Q_&_A_8-7-2017.docx

N64498-17-R-0009 Q&A 8-7-2017

Question 1 The identification of spares for new equipment is a joint effort between the government and the contractor and requires specialized logistics software and failure rate data from both the government and manufacturers. Does the government intend that the contractor instead submit a list of critical LRUs as potential spares for new equipment?

Answer 1 Yes Question 2 The spares list does not affect vendor selection. Will the Government consider changing the spares list requirement to be a post-award deliverable?

Answer 2 No the Government would like to see what spare parts are expected. The spares list is expected to change and it not expected to be set list over the life of the contract. This is the reason the CLIN is set as a not to exceed.

Question 3 Is there a format for the warranty spreadsheet to ensure consistency between responses?

Answer 3 The format of the warranty and spares spreadsheets is at the discretion of the individual offeror. There is no Government standard for these documents.

Question 4 Since no pricing data is to be included in the Technical Volume, where should this cost data be included in the proposal?

Answer 4 Price is section 4 of the technical portion of your proposal, but if you would like to separate them into different volumes it will be accepted.

Question 5 The Answers 11 and 12 on 7/12/17 conflict with each other. Please clarify how many copies of the Price Proposal need to be submitted.

Answer 5 See amendment 1.

Question 6 The government is asking for commonalty of parts; however, parts used in different environments have different failure rates, e.g. machinery room vs bridge. An extended warranty for common parts used in different environments will have to address the highest failure rate environment, which will raise the overall price. Further, the vendors do not have a solid basis for estimating extended warranty cost because they do not have historical data (since government has never purchased an extended warranty for these parts) or government failure data.

Given the number of CLINS, a small difference in extended warranty prices could affect vendor selection based on price. Extended warranty costs should not be included as a cost criteria for an LPTA evaluation. Will the Government delete CLIN 0291 or not include extended warranty pricing in the total evaluated LPTA contract price?

Answer 6 No, we will not delete CLIN 0291. The contractor should be evaluating the failure rates for worst case if parts are common.

Question 7 Reference Answer 21 of Q & A posted on 7/12/17 “Provide MTBF for each CLIN and expected time until a tech refresh will be required due to new technology. 25 years.”

This answer conflicts with Answer 23 (I attached the previous Q & A) that states the TOC evaluation is to be done after award. In addition, MTBF requires government and vendor failure data. MTBF also requires significant time to perform a useful analysis on hundreds of parts and subcomponents. Please clarify.

Answer 7 MTBF is for the components and has nothing to do with the system. They should be using worst case environmental conditions and I think they should be looking at MTBF to develop their TOC. If they do not include, that is up to them and will not be part of the methodology they chose to use.

Question 8 Do we need to provide test reports for the systems we are offering as part of the page count in the technical write up?

Answer 8 If the test reports clarify any of the 4 parts of the technical proposal ( 1. Design and Performance, 2. Corporate Experience/Resources, 3. Logistical Support, 4. Total Ownership Cost) then it would be in your best interest include that information and it will be part of the page count.