Revised Offeror Questions_Government Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request for Proposal M67854-23-R-1000 SBNVG Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- M67854-23-R-1000
- Issued by
- United States Marine Corps
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP Amendment M67854-23-R-1000-0003.pdf | ||
| Offeror Questions_Government Responses.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Revised Attachment 1 - Statement of Work.pdf | ||
| Revised Exhibit A - CDRLS.pdf | ||
| RFP Amendment M67854-23-R-1000-0002.pdf | ||
| RFP Amendment M67854-23-R-1000-0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 - Pricing Workbook.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit A - CDRLS.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - DD 254.pdf | ||
| Request for Proposal M67854-23-R-1000.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - Statement of Work.pdf |
Show all 12
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
Sheet1
| Question Number | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Would the Government please provide a copy of the DD Form 254 reference, US Army Project Manager, Soldier Sensors and Lasers, Security Classification Guide for Image Intensifier Devices, dated 31 Oct 2013? | Yes, the Government can provide this document but since it is classified as Unclassified CUI, the Offeror shall request to the Government to receive this document by providing their cage code similar to requests for access to RFP Attachment 2 - PSPEC and Exhibit B - ICDs IAW RFP Amendment 0001. |
| 2 | Would the Government please provide a copy of DD Form 254 reference, US Army Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate Security Classification Guide for Infrared Focal Plane Technology Development for Uncooled Sensors, dated 3 Dec 2013? | Yes, the Government can provide this document but since it is classified as Unclassified CUI, the Offeror shall request to the Government to receive this document by providing their cage code similar to requests for access to RFP Attachment 2 - PSPEC and Exhibit B - ICDs IAW RFP Amendment 0001. |
| 3 | What is the anticipated schedule for deliveries to the USMC? | This procurement is for an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract award because exact delivery schedule is TBD and will be issued via executed Delivery Orders from the base IDIQ contract award. The Awardee shall produce and deliver the Government's required quantities as necessary on a potential monthly basis as executed for each delivery order level, in accordance with the necessary quantity ranges specified at the CLIN level. |
| 4 | Is the gain setting requirement based in foot-lambert or foot-candel? | The gain values are a unit-less ratio of two output measurements. |
| 5 | Given this is an IDIQ, what is the anticipated monthly SBNVG unit delivery numbers? | See response to question #3. |
| 6 | Will the government consider more than one source for award? | No, as specified in the RFP this procurement is for a Single Source IDIQ contract award. |
| 7 | Will there be a down select process? | No, this procurement will not have a down select process for contract award. |
| 8 | Will SBNVG samples be required prior to award? | No |
| 9 | When, after award, are samples required to be submitted to government for review and testing? | Samples that may be required to be provided to the Government will be addressed at the Post Award Conference (PAC). |
| 10 | Do unit cost reductions apply only if additional increments are authorized before an existing task order is completed? For example, if under contract for stepladder quantities equal to 501-999, would an order for an additional 300 units be priced at step quantity 1000-1999 if authorized before completion of the TO, or would it priced at the step quantity price for 0-325 units if there were a break in production? | Unit cost reductions will not apply across already executed delivery orders. Unit cost reductions shall only apply to each individual delivery order based on the quantity range for the Government's requirement. |
| 11 | For CLIN 0006 and CLIN 000: why is the upper limit 326-500? | The Government determined the appropriate quantity limits for proposed pricing. |
| 12 | Would the Government consider one price while manufacturing is ongoing and a second (higher) price after completing all manufacturing for CLINS 0008 - 0010? The rationale is that restarting operations would be an additional cost. | No, this procurement is for a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) IDIQ in which the Government has established in the RFP what the appropriate quantity limits and associated pricing the Offeror should propose to. It is up to the Offeror to consider their business decisions and their manufacturing processes when submitting a proposal for this RFP. |
| 13 | Administrative proceedings are under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court rules that some/all Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) proceedings are unconstitutional, will the Government amend the RFP to reflect such ruling(s)? | The Government can't provide a response on potential U.S. Supreme Court rulings that are currently under review. If an official ruling has been made that some way changes a current solicitation than the Government will consider such situations, if applicable to the solicitation. |
| 14 | Table 3 does not have an entry for the battery’s energy capacity (watt-hours). Should there be such an entry? | PSPEC section 3.6.7 addresses this, please review accordingly. |
| 15 | Table 3 does not have an entry for “non-operating altitude.” Should there be such an entry? | PSPEC section 3.7.5 addresses this, please review accordingly. |
| 16 | Does the Government require that the Offeror possess or is in the process of obtaining standard industry certifications, e.g., ISO 9001 (Quality), the “Department of Defense Contracting Competency Model” based on ANSI/NCMA ASD-1-2019, and/or a Capability Maturity Model CMM)? If an Offeror possesses some key certifications, does the Government consider this in its evaluations? | The Government does not require Offerors to possess specific industry certifications, however, if an Offeror determines that their certifications provide a competitive advantage and are relative to this solicitation, the Offeror can specify that in their proposal for the Government to consider. |
| 17 | The Government’s objectives for small business participation in 8.6 are different from the objectives stated in 8.6.1. Please explain. | Instructions to Offerors section 8.6 is for Offerors that are small businesses, section 8.6.1 is for Offerors that are large businesses. |
| 18 | The page allocation for “Small Business Participation” is five pages. 8.6.1 “Small Business Participation Plan—Large Businesses Only” likely requires more than five pages. Would the government consider allowing the “Small Business Participation Plan—Large Businesses Only” to be submitted as an appendix with no page limitations? | Instructions to Offeroros section 8.6.1 is for Small Business Subcontracting Plan - Large Business Only. See question #33 response for further information. |
| 19 | Is CLIN 0004 with accessories or without accessories? | Assembly includes only a Thermal imager with ancillary equipment for operation. |
| 20 | The last sentence of Instructions to Offerors section 8.5.4 and the first sentence of section 8.5.5 are substantially the same in that they both ask for a description of “configuration management implementation”. Does the government want it addressed in both places? | Yes, configuration management shall be addressed for both sections. Instructions to Offerors section 8.5.4 addresses Offerors shall describe configuration management approach in terms of tools, sytems, and mechanisms. Instructions to Offerors section 8.5.5 addresses Offerors to describe configuration management and the implementation plan for the manufacturing process to ensure quality. |
| 21 | Evidence of any enforceable commitments in place between the Offeror and the participating small businesses (i.e., detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments). Where does documentation go in the proposal? | Please refer to Instructions to Offerors section 8.5.3. |
| 22 | Are the Small Business Participation and Small Business Subcontracting Plan both included in the 5 page limit? | No, only the Small Business Participation Plan shall be included in the 5 page limit. Furthermore, see question #33 response. |
| 23 | Recent and Relevant Past Performance provides instructions for the submittal of past performance summaries. “The identified contracts shall be with Department of Defense or other Federal agencies. Past performance as a Prime, teaming partner, or as a Subcontractor will be considered, as will past performance by a company proposed as a Subcontractor to this effort”. Please can the Government confirm that relevant contracts for other FVEYS / NATO customers would also be considered as acceptable Past Performance for this submission | The Government is only allowing relevant past performance submissions from Department of Defense or other Federal agency contracts held as a Prime, teaming partner, or as a subcontractor, as stated in the RFP. No other allowances will be accepted for past performance solicitation requirements. |
| 24 | Are completed PPQs treated as attachments to Vol II proposal submission requirements? | No, the Government confirms that submitted PPQs are not counted against the page count for Past Performance proposal requirements. |
| 25 | Do returned PPQs count against page count? | See question #24 response. |
| 26 | A001 references SOW 3.1 “Program Management”, but not SOW “3.1.1 Formal Reviews, Conferences, and Audits”, “3.1.2 Post-Award Conference”, “3.1.3 Quarterly Program Review”, “3.1.4 Production Readiness Review”, “3.1.5 Monthly Status and Progress Reports”. Does A001 apply to all 3.1.x paragraphs? | Yes |
