicitation.

45. The SOW/Solicitation indicates Contractor shall develop packaging data for end item and repairable items. We have developed packaging data for systems in both assembled and unassembled configurations. Is the intent to package end items in fully assembled or unassembled configuration?

A- Assembled drive component parts will be packaged individually, in a larger kit of total drive system, for example. Transparent armor, packaged as an individual repair part, would have to be packaged differently (separate) as opposed to installed in a completed RHGPK, for example.

46. For MIL-STD-2073-1 packaging requirements, is validation testing per MIL-STD-2073 Appendix F required as part of the packaging development?

A- The Government does not require validation testing per Appendix F, but packaging to be sufficient, per specifications referenced, to protect end products from shipping damage. Damage incurred to first destination (FOB) will be responsibility of Contractor.

47. Is the contractor required to develop a complete Provisioning Parts List (PPL) for CDRL C001 or only provide new provisioning technical documentation for government update of the existing PPL?

A- The Contractor is required to develop a complete Provisioning Parts List (PPL).

48. Section L.3.4.1.2 Manufacturing Plan references Metal Removal Processes. Is this referring to saw cutting, manual machining, grinding?

49. Have the drawing requirements been validated for the TDP that calls out 7085 material? Our material supplier has identified manufacturing concerns with the noted bend radius.

A- The bend radius of the AL 7085 material, Drawing 13102656, has been confirmed to meet the performance and manufacturing specification of the RHGPK design.

50. Section F Delivery Information references delivery as FOB Destination with Albany Address. Section D references packaging for overseas shipment. Will FOB destinations be CONUS?

A- All deliveries will be to Albany. Final destination will be CONUS/OCONUS, but FOB will be Albany.

Packaging to be sufficient for CONUS/OCONUS travel.

51. On page 4 (SOW), Section 3.2.2 Post Award Conference and in CDRL for the same there is a conflict as to whether or not the PAC is 30 or 10 days. Please advise.

A- PAC will be conducted within 10 days of contract award.

52. PACKAGING DEVELOPMENT Per SECTION D, D.1 (a) and SOW section, 3.6.7. In this section, there are

3 distinctly different requirements for packaging: Domestic Immediate per ASTM D3951. Overseas

Shipment for Immediate Use per ASTM D3951, EXPORT REQUIREMENTS. Long Term Storage per MIL-

STD 2073, Method 31, Level B.

a. Did the contract office intend to get 3 different prices for the packaging requirements specified?

A- No, single pricing for packaging, packaging should be sufficient for long term storage and overseas shipment.

b. Is the pricing matrix going to be updated?

A- No

c. Are there any installation procedures and or packaging instructions from development/prototype phase? Any information as to how the original prototypes were installed would be advantageous and any lessons learned during the prototyping development phase will insure alignment with any previous soldier training that occurred.

A- Packaging was in line with MIL-STD, no special instructions.

d. Is the development of Special Packaging Instructions (SPI’s) going to be required?

e. Are the packaging drawings associated with the packaging design a deliverable in this solicitation and if so what are the requirements?

A-No

f. Is validation testing for each of the 3 new packaging requirements requested?

A- Packaging to be sufficient, per specifications referenced, to protect end products from shipping damage. Damage incurred to first destination (FOB) will be responsibility of Contractor.

53. Will the contract office supply native CAD files to the contractor awarded this contract? This could affect pricing.

54. Will there be any contractor support required for any validation testing of the 5 FAT units so that bidders can include this in their FAT pricing?

A- Yes, the Contractor shall be responsible for meeting the all design specifications and validation testing of the 5 FAT units and shall include associated costs in their FAT pricing.

55. Please advise or update exploded view on drawing Pt. No. 13102670 to show detailed locations of

Fastener Kit Pt. No. 13102631.

A- Additional information regarding assembly will be provided at the award kick-off meeting with the model.

56. Please advise or update exploded view on drawing Pt. No. 13102671 to show detailed locations of

Fastener Kit Pt. No. 13064369.

A- Additional information regarding assembly will be provided at the award kick-off meeting with the model.

57. CDRL A002 Presentation of Materials makes reference in BLK 10,12 and 13 to the In process review at the Government’s/Contractors Facility within as required AND 90 days prior to production runs. Is the plural “Production Runs” intended to only pertain to only the first production runs of each of the three kits or is it intended for every production run throughout the 60-month contract period?

A- The RHGPK TDP (19200 – 13102670) is for a kit; however, the Contractor shall include assembly of the kit in their manufacturing plan and pricing. Additional information regarding assembly will be provided at the award kick-off meeting with the model.

58. In SOW sections 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 it is clear that the contractor shall maintain a documented QAPP and establish inspection and test methods. However, are there any specific QAPP’s that were developed in the prototype phase that can be shared with bidders?

A- Drawing will be provided as part of the TDP.

59. In Solicitation Section L, Table L1: Proposal Submission Requirements ask that in the Volume II-submission of the Recommended Buy List (RBL) with the Product Support Analysis yet in CDRL C002 in block 12 it is required 30 days before Provisioning conference. What is the required submission date?

A- Offerors shall provide two (2) RBLs for CLIN 0007. One (1) RBL shall include prices, and the other RBL shall be without prices. A finalized RBL (with prices) shall be provided to the Government 30 days before Provisioning conference.

60. Would the government consider incorporating a economic price adjustment clause tied to one or more commodity indexes in order to account for projected cost escalation?

A- An economic price adjustment clause is not being considered for this requirement. Escalation should be appropriately proposed.

61. The three levels of packaging vary in price and our depending on configuration. Should we ship the kits in pieces or assembled?

A- The kits should be assembled.

62. What is the evaluation criteria for the stepladder?

A- Evaluation of pricing is addressed in Section M.5.2.

63. We are concerned that the tolerances for Drawing 13064427 are unachievable. Is the Government open to a modification of this and other drawings for manufacturability?

A- Drawing 13064427 has been manufactured previously within drawing tolerances. A value engineering change proposal requires Government approval. Changes to the TDP shall be approved by the Government in advance.

64. Have these kits been produced before? If so, is there an incumbent contractor and contract number available for historical pricing comparison?

A- This is a new requirement.

65. We understand the stepladder pricing matrix. Are there projection of buys on a year by year basis?

66. We anticipate significant increases in material prices over the next two to three years. Will there be economic adjustments for material pricing available throughout the contract?

A- An economic price adjustment clause is not being considered for this requirement. Escalation should

67. We anticipate significant material price increase over the coming years due to supply and demand issues throughout industry. We request the addition of FAR 52.216-4 to account for material price increases over the 5 year IDIQ contract.

A- An economic price adjustment clause is not being considered for this requirement. Escalation should

68. Request a copy of Quality Assurance Provision Drawing 12993884 to review.

A- Drawing will be provided as part of the TDP.

69. Is CAD available for all drawing packages?

70. The TDP calls our 7085-T711 as the approved source of supply which is proprietary to Arconic. Is 7056-T761 an authorized substitution as it's in the same MIL-DTL 32375B standards as 7085?

A- Contractor shall meet the requirements of the TDP Material: ALUMINUM ALLOY 7085-T711 PER MIL-

DTL-32375, CLASS I, TYPE A.

71. On page 10 of Solicitation, Section F.3 Step Ladder Pricing reference is made in CLIN 1 for delivery of FAT Units at 60 ADC (After Delivery of Contract). Is this a hard requirement or simply a desire?

A- CLIN 0001 is referenced under Delivery Information not Section F.3, Step Ladder Pricing.

72. Is it possible to provide .dxf files for the TDP?

73. Will there be any CAD models available for this solicitation?

74. Given the short response timeline and the intervening holiday season, we respectfully request and extension of 3 weeks to the current deadline. This extension will us to provide MARCORSYSCOM another competitive bid for this solicitation.

75. Please provide number of copies and submission type for all the products required for Volume III ?

A- See amendment.

76. Request relief for the hard copies and DVD as stated in the RFP. We request that electronic delivery be acceptable.

A- Submission should be as requested.

77. Please confirm assumptions made.

A- Each Offeror’s manufacturing knowledge shall be sufficient to submit a proposal. Minor drawing details shall be provided at the contract kickoff. In addition, Native CAD files can be provided for needed fabricated parts following contract award.