Laser_Eye_Protection_-_Questions_and_Responses_FBO_RFP_7_Dec_2016.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Laser Eye Protection Threat Spectacles
- Solicitation number
- N00019-15-P1-PMA202-0006
About this file
Response to Industry Questions 07 Dec 2016
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 104 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
| ID # | GOVERNMENT REFERENCE DOCUMENT | PARAGRAPH REFERENCE PAGE NUMBER | PARAGRAPH REFERENCE IN DOCUMENT | RESPONSE / COMMENTS / QUESTION TO GOVERNMENT | RESPONSE FROM GOVERNMENT |
| 1 | Section L | 2 | 2 | Proposal Format and Submission, 5th bullet states, "all pages should be numbered with volume, paragraph and page numbers." Please clarify. Do you mean all pages should reflect the Volume # in the header or footer, paragraphs should be sequentially numbered and pages should be sequentially numbered? Or, does this mean the page numbering system should include the Volume, paragraph and page number? If so, how should multiple paragraphs on a page be addressed in the page numbering scheme? | Volume # should be in the header, paragraphs and pages should be sequentially numbered. |
| 2 | Section L | 7 | Table G-3 | The list of attachments identify Section L Attachments L1 - L4. These were not included with the Draft RFP. Will they be published as part of an amendment to the draft RFP? | The Government will post the L-1 through L-4 attachments with the Final RFP Release. |
3 Section L 11 1.a.(1) This paragraph identifies the Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) is provided in Attachment L-1 (Executive Summary Tables). Attachment L-1 wasn't provided with the Draft RFP. Will it be published as part of an amendment to the draft RFP or are offerors to reconstruct the ES-1 Offeror Summary Table based on the picture of the table provided on page 11 of Section L? The Government will post the L-1 through L-4 attachments with the Final RFP Release.
4 Section L 11 1.b This paragraph identifies Table ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary Table is provided in Attachment L-1 (Executive Summary Tables). Attachment L-1 wasn't provided with the Draft RFP. Will it be published as part of an amendment to the draft RFP or are offerors to reconstruct the ES-2 Relevant Contract Summary Table based on the picture of the table provided on page 12 of Section L? The Government will post the L-1 through L-4 attachments with the Final RFP Release.
5 Section L 13 2 Volume 2.0 - Technical identifies Section J and Section L Attachments. Attachment J-3 Serial Data Interface Control Document was not distributed with the Draft RFP. Will it be released as part of the RFP? Also, Attachment J-4 Requirements Traceability Matrix was not included with the Draft RFP release. Will it be released as part of an amendment to the draft RFP or is it the same as Table T-1 Technical Cross Reference Matric shown within Section L, Para 2.0? Also, Attachment L-2, T-1 Small Business Goals is Listed. Attachment L-2 was not included with the Draft RFP release. Will it be provided as part of an amendment to the draft RFP or is this the same table as Table T-2 Small Business Goals provided in Section L, Para 2.2 Programs and Schedules - Book 2 section on page 20 under subparagraph 2.2.3. Attachment J-3 (Serial Data Interface Control Document, PMA202-XX) and J-4 (Requirements Traceability Matrix) will be removed from the Final RFP.
6 Section L 21 3 Attachments L-3 and L-4 are listed bun not included with the Draft RFP release. Will they be provided as part of an amendment to the draft RFP? Table PP-1 Past Performance Contract Data is provided as a picture under paragraph 3.2. Should offerors reconstruct the picture as a table or will it be provided as Attachment L-4? The Government will post the L-3 and L-4 attachments with the Final RFP Release.
| 7 | Section L | 39 | 4.3.1.4.2.1 | This paragraph identifies the information to be provided as part of the Bill of Materials. It includes providing part numbers and vendors and cost information. Since the BOM will be defined in the course of the CLIN 0001 NRE effort, part numbers and vendors may not be known at this time. Is it acceptable to identify these items as "to be determined?" | Yes, it is acceptable to identify these items as "To Be Determined." |
| 8 | SOW | 22 | 3.19 | This paragraph identifies the LEP Government Summary Schedule included as Attachment 7. This attachment was not provided with the Draft RFP. Will it be provided as part of an amendment to the draft RFP as it is essential to constructing the Integrated Master Schedule and identifying this Schedule Visibility Task (SVT)? | The LEP Program has decided against providing a Summary Schedule as an attachment. We would like Offerors to provide a schedule based off of all the information provided in the RFP and will be bound by 15 September 2017 contract award and Initial Operating Capability (IOC) taking place no later than 31 December 2021. |
| 9 | Solicitation/Contract | 5 | Section B | Should Section B, CLINs 0004AA and 0004AB identify carrying cases for the Rx Test Units for Prototype Evaluation? | No. The Specification neither requires nor precludes a case for the Rx component. It is acceptable for a design to include a case for the Rx component. |
| 10 | Solicitation/Contract | 7 | Section B | Should Section B, CLIN 0104 identify carrying cases for the RX Production Units? Section C identifies them in the description. | No. The Specification neither requires nor precludes a case for the Rx component. It is acceptable for a design to include a case for the Rx component. |
| 11 | Solicitation/Contract | 9 | Section B | Should Section B, CLIN 0202 identify carrying cases for the Rx Production Units? Section C identifies them in the description. | No. The Specification neither requires nor precludes a case for the Rx component. It is acceptable for a design to include a case for the Rx component. |
| 12 | Solicitation/Contract | 12 | Section C | Should Section C, CLINs 0004 and 0005 identify carrying cases for the Rx Prescription Test Units? | No. The Specification neither requires nor precludes a case for the Rx component. It is acceptable for a design to include a case for the Rx component. |
| 13 | Solicitation/Contract | 12 | Section C | Should Section C, CLINs 0006, 0105, 0203 be updated to 0006, 0106 and 0204 since these are the correct CLINs for CDRLs? Also, should CLINs 0105 and 0203 have separate CLIN descriptions since they are for LEP test support and Lot Acceptance Testing? | Section C will be updated to reflect CLINs 0006, 0106, and 0204 as the CDRL CLINs. |
| 14 | Solicitation/Contract | 12 | Section C | Should Section C, CLIN 0102 include carrying cases in the description? | No. The Specification neither requires nor precludes a case for the Rx component. It is acceptable for a design to include a case for the Rx component. |
| 15 | Solicitation/Contract | 12 | Section C | Should Section C, CLIN 0106 be changed to CLIN 0105 since it describes LEP Test Support? Also, the description may need to change to LOT Acceptance Testing and CLIN 0203 may need to be added/combined with CLIN 0105 since it is also LOT Acceptance Testing | The Final RFP will reflect CLIN 0106 for LEP Production Test. |
16 Solicitation/Contract 15 Section E Recommend expanding CLIN 0105 to 0105AA and 0105AB for FAT Support and LOT Acceptance Testing. Also should this be changed to Inspect at Origin and Gov't Witnessed? Section E will be changed to include 0106AA and 0106AB, with Inspection and Acceptance at Origin.
| 17 | Solicitation/Contract | 15 | Section E | CLIN 0106 is for production CDRLs. Should inspection be changed to Destination? Also, recommend CLINs 0106AA and 0106AB be deleted. | CLIN 0107 in Section E will be changed to Destination in the Final RFP. CLINS 0106AA and 0106AB will remain. |
| 18 | Solicitation/Contract | 15 | Section E | CLINs 0202, 0203 and 0204 should be updated. Should CLIN 0202 be inspect at Origin since it is for Production Units? Also, should CLIN 0203 be inspect at Origin since it is for Lot Acceptance Testing? Also, CLIN 0204 should be added for CDRLs and inspected at Destination. | CLINs 0202 and 0203 will be updated to reflect Origin in the Final RFP. CLIN 0205 will be added for CDRLs. |
19 Solicitation/Contract 15 Section E The CLIN Notes lists CLIN 0203 with CLINs 0006 and 0106. Recommend updated CLIN 0203 with 0204 since these CLINs should all be for CDRLs. CLIN 0203 is for Acceptance Testing Support. CLIN 0205 will be added for CDRLs.
20 Solicitation/Contract 18 Section F Recommend changing CLIN 0203 to CLIN 0204 since this is addressing CDRLs. CLIN 0205 will be added for CDRLs
21 Solicitation/Contract 18 Section F Recommend adding CLIN 0203 Acceptance Testing Support to this note along with CLINs 0105, 0105AA and 0105AB. CLIN 0204, Lot Acceptance Testing, will be added in Section F.
| 22 | Solicitation/Contract | 66 | Clauses | Clause 5252.215-9503, Anticipated Award Date, identifies award in the third quarter of FY17. Section L, Paragraph 2.2.2, Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), identifies that offeror should use a contract award date of 14 Sep 17 (fourth quarter FY17). Recommend updating the contract clause or Section L to the correct anticipated award date and ensure each is consistent. | Section L contract award date of 14 September 2017 is correct. Clause 5252.215-9503 will be updated to match Section L for Final RFP. |
| 23 | DD Form 1423 CDRL | Block A | Recommend updating Block A to reflect the production CDRL CLINS 0106 and 0204 instead of CLINs 0105 and 0203. | CDRLs will reflect 0006, 0107, and 0205 for the Final RFP. |
| 24 | DD Form 1423 CDRL | Block E | Recommend updating Block E to reflect the correct contract number. | Correct contract number will be updated in Block E for the Final RFP. | |
| 25 | Draft RFP | General Comment | The Draft solicitation identifies a 4 year NRE effort followed by 2 years of production. The solicitation is requesting FFP pricing for production units prior to the NRE effort. Will there be an opportunity to update production pricing based on the results of the NRE effort? Will the Government entertain an offeror H-Clause reflecting updated production pricing or will the Government propose a clause to address this? This seems to place a high degree of risk on the offerors prior to conducting the EMD effort. Recommend consideration of a Fixed Price with prospective price redetermination be considered. | No, there will not be an opportunity for updated pricing. | |
| 26 | LEP P-Spec | 4 | 3.4.2 | The Oct 27, 2015 amendment to this solicitation and the Navy Self Protection N00421-15-RFI-1003 identify the SELF Protection as >3.0 OD at 800 nm, >3.5 OD at 820-870 nm, >4.0OD at 900 nm and >6.0 OD at 1064 nm. The revised P-Spec now lists Self Protection as >3.0 OD at 800 nm, >3.5 OD at 820-834 nm, >4.0OD at 835 nm, >3.5 OD at 836-870 nm and >6.0 OD at 1064 nm. Is the revised P-Spec correct? | Specification paragraph 3.4.2 is correct as written |
| 27 | LEP P-Spec | 10 | 3.9.6 | The specification states the case shall be large enough to accommodate the LEP spectacle and Rx Component. Will a separate case be required for only the Rx Component so the pilot can store it safely when not attached to the LEP spectacles? If so what requirements should that case meet? | The Specification neither requires nor precludes a separate case for the Rx component. |
| 28 | Section L | 37 | 4.2 | It is stated that the Offeror shall provide a summary level of the Cost Proposal in Constant Fiscal Year 2016 dollars (FY16$) by Fiscal Year and CWBS using escalation/de-escalation factors supported by its rates and factors used in its cost proposal. Should this be updated to FY17$? | Yes, this should be updated to FY17$. |
&16&F
&P of &N
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .