RFP-Solicitation_N64267-15-R-0018_Amendment_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 questions.

Refer to Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 2

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 28-Jan-2015

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 N64267-15-R-0018

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Jan-2015

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 is extended, X 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

28-Jan-2015

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CORONA DIV.

1999 FOURTH STREET BLDG 523

NORCO CA 92860

N64267 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N64267-15-R-0018

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q1: In the New Piston Prover Primary Liquid Flow Calibrator specification package (CSS 06-167), is the lower flowrate (0.001 GPM) for the low-flow configuration correct? This appears throughout the document. This value far exceeds the typical 1000:1 turn-down that positive displacement calibrators can achieve even in ideal conditions.

Typically the value should be 0.01 GPM, as sited in the flow range for an MT-10 in the Upgraded Piston Prover and Ballistic Flow Calibrator Primary Liquid Flow Systems specification package (CSS 06-168), paragraph 3.8.1, et al.

A range of 0.01-10 GPM was also the requirement in the current Air Force contract.

A1: The lower flow rate of 0.001 GPM for the new low flow configuration is correct as stated in CSS 06-167.

Multiple primary piston prover manufacturers have indicated that their commercially available systems are capable of meeting this requirement. Based on review of the Navy workload the Navy needs to support this low flow rate.

Q2: In the New Piston Prover Primary Liquid Flow Calibrator specification package (CSS 06-167), paragraph 3.4.2 states that the fluids do not indicate a need for the systems to meet NEC Class I, Division 1 requirements. Does it also mean that it does not need to meet NEC Class 1, Division 2 (abnormal conditions) requirements? If this is correct, then why are the upgrade systems at MCAS Cherry Point in an explosion proof (XP) environment?

A2: CSS 06-167 does not require that the systems meet Class I, Division 1 or Division 2 requirements. Paragraph

3.4.2 provides a list of fluids that may potentially be used in the systems. The systems must be capable of being operated with the fluids listed in a safe manner. The Navy eventually plans to eliminate the use of the fluids that potentially produce flammable vapors. This will eliminate any and all concerns. The systems at MCAS Cherry Point were initially installed in an explosion proof environment due to local facility concerns. The goal of upgrading these systems is to maintain them in their current state to satisfy those concerns.

Q3: Who will be responsible to the crating and shipping costs for the calibrators that will be sent to the manufacturer performing the upgrades?

A3: If applicable to send a system to the vendor the Navy will provide crating and shipping to vendor and then the vendor crates the system to return to Navy. Vendor will pay the shipping costs back to the government lab. The vendor will be responsible for installation and on site calibration for the system once it is returned. There may be cases where a refurbishing of a system will happen on site. When it is necessary for the refurbishment to take place on the premises of the government lab that controls the system the Navy will provide the necessary support equipment and rigging personnel. In all cases the vendor is responsible for installation and calibration of a completed system.

Q4: In the New Piston Prover Primary Liquid Flow Calibrator specification package (CSS 06-167), paragraph

3.1.4 describes the Temperature Control Module. Would a direct electric insertion heater with level and over-temperature alarm cut-offs be an acceptable “or equivalent” alternative to the liquid to liquid heat exchanger?

A4: A direct electric insertion heater would not be acceptable. For bidding purposes we wish that all proposals follow this particular temperature control module as described in CSS 06-167, paragraph 3.1.4. If after award a successful offeror wishes to provide a value-engineering cost proposal, such issues will be examined at that time.