14RGR55_0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er industry questions, correct clause CNIN-L-0010, correct CLIN 0004 and extend the the proposal due date from March to April 14th, 2014 at 3:00 PM EDT. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Mar-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00164-14-R-GR55

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Jan-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Mar-2014

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

T. MARSHALL (812-854-8239)

BLDG 3168

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

N00164 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00164-14-R-GR55

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES -R

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A – SOLICITATION / CONTRACT FORM

The required response date / time has been changed from 14 March, 2014 03:00 PM to 14 April, 2014 03:00

PM

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0004

The CLIN extended description has changed from AN/SPS-48E Antenna Chokes1 set contains 94 chokes in the following configuration:

Drawing Number: 196621-1, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-2, 5 per system Drawing Number: 196621-3, 2 per system Drawing Number: 196621-4, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-5, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-6, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-7, 6 per system Drawing Number: 196621-8, 44 per system Drawing Number: 196933-7, 6 per system Drawing Number: 196933-6, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196933-5, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196933-4, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196933-3, 2 per system Drawing Number: 196933-1, 3 per system In accordance with statement of work (SOW paragraph 3.4.1) Minimum 0 setMaximum 30 sets over the duration of the contract.

To AN/SPS-48E Antenna Chokes1 set contains 94 chokes in the following configuration:

Drawing Number: 196621-1, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-2, 5 per system Drawing Number: 196621-3, 2 per system Drawing Number: 196621-4, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-5, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-6, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196621-7, 6 per system Drawing Number: 196621-8, 44 per system Drawing Number: 196933-7, 6 per system Drawing Number: 196933-6, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196933-5, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196933-4, 3 per system Drawing Number: 196933-3, 2 per system Drawing Number: 196933-2, 5 per system Drawing Number: 196933-1, 3 per system In accordance with statement of work (SOW paragraph 3.4.1)

Minimum 0 setMaximum 30 sets over the duration of the contract..

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

CNIN-L-0010 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

a) General

Full, accurate and complete information shall be set forth in the submissions to facilitate a thorough and timely evaluation by the Government. Submissions are expected to be short and concise.

This will be an acquisition effort utilizing a best value approach. The Offeror(s) proposals will be evaluated to ensure that their proposal for the manufacture of AN/SPS-48E Arrays and Chokes complies with the criteria listed in the solicitation. This acquisition will allow for a single award for the manufacture of AN/SPS-48E Arrays and Chokes as detailed in the Statement of Work, Specifications, Drawings and associated line items.

(b). Structure

(1) The submissions shall be typewritten, or otherwise duplicated in ink, on 8 1/2" x 11" paper. Pages are to be 1-inch top, bottom and side margins, type size shall be no smaller than 10 point font for text. The following information shall be included in the title page:

i. Purchase Description

ii. Name of Offeror

iii. Date of submission

(2) The technical proposal, the price proposal (solicitation package) and the past performance proposal shall be submitted in separate volumes. Each copy of the technical proposal shall be enclosed in a loose-leaf three ring binder with tabs separating each subfactor (3 copies total). The technical proposal shall not contain any pricing information. Past Performance may be submitted 15 days prior to the close of the solicitation. Contractor past performance data may be submitted in contractor format. Past Performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans to be submitted by large business pursuant to FAR 52.219-9.

(3) The technical proposal submissions shall not exceed 50 pages (single sided). If printed on double sided paper, each side counts as one page. Any attachments necessary to address the technical sub-factors will not be counted toward the subject proposal page limitation. Each technical proposal shall at a minimum include the information requested in the evaluation standards below and enable Government evaluating personnel to make a thorough evaluation and arrive at a sound determination as to whether or not the proposal will meet the requirements of the government. Each technical proposal shall be specific, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate that the prospective contractor has a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements and has valid and practical solutions to technical problems. Statements that paraphrase the specifications or attest that "standard procedures will be employed” are inadequate to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the requirements of the specification.

The past performance proposal submissions shall not exceed 10 pages (single sided). If printed on double sided paper, each side counts as one page. Items contractors choose to identify as attachments will not count toward the 10 page proposal limitation.

The price proposal has no page limitations. The Price Proposal shall include the signed solicitation, with all representations and certifications executed, and with Price in Section B.

The following are specific page limitations:

i) Table of Contents (1 PAGE MAXIMUM)

ii) Executive Summary (1 PAGE MAXIMUM)

iii) Discussion of Technical Factors (50 PAGE MAXIMUM) (single sided)

iv) Discussion of Past Performance Factors (10 PAGE MAXIMUM) (single sided)

Cost/Price proposal will not be counted toward page limitation. The discussion is to follow the format of these instructions.

(c) The offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) 1 completed signed solicitation packages, with all representations and certifications executed, and with prices in Section B. This will be the Price Proposal.

(2) 3 hard copies of the technical proposal in three ring binders with tabs separating each subfactor. (1 electronic copy on CDROM.)

(3) 3 hard copies of the past performance information. (1 electronic copy on CDROM.)

EXCEPTIONS: Offerors are not encouraged to take exceptions to this solicitation, however, any exceptions taken to the specifications, terms and conditions of this solicitation shall be explained in detail and set forth in a cover letter as well as in this section of the Price Proposal. Offerors are to detail the particular section, clause paragraph and page to which they are taking exception.

The evaluation factors for the award decision are listed below. Factor I (Technical Capability/Approach) is significantly more important than Factor II (Past Performance), and Factor I is significantly more important than Factor III (Price). Factor II is significantly more important than Factor III. Factor I and Factor II (factors other than price), when combined, are more important than Factor III (price). The price factor becomes more important as the degree of equality of Factors Other Than Price increases, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

The evaluation factors and associated subfactors for the award decision are listed below. Under Factor I, Subfactor A (Specification/Process Compliance) is significantly more important than Subfactors B (Brazing Process/Certification), C (Facilities), D (Delivery/Production Schedule), and E (Subcontractor/Teaming Arrangements). Subfactors A, B, C, D, and E are listed in descending order of importance. Under Factor II, Subfactors A (Quality) and B (Customer Satisfaction) are listed in descending order of importance. Factor III, Price will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the "best value" to the Government. Past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

FACTOR I - Technical Capability/Approach SUBFACTORS

A. Specification/Process Compliance B. Brazing Process/Certification C. Facilities D. Delivery/Production Schedule E. Subcontractor/Teaming Arrangements

FACTOR II - Past Performance SUBFACTORS

A. Quality B. Customer Satisfaction

FACTOR III – Price

DUE TO SIGNIFICANT COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATED WITH GOVERNMENT TRAVEL

AND SHIPPING OF MATERIALS TO THE CONTRACTOR’S FACILITY TO PERFORM WORK THERE, ALL

OFFERORS MUST BE WITHIN A FOUR HOUR DRIVING DISTANCE OF NSWC CRANE, IN TO BE

ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

(b) Although cost is not a weighted evaluation factor, it will not be ignored. The degree of importance of the cost will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based, or when the cost is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

(c) In evaluating cost type offers, realism of the offeror’s estimated cost will be considered. “Realism of Estimated Cost” is determined by reference to the costs which the offeror can reasonably be expected to incur in performance of the contract in accordance with his offer. Unrealistic personnel compensation rates will be considered in the cost realism analysis and may be considered in the technical analysis which could reduce the technical rating.

(d) The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the contracting officer, discussions will be conducted with only those offerors determined to have a reasonable chance for award.

(e) The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to the offeror with the highest technical score if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the greatest value to the Government.

EVALUATION

FACTOR I - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY/APPROACH

SUBFACTOR A: Specification/Process Compliance

Standard 1:

Offerors shall provide a written technical proposal that includes a matrix to summarize compliance with the technical requirements to the paragraph in the Offeror’s written technical proposal that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the (i) Drawings. The matrix shall be a cross reference to the Specifications by paragraph number and title to facility Government verification that all items have been addressed. A sample of the expected matrix is provided below. Offerors shall complete a matrix for each specification (one for the Array Manufacturing Procedure and one for the Choke Manufacturing Procedure).

Spec. Para.

(Array Procedure)

Work Method Validation Method

Government Inspection

Point?

Contractor Only

Inspection?

Co-located with

Previous Step?

Comment

3.1 In house Inspection No Yes N/A In accordance with

MIL-XXX

3.2 In house Test No Yes Yes Our method exceeds

requirement.

3.2.1 Subcontract Inspection Yes No No Letter of

conformance from sub also required

3.2.2.1 In house Analysis No Yes No N/A

XXXX Address all paragraphs in Spec.

XXXX Address all paragraphs in Spec.

XXXX Address all paragraphs in Spec.

XXXX Address all paragraphs in Spec.

SUBFACTOR B. Brazing Process/Certification

Standard 1:

Offerors shall provide a narrative of their experience with Dip Brazing in accordance with MIL-B-7883. The offeror shall specifically address their familiarity with AMS 3415 and/or AMS 3416 for Dip Brazing and provide copies of any certifications for Dip Brazing processes. The narrative shall include experience with devices of similar complexity and size as the arrays being worked for this acquisition. The narrative shall indicate that the offeror has the expertise and ability to execute perpendicular Dip Brazing operations given the large size of the products to be worked.

SUBFACTOR C. Facilities

The offeror shall provide a brief narrative that describes the facilities to be utilized for the array and choke manufacturing effort. The facilities shall have environmental controls to ensure the temperature is maintainable for array manufacturing as identified in the SOW. The offeror shall also show compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The offeror shall describe the equipment utilized within their facility and any subcontractor facilities, and safe working space surrounding the equipment. Examples of equipment and areas to be addressed are machining equipment/space, dip brazing equipment/space, painting equipment/space, conversion coating equipment/space, leak testing equipment/space, and any other areas intended for use on this tasking. The offeror shall define the amount of available vacant space that will be utilized for the Government Furnished Equipment.

Finally, the offerors shall show that they have inquired about connection services for the Rapid Engineering Batch Oven.

SUBFACTOR D. Delivery/Production Schedule

Offerors shall address the maximum number of arrays and chokes that can be manufactured per quarter. Offerors shall address the material lead time required for raw materials in order to meet the Government’s delivery requirements for arrays and chokes. Offerors shall also include a narrative that addresses their maximum surge capacity if the Government’s requirements increase. The ability to deliver an accelerated schedule will be considered beneficial to the Government. Delivery schedules will be established in each order.

SUBFACTOR E. Subcontractor/Teaming Arrangements

Standard 1:

Offerors shall provide a brief narrative to summarize the use of any other subcontractors/team members to accomplish this tasking. The narrative shall define the specific tasks to be performed by subcontractors/team members. The narrative shall include the location of the subcontractor(s) to be utilized and state if the array hardware will be shipped to the subcontractor/team member’s facility, complete with precautions that will be used to prevent damage to the arrays during shipping and internal handling at the subcontractor/team member facility.

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

SUBFACTOR A: Quality

Offerors shall describe their ability to meet the specification requirements for same or similar items on other contracts. Offerors shall provide examples of their effectiveness at managing similar contracts for the past three years. Include company names, points of contact, and phone numbers.

Standard 2:

Offerors shall describe how their quality system monitors and controls critical processes; continuously improves processes; establishes mechanisms for performance feedback; and an effective root cause analysis and corrective action system. The offeror shall describe how their in-process and acceptance testing addresses the consistency of overall performance throughout the manufacturing cycle for arrays and chokes.

Standard 3:

Offerors shall describe the proposed quality management approach, comparing it to the fundamentals of quality management systems as in ISO 9001-2008, MIL-Q-9858, or equivalent. Offerors shall explain how their quality program will be applied to reduce program risk in manufacturing, planning, and key program events. Offerors should provide a copy of their QA Plan as an attachment or if available a copy of ISO 9001 certificate of compliance

SUBFACTOR B: Customer Satisfaction

Offerors shall describe their ability to meet the specification requirements for same or similar items on other contracts. Offerors shall provide examples of their effectiveness at managing similar contracts for the past three years, including company names, points of contact, and phone numbers.

Standard 2:

Offerors shall describe how they have resolved corporate and customer differences and/or contract problems and disputes for the past three years, citing specific examples.

Standard 3:

Offerors shall describe their delivery of hardware and any documentation in terms of conformance with delivery schedule and other contractual requirements for the past three years.

Standard 4:

Offerors shall describe how they ensure adequate resources are committed to tasks in a timely manner. Offerors should define how they gather information to prepare recommended effective solutions to solve scheduling problems. This description should also address how quality and/or warranty issues are resolved

Industry Questions / Answers

Question Set #1:

Quantities, General, Page 42 (and others):

Minimum quantity of 0 called out in solicitation:

1. Page 4 and 5 call out a minimum of 0 sets. Also page 42 calls out a minimum of 0.

Note that on page 43 FAR 52.216‐2 indefinite quantity (OCT 1995) paragraph (b) states that:

“The Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services designated in the schedule as a “minimum.”

2. Also on page 74 FAR 52.216‐1 states that this will be a firm fixed price indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract.

IAW FAR 16.504 Indefinite –quantity contracts cited below the minimum should be more than zero has highlighted in blue below:

16.504 ‐‐ Indefinite‐Quantity Contracts.

(a) Description. An indefinite‐quantity contract provides for an indefinite quantity, within stated limits, of supplies or services during a fixed period. The Government places orders for individual requirements.

Quantity limits may be stated as number of units or as dollar values.

(1) The contract must require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum quantity of supplies or services.

(2) To ensure that the contract is binding, the minimum quantity must be more than a nominal quantity, but it should not exceed the amount that the Government is fairly certain to order.

(3) The contract may also specify maximum or minimum quantities that the Government may order under each task or delivery order and the maximum that it may order during a specific period of time.

(4) A solicitation and contract for an indefinite quantity must—

(ii) Specify the total minimum and maximum quantity of supplies or services the Government will acquire under the contract;

Based on an IDIQ contract it appears that a minimum other than 0 should be specified. If the Government does not agree please provide the explanation why a minimum does not have to be specified other than 0.

RESPONSE: It is the Governments intent that the First Article units will satisfy the minimum quantities called out in the solicitation. The First Article testing is non‐destructive, allowing the units produced to be used/fielded in the radar restoration program. A full ship set of chokes and a quantity of 30 arrays is considered to be a sufficient quantity to satisfy the FAR clauses cited. Even though first article units and production units are under different CLINs, the items produced are identical under those CLINs.

First Article Test Table: page 15

1. On test number 5 it states that the test location will be at the Radar Restoration Contractor’s

Facility. The contractor would like to inquire as to why this would be done at another contractor’s facility due to the fact that the GFE to perform this testing is included in the listing on page 33 of the solicitation.

2. Contractor would like to know who is responsible for test number 5, the Radar Restoration

Contractor or the contractor that wins this solicitation. Who is the Radar Restoration Contractor listed in the table and where are they located?

3. Would the contractor be responsible for transportation to and from the Radar Restoration

Contractor’s Facility?

RESPONSE, QUESTION 1: Test number 5 will be conducted at the radar restoration’s contractor facility.

RESPONSE, QUESTION 2: The Government is responsible for test number 5 cited in the SOW. In the “responsibility” column, it does say “Government and Contractor”. However, the only task the contractor is responsible for is preparing the arrays for transport (see below response to Question 3).

RESPONSE, QUESTION 3: The Government is responsible for transporting the devices. The contractor is responsible for packing the items, making them ready for transport. A joint inspection by the Government and Contractor will be performed prior to transport to document any damage. Damage units will not be transported. When the items are returned by the Government, to the contractor’s facility, another inspection will be performed to ensure the items were not damaged while in the Government’s custody.

Questions Related to Page 75

1. Paragraph 2 under CNIN‐L‐0010 there is a requirement of 5 copies of the technical proposal, however on page 76 it calls for 3 copies. Please clarify how many copies are actually required.

RESPONSE: That should be 3 copies. The modification has been done to correct error.

Questions Related to Page 77: Sub Factor A Specification/Process Compliance Standard 1:

1. Is it the Government’s intent for the contractor to demonstrate in their technical proposal to meet both the drawings and the specifications?

If so, it appears that the sample matrix does not allude to the drawings or technical proposal in any manner. Does the Government expect the contractor to add additional columns for drawings and technical proposal for cross reference?

If it is the Government’s intent for the contractor to include the drawing and the technical proposal then why they are not included?

2. Standard 1 alludes to both drawings and specifications; however the drawing or the specification numbers are not included. Specific Drawings and specification numbers with current REVs are requested so that it will be clear to both the Government and the contractor.

3. Under the sample matrix the comment section seems to be very vague. Please specify the amount of detail and exactly what the Government is looking for. This appears to be a good area to reference the applicable technical proposal.

4. It is requested that the Government provide what paragraphs in the specifications and the drawings that need to be addressed in the matrix. It appears to the contractor that several of the paragraphs would not be applicable to the matrix. For example regarding Document

Number: 89 WIS 10 3665 it doesn’t appear that paragraph 1 (scope) and paragraph 2 (general information) would apply to the matrix.

5. Overall after reading Standard 1 and looking at the sample expected matrix it is not clear what the Government is expecting to see in the contractor’s technical proposal.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1, 3, 4, AND 5: There is no need to address each drawing in the technical package separately. The drawings are addressed by default using the matrix process. A simple acknowledgment in the comment section that the contractor will comply with all requirements is all that is necessary. However, if the offeror wants to elaborate on a special capability that enhances their approach in those other sections, then the offeror should add that information to the comment section.

The contractor has the option to add columns as they see necessary to give the Government confidence that the approach meets the Government’s requirements. Throughout the matrix, in the section 3 (choke) and section 5 (array) comment section, the contractor may refer to the drawings in the tech data package that they will used to validate they have performed in a manner that meets the Government’s requirements. The offeror should always indicate where they take exception to the process step or “will not comply” with the step.

The goal of the matrix is to ensure that the offeror has reviewed each requirement.

Questions Related to Page 79:

FACTOR 11‐ PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Sub factor A: Quality Standard 1 is exactly the same as Sub factor B: Customer Satisfaction

Standard 1. Is that the Government’s intent?

RESPONSE: Yes

QUESTION SET # 2:

1. What is the Period of Performance for this solicitation, this information is needed to determine the pricing.

RESPONSE: This will be a five year Firm Fixed Price IDIQ.

2. For each Array & Choke Set Configuration to be manufactured could you please confirm the Print Revisions? There were multiple revisions of the same prints in the released solicitation.

RESPONSE: The latest revision of all drawings shall be used. Any drawings that have been duplicated with a lower revision level are for reference only.

3. The Choke Set quantity states 94 items, however when we confirmed the numbers we arrived at 89, is there a missing configuration or a quantity error?

RESPONSE: The total choke count is 94 chokes as defined in section two of the SOW. The modification has been done to correct error.

QUESTION SET #3:

1. AN/SPS‐48 Antenna Array Slat Manufacturing Process: Page 7

5. MANUFACTURING PROCESS

NOTE: The formed aluminum (Extrusion) is manufactured by Minalex Corporation, New Jersey, USA.

Minalex is only a recommended source, not mandatory sole source. The Extrusion Dies are owned by the Government and are retained and certified by the Minalex Corporation.

AN/SPS‐48 Antenna Choke Manufacturing Process: Page 4

3.3. Choke Manufacturing Process

3.3.1. Material

NOTE: Both drawing numbers are formed aluminum (Extrusion) manufactured by Minalex Corporation, New Jersey, USA. Prior to manufacturing TSE purchased from Minalex, Die No. 20604 for the extrusion, choke and No. 20605 for the support bracket. Both units are certified and retained by Minalex Corporation.

How can we get a copy of an invoice to show Minalex cost so that we can have a more accurate proposal cost?

RESPONSE: The Government is conducting further research and will provide a response when research concludes.

Question Set # 4:

1. Can RFP submission have a separate Table of Contents for Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3?

In the proposal instructions, section CNIN‐L‐0010 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS page 76 of 85 it indicates the following page limitations:

The following are specific page limitations:

i) Table of Contents (1 PAGE MAXIMUM)

ii) Executive Summary (1 PAGE MAXIMUM)

iii) Discussion of Technical Factors (50 PAGE MAXIMUM) (single sided)

iv) Discussion of Past Performance Factors (10 PAGE MAXIMUM) (single sided)

RESPONSE: No, include in Technical.

1. In which volume do the Table of Contents and Executive Summary get submitted?

RESPONSE: Technical, Volume 1.

2. Typically a table of contents provides a listing of each section/subsection within a proposed volume. This may exceed one page if all sections/subsections from all volumes are contained within the table of contents. Can the government provide further instructions for the table of contents? i.e. Is the table of contents listed above to provide a listing of all documents being submitted and each volume will have its own table of contents?

RESPONSE: Yes.

3. If a list of acronyms is provided will it count against the page limitations?

RESPONSE: No.

(End of Summary of Changes)