| 27 | Is the SOW reference “3.2.6 Refurbishment of Initial Deliveries” or “3.2.5.3 Quality Conformance Inspections and Tests”? | SOW section 3.2.6 describes refurbishment of initial deliveries and SOW section 3.2.5.3 describes quality conformance inspection and tests |
| 28 | There is no SOW 3.2.8 Should it be “3.2.7 Environmental, Safety, & Occupational Health (ESOH).”? | CDRL A0008 references SOW section 3.2.8 incorrectly. Amendment 0002 revises this CDRL to reference SOW 3.2.7, please refer to Amendment 0002 |
| 29 | Does the SOW reference include all subordinate sections to SOW 3.3? | Yes |
| 30 | How many hard copies need to be submitted to the gov't in addition to the two CD copies? | Amendment 0002 specifies the required number of hard copy proposals, which will be specified as two hard copy proposals in addition to the two CD copies. |
| 31 | Will the gov't accept hand-delivered proposals? | No, please refer to Instructions to Offerors section 2 for delivery instructions. |
| 32 | Can the government provide clarification of the differentiation between CLIN 0004 and 0005 as the "thermal imager assembly without accessories" appears to the same as an "assembly includes only a thermal imager? | CLIN 0004 includes Ancillary equipment for operation, whereas CLIN 0005 does not. |
| 33 | Can the Government confirm that the 5-page limitation applies only to the Small Business Participation Plan portion of Section 3 and, specifically, that the limitation excludes the FAR Part 19 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (which alone typically exceeds five pages)? | The Government confirms that the page limitation excludes the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required in accordance with FAR Part 19.7. |
| 34 | Can the Government confirm further, in reference to the Instructions to Offeros Section 8.6 for the Small Business Participation Plan, that copies of each firm’s System for Award Management (SAM) profile are excluded from the 5-page limitation (as these copies alone will likely exceed five pages) | Yes, the Governmnent confirms that copies of each of the Offeror's SAM profiles are excluded from the 5-page limitation for Factor 2. |
| 35 | Will the Government clarify the number of hard copies required for submission? | See question #30 response. |
| 36 | Are the CDs considered a "hard copy?" If not, could the Government clarify what it is seeking by way of a "hard copy?" | No, the CDs are not considered hard copies. Hard copy proposals consist of binders that contain all the required volumes specified in the Instructions to Offerors. |
| 37 | Is it the Government's intent to receive printed paper copies of the submission plus two (2) CDs? | Yes |
| 38 | What “quantity for each CLIN” will the Government use to calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) | The Government will use the first quantity range (0-325) if there are multiple quantity ranges for CLINS, to calculate the TEP. |
| 39 | What “proposed unit price” will the Government use to calculate the TEP? | See response to question #38. |
| 40 | Will the Government consider incorporating FAR 52.216-5 (Price Redetermination-Prospective) into the RFP, specifying a two-year initial ordering period, with subsequent ordering periods of two years? | No |
| 41 | With Volume II, Factor 3 - Past Performance limited to 10 pages, could the Government please clarify that the required copies of Sections I and II do not count against the 10 page limit? | Proposal Volume II, Factor 3 - Past Performance only has one section. This factor has a maximum page limit of 10, as specified in the Instructions to Offerors. |
| 42 | Is the Government expecting Offeror's to propose a single price for each CLIN to be fixed for 10 years? | Yes, a single price for each quantity ranges specified in the CLIN descriptions and pricing workbook. |
| 43 | Will the Government please confirm that the filename convention also applies to .pdf files | Yes, the Govenrment confirms this. |
| 44 | Do Proposal Volumes II and III require their own separate acronym lists and Glossaries, and if so, where should they be allocated within the specified pages? | The Government does not require Offerors to provide separate acronym lists and glossaries for Proposal Volumes II and II, but if the Offeror determines it is advantageous to them to provide this please include that in the applicable section as the Offeror sees fit. |
| 45 | Will the Government please clarify if the files for Volume I, sections 1.1 through 1.4 should have the Volume number in the filename? | Yes, please refer to Instructions to Offerors section 6 and section 7. |
| 46 | Will the Government please clarify if the "ABC" in the File Naming Structure column is meant to represent Contractor company name? | The Government confirms that 'ABC' in the file naming structure shall be the Offeror's name. |
| 47 | Will the Government please clarify if the file names listed in the File Naming Structure column mandate the use of separate electronic files for each subsection? | Yes, the Government confirms this. |
| 48 | The SOW/PSPEC Approach section is allocated 10 pages which does not seem like enough space to supply supporting data, other PSPEC, CDRLs, and SOW compliance. Will the Government consider allowing the supporting data to be supplied separately from the 10 allocated pages? | No, the maximum page count applies accordingly. |
| 49 | Is it permissible to utilize section 2.1.1 Product Description, 2.2 Integrated Product Support and/or section 2.3 Overarching Program Management Approach to further describe how the offering meets the other PSPEC, CDRLs, and SOW compliance requirements? | Please propose accordingly in accordance with Instructions to Offerors section 8.5. |
| 50 | Will the Government please clarify if the data that is being requested under Volume I, Section 2.1.2-PSPEC Modeling Data is the same as the data to be included in section 2.1 and therefore does not need to be included in section 2.1, since it is included in 2.1.2? | Amendment 0002 revises Instructions to Offers section 8.5.1 Volume I, Section 2.1.2 to only capture modeling data proposal requirements. Please refer to Amendment 0002. |
| 51 | Will the Government please clarify if Configuration Management is required to be described in both Volume I section 2.4 and section 2.5, or is it acceptable to describe Configuration Management in only section 2.4 since it appears both sections request the Offeror to describe Configuration management? | See question #20 response. |
| 52 | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required for Large Business but it is not referenced in Table 2. Will the Government please clarify that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be submitted as part of Volume I in a separate file and is not part of the 5-page allocation for Small Business Participation? | See question #33 response. Please refer to Amendment 0002 that further clarifies this. |
| 53 | Will the Government please clarify if the cost/price proposal narrative is different than what has been instructed for Volumes I, II, and III, or if this is an additional narrative that is required? | This cost/price proposal narrative specified in Instructions to Offerors section 10 is only to be provided by the Offeror if they determine it is necessary for the Government to review, as part of their price proposal. Please refer to Amendment 0002 the further clarifies this. |
| 54 | If the cost/price proposal narrative is additional, please clarify what is included in this referenced narrative? | If the Offeror determines a narrative if necessary for this proposal volume submission, it is up to the Offeror what is determined to be necessary to be included in the cost/price narrative. |
| 55 | The RFP seems to state that the order of importance for non-cost/price factors is first - Past Performance, second - Technical, and third - Small Business Participation. Will the Government please confirm? | As stated in the RFP, the relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, when combined are equal in importance to Factor 3. Non-cost/price evaluation factors combined are more important than Factor 4. |
| 56 | Each DID referenced in Box 4 for each CDRL has an underscore at the end of it (i.e. DI-ADMN-81308_). Does the underscore represent the most recent released version of the DIDs? | Yes, the underscore does represent the most recent version. |
| 57 | The DID referenced in box 4 of CDRL A002 is DI-MGMT-80227_. It appears this DID has been cancelled and replaced by DI-MGMT-81928. Does the Government wish to replace the 80227 DID with the 81928 DID? | Yes, as the underscore signifies current versioning. |
| 58 | Are the In-Process Reviews specified in SOW section 3.1.1 in addition to the PAC, Quarterly Program Review, PRR meetings specified in the SOW? | A Quarterly Program Review is an IPR. Please refer to Amendment 0002 that clarifies this further in SOW section 3.1.1. |
| 59 | If the In Process Reviews are in addition to the other reviews specified in the SOW what is the anticipated frequency of these events? | All IPRs frequencies are stated in SOW section 3.1 accordingly. |
| 60 | The RFP states "Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award", Is this intended to be performance thresholds, and therefore it is not required to meet all objective requirements? | Please refer to Amendment 0002 that clarifies performance thresholds not met, not objectives, will be considered ineligible for award in Evaluation Factors for Award section 1. |
| 61 | The RFP Order Limitations clause provides minimum order values in part (a) and maximum order values in parts (b). I do not see a maximum value for the entire contract within the RFP, SOW, or other documents. What is the maximum value of this contract over its 120 month order period. | Please refer to Amendment 0002 that specifies the maximum value of the IDIQ contract award of $500M in Instructions to Offerors section 1. |
| 62 | How will the USMC evaluate offerors manufacturing capabilities when requirements are not provided? | Please refer to Instructions to Offerors section 8.5.5. |
| 63 | What is the maximum quantity for CLINs 0001-0005? | See response to question #38. |
| 64 | Where will CLINs 0001 through CLIN 00011 be delivered to under this contract? | The Government plans for delivery locations for CLINS 0001 - 0007 to be Albany, Georgia and for CLINS 0008 - 0011 delivery locations are defined in SOW section 3.8.2.1. |
| 65 | SOW section 3.1.4 states the PRR shall be held 30 calendar days after Government completion of Production Verification Testing (PVT). What are the requirements for and what is the timing of PVT. | IAW SOW section 3.1.4 an exact date shall be mutually agreed upon between the Contractor and the Government for PRR to occur. The Government and the awardee will discuss this mutual agreed upon date at the Post Award Conference for PRR and PVT to occur. |
| 66 | PSPEC section 3.2.11 and 3.2.12 states Option 1) SNR of no less than 31 with 81 lp/mm CR, or Option 2) SNR of no less than 32 with 72 lp/mm CR, can the Government clarify if the Offeror is to select one of the two options or is the intent of this specification to allow the contractor flexibility to provide both options (1 and 2) under this contract? | The Government's intent for the SNR requirement in PSPEC section 3.2.11 and 3.2.12 is to allow for flexibility as both options equal the Government's required SNR and tube center resolution thresholds. |
| 67 | For PSPEC section 3.2.11 and 3.2.12, does the Government consider option 1 and 2 equivalent (both labeled as "shall") or is offering the higher Figure of Merit (FOM) considered a strength? | See response to question #66. Furthermore, PSPEC section 3.2.14 states FOM not used. |
| 68 | Would offerings in excess of 32 SNR and(or) 81 lp/mm resulting in FOM in excess of 2,600 be considered favorably by the Government? | See response to question #67. |
| 69 | Will the Government confirm that the awardee is only required to verify I2 tube center resolution on 10 units, 2x per year and is not required to verify signal to noise ratio at all? | The government will perform validation of SNR as it deems necessary IAW PSPEC table 4-2. |
| 70 | How does the contract meet this requirement to provide detailed inspection and test results over the PoP if they are only required to verify I2 center resolution on 10 units, 2x per year and are not required to verify signal to noise ratio at all in Table 4-1? | See respone to question #69. |
| 71 | What is the frequency and duration of Government testing? | See respone to question #69. |
| 72 | If the Government only verifies SNR, but does not verify Center Resolution how does the Government verify that tubes are meeting the contractor's stated parameters without measuring both SNR and CR? | The government reserves the right to measure Center Resolution while Government testing is being conducted for SNR. |
| 73 | Volume III Section 1.1 refers to the Pricing Workbook as Exhibit A while Section J refers to the Pricing Workbook as Attachment 05. Will the Government be updating Volume III, Section 1.1 to reference the Pricing Workbook as Attachment 05? | Please refer to Amendmnet 0002 that updates Instructions to Offerors section 10 Pricing Workbook reference to reflect as Attachment 05. |
| 74 | Will the Government please clarify what the required quantity is for Product Verification Testing (PVT)? | Samples that may be required to be provided to the Government for testing will be addressed at the Post Award Conference (PAC). |
| 75 | PSPEC section 4.5.9.3 states This functionality cannot be maintained beyond 2024 without a significant redesign due to component obsolescence. The cost required to develop a replacement solution and incorporating this solution into the units will have a substantial impact on the unit cost. With this understanding, will the Government consider deleting this requirement? | PSPEC section 4.5.9.3 does not state it is not supportable beyond 2024. The Government requires a Video input/output capability. The government will consider an alternate digital video output capability that demonstrates the SBNVG can send and receive video through the common RS-170 protocol, IAW PSPEC section 4.5.9.3. |
| 76 | If a tube agnostic approach is offered, does the proposal need to show data for all brands/models (filmed/unfilmed) of tubes that could be utilized or just what is being submitted? If so, can such be done in one proposal or will multiple proposals be required? | The Offeror shall provide the data to support claims of performance on all proposed solutions. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .