N3943018Q2056_Q_and_A_N3943018Q2056.pdf

Aggregate Chip Spreader Solicitation Number N39430-18-Q-2056

Questions / Responses

1. Please confirm the proposal due date and time as it is not clear in the synopsis. Is the proposal due 14 June or 29 June (Archive Date)?

A1: Proposal due date is 2:00 pm PDT on 14 June 2018.

2. Please confirm that only electronic submissions will be allowed, or can we submit a paper copy?

A2: All proposals shall be submitted electronically.

3. Please confirm that offers can be submitted on Letterhead as acceptable versus SF1449 as we do not have access and not familiar with a SF1449 for this solicitation.

A3: Yes, offers may be submitted on a Letterhead.

4. Please confirm that past performance questionnaires (PPQ) should be submitted directly to the Government Point of Contact or can we include them in a response or both?

A4: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) may be submitted directly to the Government Point of Contact or in a response or both.

5. Our company is privately owned, closely held, small business and will not be supplying financial statements as requested by Factor 4 Price, (B). We could provide publicly available reports off Experian, (similar to Dun & Bradstreet). Will that be acceptable to the Government?

A5: Shall be deleted.

6. We as a small business are not familiar with the required Representative and Certifications-Commercial Items nor have we completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) – is it correct that we can complete paragraphs (c) thru (u) and include them with our proposal submission?

A6: In accordance with FAR 4.1102 prospective contractors shall be registered in the SAM database prior to award of contract.

7. The solicitation factor 2 Safety requires that we submit a Technical Approach for Safety. It asked for a safety management plan that will be used to oversee the safety compliance and performance of the self-performed work and subcontractor performed work. Our company has a companywide set of safety procedures and policies – which outline the procedures we utilize in the manufacture of all of our products not specific to our commercial chip spreader. Can you please clarify the request for said safety plan – can it be a summary of our existing company safety procedures or is the Navy looking for a document specifically associated with this product. Can a copy of our safety procedures be provided?

A7: Yes, provide any EMR, DRAT & TRC information that is available. However, if there is a specific safety plan available for this product, please provide.

8. DFARS Clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, is required in all contracts except for contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items. The solicitation is for a basic commercial aggregate chip spreader and should not be applicable to any resultant contract. Please consider deleting this clause.

A8: Clause shall be deleted.

9. Please confirm, as stated in section 4.3.1.7, that the only electrical operating system acceptable is a 24-volt electrical operating system. Request that the Navy consider changing to allow for a 12-volt electrical operating system, as this is standard on our commercial chip spreader which will allow for readily available spare parts, and would reduce the overall cost and lead time of ACS units.

A9: In keeping with parts 4.3.1.7 and 4.7.1.4 of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to receive Aggregate Chip Spreaders equipped with a 24-volt electrical operating system.

10. Please clarify and add a more detailed description to section 4.4.1.3, in which it states an Oscillating Front Axle. Our commercial chip spreader deploys a spring Timbren rubber front suspension. Is this acceptable?

A10: Utilizing a Timbren rubber front suspension kit is acceptable; however, that in itself is not a bases for overall acceptability or unacceptability of this requirement. As a point of clarification, the axle cannot be a rigid type, it must be able to pivot with the contour of the road.

11. Please confirm, as stated in section 4.8.1.3, that the maximum allowable width is 8 feet.

Request that the Navy consider a maximum allowable width of 8 feet 2 inches. Our chip spreader widest point is within our rear axle, measuring 8 feet 1.25 inches (equivalent to

8.104 feet). Refer to Fig. 1.

FIGURE 1. 8 FOOT CHIP SPREADER WIDTH

11A: In keeping with part 4.8.1.3 of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to receive Aggregate Chip Spreaders with a width reducible to eight-feet or less when in transportation mode. It may be wider in operation mode. With that said, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 23, subsection 658.16 and Appendix D to 23 CFR 658 indicates exclusions from the width determinations. These exclusions are applied to this procurement.

12. Please confirm, as stated in section 4.8.1.4, that the maximum allowable height is 10 feet.

Request that the Navy consider a maximum allowable height of 11 feet. Our commercial chip spreader’s height – taken on the highest point on the rails – is 10 feet 8.313 inches (equivalent to 10.526 feet). Of importance, the overall height – taken from the top of beacon on the canopy – is 11 feet 7.938 inches (equivalent to 11.662 feet).Refer to Fig. 2.

FIGURE 2. 8 FOOT CHIP SPREADER HEIGHT

12A: In keeping with part 4.8.1.4 of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to receive Aggregate Chip Spreaders with a height reducible to ten-feet or less when in transportation mode. It may be taller in operation mode.

13. RE: SOW paragraphs 4.3.1.7 and 4.7.1.4---ACS SHALL HAVE A 24-VOLT

ELECTRICAL OPERATING SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANAG 2601:

Standard commercially available ACS machines are equipped with 12-volt electrical systems including engine, lighting, electronic control systems, hydraulic solenoid valves, and air solenoid controls. A 24-volt system would be non-standard and thus would carry with it non-standard parts and assemblies with new part numbers, longer lead-times, and higher cost. A 24-volt engine would also require new testing, and all of this could impact delivery of the first unit and technical manuals. Would the Navy consider allowing 12 volt electrics as was stated in Potential Specifications document provided in March 2018 for the entire machine or for any sub-system portion of the ACS electrical system? Would the Navy clarify what specific requirements of STANAG 2601 and its many sub-standard references are considered pertinent for the ACS since those standards are voluminous, not accessible without purchase, and not used as design criteria for commercially available ACS machines?

13 A: In keeping with parts 4.3.1.7 and 4.7.1.4 of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to receive Aggregate Chip Spreaders equipped with a 24-volt electrical operating system. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 2601 establishes the requirements for interoperability of electrical systems of tactical land vehicles and vehicle combinations such as truck-trailer or prime mover/semi-trailer from different nations. The aim of this agreement is to standardize the nominal voltage of the electrical systems of tactical land vehicles for practical purposes.

14. RE: SOW paragraphs 4.8.1.1---ACS SHALL HAVE A VARIABLE PAVING SPREAD

WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET TO AT LEAST 16 FEET, AND 4.8.1.3---ACS SHALL HAVE A

WIDTH REDUCIBLE TO EIGHT FEET OR LESS WHEN IN TRANSPORTATION

MODE:

Almost all commercially sold ACS machines have minimum transportation width dimensions wider than 8 feet, and variable width hoppers that extend to spread 16+ feet do not collapse completely to 8 feet outside width because they have apparatus outside the 8+ feet spread width opening of each hopper. Would the Navy allow the transportation width requirement to be changed to 8ft 6in to permit use of commercially available hopper designs, or could paragraph 4.8.1.3 use the 10 foot width specification as was stated in Potential Specifications document provided in March 2018 to allow more commonly used and high-volume production chassis and hopper designs?

14A: In keeping with part 4.8.1.3 of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to receive Aggregate Chip Spreaders with a width reducible to eight-feet or less when in transportation mode. It may be wider in operation mode. With that said, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 23, subsection 658.16 and Appendix D to 23 CFR 658 indicates exclusions from the width determinations. These exclusions are applied to this procurement.

15) RE: SOW paragraph 4.7.1.8---ACS SHALL HAVE LIFT AND TIE-DOWN

PROVISIONS---IN ACCORDANCE WITH MIL-STD-209K:

Please provide clarification as to whether this will be deemed a Type I or Type II piece of equipment for transportability purposes. If Type II, please clarify what is required for supplemental air transport tie-downs in the C17 aircraft.

15A: The Aggregate Chip Spreaders would be categorized as Type I for transportability purposes. With regards to supplemental air transport tie-downs provisions, the applicable requirements for a C-17 aircraft are identified in MIL-STD-209K, section 5.6 (and its subsections) to include Table III (Number of Supplemental Air Transport Tiedown Provisions Required Per Side).

16. RE: SOW paragraph 6.1---THE CONTACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

SHIPPING-RELATED COSTS; TO INCLUDE ANY LABOR AND WEIGHT

HANDLING EQUIPMENT:

Please clarify whether the government receiving sites have staff and provisions capable of offloading ACS shipments, or whether the contractor is expected to bring in equipment and people to cover that at the two delivery locations specified, and the test location for the lift/tie-down testing.

16A: In keeping with part 6.1 of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to not have staff and/or provisions capable of offloading the Aggregate Chip Spreaders at the Government's indicated receiving sites. As such, it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to offload delivered equipment at receiving destination.

17. RE: SOW paragraph 6.1.3---REGARDING DELIVERY SCHEDULE:

Would the Navy consider making delivery timing of items beyond the first of type unit based on days beyond acceptance of that first unit instead of days after award?

17A: In keeping with the Delivery and Period of Performance Schedule indicated in Table III of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to utilize the performance schedule based on date of award. It should be noted that the schedule indicated in Table III is based on 'no later than' day increments.

18. RE: SOW paragraph 6.1.3---REGARDING DELIVERIES AND ACCEPTANCE Please clarify details of the inspection and acceptance plan for Navy or DCMA representatives and the location to be used for each, and for all deliveries. Will the Navy consider inspection of at least the first of type unit at the contractor's facility to facilitate any corrective actions required before additional units are produced and shipped?

18A: In keeping with parts 4.10.2, 6.1, and 6.3 of section C (Statement of Work), it is the Government's intention to accept the Aggregate Chip Spreaders at FOB point of destination.

However, Navy Technical Representatives could support the overall effort by conducting a compliance inspection of the first of type unit at the contractor's facility to facilitate any corrective actions required by the Contractor prior delivery.

19. RE: COMBINED SYNOPSIS FACTOR 4 PRICE, B)---THE CONTRACTOR SHALL

PROVIDE A COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE MOST RECENT

COMPLETED 12-MONTH FINANACIAL ACCOUNITNG YEAR:

We are a privately owned small business, and do not distribute company financial statements for competitive bids on contracts of this size. Please confirm whether financial information already provided annually with SAM registration renewal, or public documents such as from Experian would be sufficient. If SAM financial information is accessible by the Navy for review of proposals on this contract, does it need to be submitted with the proposal?

19A: Shall be deleted. See response to 5A.

20. RE: COMBINED SYNOPSIS FAR PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES APPLICABLE---

252.204-7012 SAFEGUARDING UNCLASSIFIED CONTROLLED TECHNICAL

INFORMATION:

Commercial small-business ACS manufacturers are not familiar with and are unlikely to comply with this DFARS provision; and are unlikely to be able to implement the security requirements in its referenced standard NIST SP 800-171 by the time this contract will be awarded. The Statement of Work has no indication of covered defense information (CDI) that would be pertinent; and the ACS is predominantly a commercial item that would have no CDI since its documentation originates from the commercial product contractor. It seems the burden of contractor compliance to 252.204-7012 is beyond reasonable for this contract. Would the Navy be able to remove 252.204-7012 from the applicable clause list?

20A: Shall be deleted. See response to 8A.