N0018918R0044_N0018918R0044_QandA_Amend6.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- HAZMAT 3PL in Okinawa, Japan
- Solicitation number
- N0018918R0044
About this file
This document contains a request for proposal for hazardous materials third party logistics support services in Okinawa, Japan. The Navy is seeking a contractor to provide hazardous material handling, storage, transportation, and distribution services at multiple sites on the island. The contract type will be a fixed price economic price adjustment hybrid with a period of performance from September 2018 to September 2023 and two one-year option periods. The solicitation response deadline is April 25, 2018. Interested offerors must have the capability to receive, store, transport, and issue over 1,500 stock numbered items on a monthly basis. The contractor will also be responsible for hazardous waste accumulation and disposal services. Pricing will be evaluated based on attachments providing a test market basket and price sheets for materials, labor, and other direct costs.
N0018918R0044_N0018918R0044_QandA_Amend6.xlsx
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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
Ready to Post
| No. | Question | Government Responses |
| 1 | Page 35 of the solicitation document titles Volume I as Non-Price Proposal and includes Technical as Factor I and Past Performance as Factor II. Page 37 of the same document titles Volume I as Technical and lists Volume II as Past Performance. It is not clear whether Past Performance should be part of Volume I or a separate volume. Can the Government please clarify the volumes, factors, and sub-factors required to be submitted? | The Government does not see the error. In the chart on Page 37, Past Performance is listed as Volume I. Past performance is included in Volume I as Factor II. |
| 2 | Page 37 of the solicitation document instructs offerors to pay particular attention to how it will meet service and delivery requirements in sections C-2, C-3, and C-4; however no C-2, C-3, or C-4 is listed in the PWS, as the outline goes from C-1.1.1 to C-2.2, from C-2.15 to C-3.1, and ends with Section C-3.7. It is not clear to which PWS areas offerors are required to pay particular attention. Can the Government please clarify to which PWS sections offerors are required to pay particular attention? | C-2 refers to anything with C-2 in the Section heading. The same goes for C-3. The reference to C-4 was removed in Amendment 4. |
| 3 | Page 41 of the solicitation document states that the offeror will be evaluated on the feasibility and comprehensiveness of their proposed approach to meeting the specific service and delivery requirements of sections C-2, C-3, and C-4. Because the PWS does not include a section C-2, C-3, or C-4, it is not clear on which PWS sections offerors will be evaluated. 1) Can the Government please clarify which PWS sections will be used in evaluating Performance Approaches? 2) Given the limited number of pages, can the Government please clarify whether the expectation is to only address these requested PWS sections or if offerors are to address all PWS sections? | Please see answer to Question 2. |
| 4 | Page 37 states, "Offerors are permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following which will not be included in the page count: "a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, tabs, and dividers." There are multiple factors and sub-factors in Volume I. Can the Government please revise to allow offerors to submit more than one tab / divider to identify multiple sections? | There is a limit of one page each for a cover sheet, a list of tables, and a list of figures. Tabs and dividers are limited to one page each but there is no overall limit to the number of tabs or dividers in the entire proposal. |
| 5 | Both Sub-factor II - Management Approach and Sub-factor III - Transition/Phase-In Plan require offerors to "identify any risks or issues anticipated to arise during the transition and methods to mitigate those risks and overcome transition issues." It is assumed that the transition risks or issues identified in Sub-factor II should be in regard to implementing the offeror's Management Approach, while the transitions risks or issues identified in Sub-factor III are with regard to obtaining resources (i.e., manpower, equipment, finances, inventory, etc. within the 90 days transition/phase-in period). Can the Government please confirm whether this is the Government's intent? | Yes, that is the intent of the Government. |
| 6 | Page 37 states that an alternate font with 8 point size type or larger may be used for graphics (including tables). The Past Performance Information Form is in a table. May a reduced font size be used for the Past Performance Information Forms in accordance with page 37? | The PPIF is considered a part of the past performance volume. The offeror shall propose in accordance with the Instructions to Offerors. |
| 7 | The solicitation document defines Scope and Magnitude as part of the Relevancy aspect of Past Performance evaluation; however the Past Performance Relevancy Rating description also includes complexity as a factor and the Past Performance Information Form has a section to discuss complexity. There is no clear definition provided for complexity. Can the Government please define complexity? | The reference in the relevency table cannot be deleted as that table is designated by the Department of Defense, however, complexity will not be evaluated in past performance. The PPIF has been updated. |
| 8 | The provided Past Performance Information Form is wider than one-inch margin allowed on page 37 of the solicitation document. Are offerors expected to reformat the PPIF to fit within the one-inch margins or are the Past Performance Information Forms an exception to the one-inch margin requirement? | The PPIF currently has a 1 inch margin |
| 9 | Page 38 states that offerors are required to submit a "complete and signed cover sheet acknowledging combined synopsis solicitation;" however, no cover sheet was included with the solicitation documents package. Can the Government please provide the cover sheet? | The offeror is to provide a cover page with their proposal as stated on page 38 acknowledging the solicitation and all amendments. |
| 10 | Page 39 states that offerors are to use the not-to-exceed amounts in Section B for material and ODCs; however the solicitation does not include a "Section B." It is not clear whether the CLIN structure defined on pages 25 and 26 of the same document constitute Section B. Can the Government please clarify? | "Section B" is on pages 25 and 26. |
| 11 | Under Personnel Qualifications on page 3, the RFP states, "The Contractor shall provide staffing commensurate with the size of the operation, type and quantity of material being managed, and required service hours to support the customer. The Contractor shall provide qualified supervisory, technical, and administrative personnel to accomplish all work and services required by the SOW not later than (NLT) the first day of full Contract Performance." However, no workload data is provided with which to determine staffing and only the incumbent has access to this information. Will the Government please provide the number of receipts, issues and buys per year with which offerors can determine appropriate staffing levels? | Please see Amendment 4 which adds the usage data as an attachment. |
| 12 | If alternate staffing plans are proposed, would the Government consider allocating additional page count and requiring offerors to provide a detailed justification for proposed staffing levels? | The Government has amended the page count in Amendment 4 |
| 13 | Some costs that comprise the Material Handling Charge (MHC) are aggregate costs spread across the sales volume vice assigned to individual items. Insurance, for example, is priced to offerors based upon projected sales and inventory volume. Likewise, bulk shipping savings are predicated upon anticipated sales. Therefore, an offeror's MHC depends upon volume to an extent. Allowing customers to bypass the 3PL contractor results in unplanned reduced sales and inventory volume. Will Okinawa customers be required to order all commercially sourced and Federal Supply System hazardous materials through the 3PL contractor? | The customer base will be trained and instructed not to bypass the local HAZMAT provider/HMMC for their HAZMAT product needs but use will not be mandatory. |
| 15 | Attachments III and VIII do not include enough information to identify the material and obtain accurate pricing. NSN/LSN items could have multiple SDSs, Manufacturers, and Part Numbers. Lack of this technical data forces offerors (other than the incumbent) to guess at the correct item to price, and in many cases Nomenclature and NSN as the only data in the attachments is insufficient to identify an item at all. This favors the incumbent and causes other offerors to assume significant risk if the incorrect item is priced. Can the Government please provide technical data for LSNs such as manufacturer's name, part number, and SDS information for all items. | Please see Amendment 4 which adds the usage data as an attachment. |
| 16 | Attachment VIII includes numerous items listed that have Local Stock Numbers, but the comments refer them back to another NSN. Can the Government please explain the intent of the cross reference and how offeror's are to address pricing for these items? Are these items to be separately priced separately from the NSN referenced in the comment's section or will the Government provide the technical data that caused these items to be assigned a LSN? | The offerors are to price column X |
| 17 | In Attachment III, column D includes quantities. Do these quantities represent actual annual usage data or are they provided as a means to quantify sales volume for price evaluation? | The quantities are for price evaluation. The extended price is the quantity times the unit price proposed inclusive of the discount for that line item |
| 20 | Page 39 under Test Market Basket Pricing reads "for each item in the Test Market Basket, the offeror shall determine if an item will be procured from a commercial source or a Government source of supply. If the item will be procured from a commercial source, the offeror shall complete columns E, F, and S." It would seem the Government would provide the data in Columns E and F to ensure offerors are pricing what the end use customers requires. It also appears other columns would need to be completed for commercially sourced products. Can the Government please provide unit of issue and the amount in the unit of issue, and clarify instructions for commercial products? | Updated in Amendment 4. |
| 21 | The Government refers to this attachment as a the pricing spreadsheet, however, it is currently just a Government LOE estimation. Offerors require more information on what pricing details are required. Are offerors permitted to alter Attachment IV to provide pricing detail? Can the Government provide additional guidance on completing this spreadsheet? For example, are offerors allowed to bid less hours than currently specified; can offerors deviate from the listed Labor Categories; is justification required for deviations; etc.? | The soliciation provides guidance for justification. Attachment IV can be altered to accommodate the proposed mix as long as all the information required in the attachment is provided. |
| 22 | Page 43 of the solicitation document states that the "combined total of the proposed priced in Attachment III - Material Price Submission Worksheet and Attachment IV - Estimated Service Pricing Spreadsheet will determine the offeror's total proposed price for evaluation purposes only. These prices will be added to the material and ODC NTE value to determine the total proposed price for evaluation purposes only (i.e., Material NTE + ODCs + Options + Attachment III and IV)." It seems that adding Attachment III to NTE Material amounts would be double counting material prices. Can the Government please explain why the Test Market Basket price is added to the materials NTE for evaluation purposes? | Amendment 4 provides clarification |
| 23 | The solicitation is not clear as to whether the Transition Out needs to be priced? Can the Government please clarify? | The transition out is not priced. |
| 24 | Page 43 of the solicitation document states that the "combined total of the proposed priced in Attachment III - Material Price Submission Worksheet and Attachment IV - Estimated Service Pricing Spreadsheet will determine the offeror's total proposed price for evaluation purposes only. These prices will be added to the material and ODC NTE value to determine the total proposed price for evaluation purposes only (i.e., Material NTE + ODCs + Options + Attachment III and IV)." However, the Total Material Price tab of Attachment III already adds the Total Test Market Basket to Transition, Labor, Material NTE and Total ODCs NTE. The Government's intent is not clear. Is it the Government's intent to add the Total Material Price spreadsheet Total to the Material NTE, ODCs, Options, and Attachment IV? | The Government has clarified in Amendment 4. NTE and proposals will only be counted once. |
| 25 | For offerors other than the incumbent, the transition period will include labor, but may also include travel costs since the place of performance is OCONUS. The solicitation is not clear as to whether the transition period is labor only. Can the Government please clarify? | The transition shall include any and all ODCs and labor required. |
| 26 | The Material and ODC NTE values in the solicitation are provided by the Government, but any burdening by offeror's to material and ODCs is unknown when developing these values. Is it the Government's intent to add any offeror's burdens to the NTE values? | The Government has provided the NTE value for any allowable costs within the NTE. Offerors shall propose the not to exceed value. |
| 27 | Under Personnel Qualifications, on page 3, there is reference to staff needing to "meet the experience, educational, and other background requirements set forth below" but no requirements are identified. Can the Government please provide the experience and educational requirements for each Labor Category? | The only qualifications the Government requires are for the Site Manager and 3PL PM, as stated in the PWS. Educational stricken. |
| 28 | The solicitation is unclear as to whether Attachment VIII needs to be completed and submitted with an offeror's proposal. If so, significant technical data is required to price these items. Does the Government expect a fully priced Attachment VIII with the proposal submission or only those items that are also included in Attachment III - Test Market Basket? | Please see Volume II instructions. Attachment VIII is required. |
| 29 | There are a number of items that are listed in Attachment III that are not listed in Attachment VIII, including 7930MC0007647, 7930MC0016123, A4, A5, 8010MC0017441, 8010MC0017465, 8010MC0017438, 8010MC0017472, 8010MC0010527, 8010MC0016932, 8030MC0016556, 8030MC0017056. Items not on the AUL cannot be issued. Can the Government please indicate if all items in Attachment III should also be included in Attachment VIII, and if not, why? | The AUL is a living document and is subject to change at any time. Both attachment are required in Volume II |
| 30 | There are a number of items that are identified as Never Out that are not listed in Attachment VIII, including 7930MC0016123, 7930MC0007647, 7930MC0016513. Items not on the AUL cannot be issued. Can the Government please explain why these are not listed in Attachment VIII AUL/Catalog? | The AUL is a living document and is subject to change at any time. Both attachment are required in Volume II |
| 31 | Page 8 of the solicitation document states that "the never-out list is an extension of the Master Stock List for the primary HMMC (Attachment VIII-AUL), and is not a separate item." This is the only place where a Master Stock List is mentioned. Can the Government please define the Master Stock List in relation to Attachment VIII? | Page 8 changed from Master Stock List to AUL. |
| 32 | The test market basket evaluation methodology heavily favors the current incumbent, who has past and current access to pricing from local Okinawa vendors that is not available to other offerors. Many of the items that have been requested to be priced (especially bulk chemicals) are ideally sourced from local vendors in order to provide customers lower price products, because local sources do not include shipping costs. Would the Government consider revising the Test Market Basket to exclude locally procured items in order to eliminate the incumbent’s advantage? | The Government is not requiring a brand or source. Attachment is unchanged |
| 33 | Use of a fixed price catalog forces offerors to incur risk that product prices do not escalate in the option years greater than the offeror’s projected escalation. It also forces offerors to make assumptions about shipping costs that are entirely out of their control, and again incurs risk. Actual shipping cost history is known only to the incumbent. This risk is magnified if offerors must price almost 1,600 items in Attachment VIII. Likewise, the incumbent knows the prices of the items in Attachment VIII and has an advantage over other offerors. Would the Government consider requiring pricing of the Test Market Basket for submission purposes of price evaluation, but delay pricing of Attachment VIII until the end of the Phase-In period using the same methodology with which the Test Market Basket is priced? This additional time mitigates risk for offerors and results in more accurate pricing for customers. | The Government will not delay pricing of Attachment VIII. Offerors may wish to consider PWS section C-2.15 in determining the level of risk. |
| 34 | Offerors cannot price the Test Market Basket or Attachment VIII until technical data for each Local Stock Number is provided. Likewise, alternate staffing plans cannot be developed without annual workload data. This data is already known by the incumbent and other offerors cannot develop their bids without this data. Will the Government please provide this data and extend the due date an additional 30 days from the date all LSN technical data and operational workload data is provided in order to provide non-incumbent offerors sufficient time to develop their bids? | See Response to Question #15 |
| 35 | The incumbent is currently at an advantage by knowing workload, available GFE, site layout, HMMC design/capabilities, delivery routes, location of customer Camps and lockers, and overall familiarity with the local geography associated with this specific operation. In order to ensure all offerors are afforded access to the same operational information available to the incumbent with which to develop a competitive bid, would the Government consider providing offerors a site visit, similar to what’s been done with similar 3PL Hazmat procurements and specifically this procurement in the past?” | The Government will consider a site visit but has also provided layout attachments. Site visit will be allowed at the expense of offerors. Offerors are to formally request a site visit to heather.coleman@navy.mil by COB 19 April 2018. Site visits will likely be scheduled the during the week of 23 Apr or 7 May. |
| 36 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide a mileage chart listing distances between the HM Minimization Centers (HMMC) and customer locations? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See attachments: Mileage Chart and Map of Okinawa |
| 37 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide a list of Government Furnished gas cylinders including NSN, NIIN, Nomenclature, Unit of Issue, and On Hand Quantity? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See attachement: JEMMS (Apr 2014 - Mar 2017 (Gases) This reflects three years of demand. |
| 38 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide a list of all Government Furnished Facilities? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See attachments: GFF - HMMC - Camp Hensen / GFF - HMMC Bldg 500 / GFF - HMMC Office Bldg 502 . |
| 41 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide a detailed map of the HM Minimization Centers (HMMC) and customer locations? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See response to Question # 38 and attachment (IssuePoints (4-16-18) |
| 42 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide all HM drop points? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See attachment: IssuePoints (4-16-18) |
| 43 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide the Hazardous Waste (HW) pick points and schedules? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See Amendment 4 |
| 44 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide inventory demand history by calendar year? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See Amendment 4 |
| 45 | Contractors other than the incumbent are at a disadvantage without data that would typically be provided with a solicitation of this type. Can the Government please provide inthe LForm breakdown? This data is required for contractors to determine resource requirements in order to develop competitive pricing. | See attachment: LFORM Breakdown (Kits for deployment support) |
| 46 | Please confirm that the Labor cost for each period and the Transition cost should be filled out in the Total Material Price tab as well? Should the contractor assume that the labor and transition cost will be the same as in Section B, CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0004? | That's correct. |
| 47 | Could the Government identify the commodity groups used in the Test Market Basket spreadsheet? | The Government will not be breaking out the pricing by commodity groups |
| 48 | In the Total Material Price spreadsheet the Proposed Discount percentage (column C) seems to be a constant rate applied over an annual Estimated amount of the Test Market Basket whereas the Proposed Commercial Benchmark Discount %(Test Market Basket-column H) may vary between the commodity groups for a single period of performance. Could the Government clarify how a single Proposed Discounted Rate should be estimated per year when there might be multiple commodity groups with different percentages? | Please see answer to question 47. |
| 49 | Given that discounts by line item are required in the Test Market Basket worksheet, is the Total Material Price worksheet requesting an additional discount at the total price level? | It is not. This is a composite of the discounts offered. See revised attachment. |
| 50 | Could the Government confirm that the Unit Price/ List Price should be inclusive of the price customers will pay for the item plus the material and handling rate only? | That is correct. |
51 Could the Government confirm that the contractor should complete columns G, H and U in the Test Market Basket spreadsheet for items procured from a commercial source and the contractor should fill out columns G and V in the Test Market Basket spreadsheet for items procured from a Government source? Amendment 4 updates the columns
52 It would appear that by evaluating the Material NTE plus the totals from Attachment III is overstating the materials portion of the total evaluated price. Additionally, if the labor referenced in Attachment III represents the totals from Attachment IV, labor pricing would also be overstated. See Amendment 4
53 Could the Government provide instruction for completing Attachment VIII? See Amendment 4
54 Should the contractor assume that no price information is required for CLIN 0003 ODCS FFP and 1003- FAR 52.217-8 ODCS FFP as well? See Amendment 4
| 55 | Could the Government confirm that the Estimated Amounts in column B of the Total Material Price spreadsheet (before the Proposed Discount (in column C) and which Estimated Amounts equate to the Proposed Extended Prices in the Test Market Basket spreadsheet) will be used when calculating the total evaluation price? | See Amendment 4 |
| 56 | Should Section B include a CLIN for the Total Material Price based on the Total amounts per period of the Test Market Basket? | No change needed. Material will be the NTE value provided. |
| 57 | Could the Government confirm that the contractor should include ODC and Travel for the Transition period and this cost is not part of the Government provided plug amounts? | Confirmed |
58 Could the Government confirm that there shouldn’t be any Fee or Profit on travel in the Transition period (CLIN 0004-FFP) as well? Confirmed
60 If the contractor maintains a minimum 30-day inventory level per the contract, and the material is not issued to customers before expiration of shelf life, it is assumed that procurement and disposition costs can be charged to the Government. If this assumption is incorrect, how does the contractor charge the Government for the material costs and disposition costs of the 30-day inventory? The assumption is incorrect. The Government will not be responsible for material or disposition costs of any inventory
66 Based on these two bullets, that the contractor has authority to place orders on behalf of the customer without approval so long as the maximum levels are not exceeded and charge the customers GCPC. Is this assumption correct? The contractor does not have authority to place orders on behalf of the customer. Contractor would own said inventory until purchased by an end user.
68 Can the contractor add transportation costs (C-2.9) and material handling charges (C-2.11) to the sales receipt? Only the material handling allowed in the PWS can be added to the price of the material charge.
74 Are the transportation charges in the material handling charges for transport of hazardous material from the HMMC to customers? Only the material handling allowed in the PWS can be added to the price of the material charge.
75 When required inventory levels are maintained by the contractor, but customers have a surge in requirements (i.e. deployment, work orders, multiple customer orders for the same material) that deplete inventory to NIS levels, will the Government allow more time for the contractor to replenish inventory when coordinated with the customer? The PWS shall be met/followed. Additionally, please see clause titled "AUTHORIZED CHANGES ONLY BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER"
| 79 | What type of vehicle (i.e. van, car, truck) and quantity, if any, will the Government provide to be used in support of the contract? (Customer visits, meetings, QC/QA of hazardous material lockers and HWAPs, etc). | No vehicle will be provided |
| 80 | A list of HWAPS would be required to estimate pickup schedules, manpower, and vehicle requirements. When will a list of Hazardous Waste Accumulation Points (HWAPS) be made available? | See Amendment 4 |
82 The solicitation does not identify the location, or buildings to be used, to operate the HMMC. What buildings, locations, and Government Furnished Property will be provided to support the HMMC operations? See Amendment 4
83 Can the contractor charge the customer for the transportation of material from the supplier to the HMMC site on the sales receipt (C-2.10.1)? Only the material handling allowed in the PWS can be added to the price of the material charge.
86 RFQ identifies service and delivery requirements specified in sections C-2, C-3, and C-4 of the PWS. Section C-4 is missing from the RFQ. Please provide Section C-4. See Amendment 4. See answer to Question 2.
89 Subfactor II – Management Approach requires “offerors to identify any risks or issues anticipated arising during the transition and methods to mitigate those risks and overcome transition issues”. This same statement is in Subfactor II Transition/Phase-in Plan. Please clarify if it is the Government’s intent that the offeror address transition risks in both sections? That is correct. Please refer to question 5.
| 93 | In reviewing the Q&A, we noticed not all questions were answered – when does the Navy anticipate releasing the remaining Q&A? Additionally, there are attachments referenced in the solicitation that have not been uploaded to FBO - when does the Navy anticipate uploading the missing attachments? | The Government is still reviewing the remaining questions. Amendment 5 extends the solicitation close date. All attachments referenced in amendment 4 are uploaded with minor changes to the naming |
| 94 | I’m trying to understand this solicitation. I see that there is multiple nsn on one of the sheets. We’re the rep for 1 of the NSN. My question is can we bid one NSN or is a combine solicitation? | This solicitation is for the entire requirement. |
| 95 | 1.Attachment III Material Price Submission Worksheet _Amend 4 contains NTE amounts from a previous version of the solicitation; are bidders authorized to update this section with the NTE amounts contained in Section B of Amendment 4? | See Amendment 6 |
| 96 | 2. Seeking clarification for Q&A number 16. Attachment VIII does not contain a column X to be filled in. Did the Government mean to indicate column D "Unit Price"? |
Q&A reference "Question Number: 16. Question: Attachment VIII includes numerous items listed that have Local Stock Numbers, but the comments refer them back to another NSN. Can the Government please explain the intent of the cross reference and how offeror's are to address pricing for these items? Are these items to be separately priced separately from the NSN referenced in the comment's section or will the Government provide the technical data that caused these items to be assigned a LSN? Answer: The offerors are to price column X"
| See Amendment 6. Yes, the Government did intend to say column D. | |||
| 97 | 3. Regarding Attachment VIII, can the Government can confirm that the Unit cost should only include M&H fee? | Confirmed | |
| 98 | 4. In Section III Proposal content/ Volume II-Price proposal, the solicitation refers to a clause titled "Allowability of Material and General Business Expenses" in the solicitation. The Government refers to it in Section III. Can the Government provide the location of this clause? |
Proposal reference "ODCs estimated above is for incidental material and special materials as defined in the clause entitled, "Allowability of Material and General Business Expenses" and elsewhere in the solicitation."
| See Amendment 6. | |||
| 99 | Site Visit for the week of 7 May - UPDATE | The Government will not be able to accommodate the 7 May site visit as previously expected. The Government has instead provided diagrams as attachments and will entertain any questions regarding the facility. These attachements are XIV-XVII. | |
| 100 | When will answers to the remaining questions be released. | The Government expects to finalize all responses by 1 May. | |
| 101 | The RFP Amendment 0005 states, “The combined total of the proposed priced in Attachment III - Material Price Submission Worksheet and Attachment IV - Estimated Service Pricing Spreadsheet will determine the offeror's total proposed price for evaluation purposes only.” |
Attachment IV represents the labor pricing, which appears to also roll into Attachment III. Combing the total of the two attachments would appear to overstate the labor pricing.
Additionally, the totals in Attachment III include the Material NTE and the total of the Test Market Basket. Assuming CLIN 0001 is where materials would be invoiced and is capped at the NTE number, adding the total of the Test Market Basket would overstate the materials estimate for this program.
Amendment 0005 also states the evaluated price is:
Material NTE + ODCs + Labor + Options + Attachment III and IV If Attachment III totals include the labor, material NTE and Test Market Basket pricing, then adding the additional elements of price to the Attachment III totals as stated above would overstate the value of this program.
Please clarify how the Government will calculate the total evaluated price.
See Amendment 6.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .