Attch Seven-RFQ47QMCA25Q0051-Navy 60 Ton Lowbed Trailers Vendor Q and A-Final.11.18.2025.pdf

RFQ47QMCA25Q0051 - Navy Lowbed Trailers 60 Ton Page 1 of 6

Navy Lowbed Trailers 60 Ton - Final Vendor Questions and Answers

Vendor Question One (1)- Territorial Applicability (Dealer Exclusivity) For avoidance of doubt, can you please confirm whether any territorial dealer restrictions apply to this federal procurement? Our understanding is that, because this is a federal acquisition governed by FAR/GSAR, state or local dealer exclusivity rules do not apply—i.e., delivery to Tennessee does not invoke manufacturer territorial protections (e.g., Pierce/E- One/Rosenbauer dealer boundaries). We are presuming no territorial exclusions and that any qualified small business may prime and furnish an OEM meeting the RFQ.

Government Response One (1): The attached GSA Letter of supply (LoS) is provided as supplemental information in reference to Solicitation/RFQ 47QMCA25Q0053, “Instructions Applicable to All Offerors”.

A letter of supply is a verification from a manufacturer, wholesaler, or otherwise authorized partner/distributor of an offered product (known here as a supplier) that a particular vendor is authorized to distribute specific products.

If the vendor is not the manufacturer of the products being offered, the vendor may only offer products it is authorized to distribute, either by the manufacturer itself, or as otherwise authorized pursuant to wholesaler agreements or other policies establishing the vendor’s authority to distribute offered products. Manufacturers acting as their own vendors do not need a LoS.

Vendor Question 2A: The NATO document detailing the optional gooseneck is a classified document, so we can’t get access to it. If the government wants us to conform to the rest of NATO STANAG 4009 we will need to be given clearance to access it.

Government Response 2A: Swing clearance of 90.5” in accordance with NATO STANAG 2009: The NATO STANAG 4009 is a NATO UNCLASSIFIED document. We do have access to it through ASSIST and can distribute it to vendors via secure channels with appropriate markings. That said, the NATO STANAG 4009 document itself does not include the information the vendor will need on the interface geometry, that info is incorporated per references. For this logistics trailer, the full interface geometry is in accordance with ISO 1726. This standard document is available via ISO or ANSI (the United States ISO Member):

https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/sis/SSISO17262005

There are some differences between the ISO 1726 and our PD due to the need to support our Tactical tractors as prime movers, namely the fifth wheel height. The PD takes precedence in the event of disagreement. The primary difference for this option specified is the increased swing clearance of 90.5”. ISO 1726 includes details which provide the full gooseneck 3D profile and angles of articulation.

Vendor Question 2B: There are no hose slings in the technical specifications. Also, the NATO tractor requirement - does it require a 3-1/2” king pin or would we need to add something to put in a dual 2” and 3-1/2” kingpin?

Government Response 2B: 2” King pin size. All prime movers and trailers in our inventory that we surveyed utilize the 2” Kingpin.

RFQ47QMCA25Q0051 - Navy Lowbed Trailers 60 Ton Page 2 of 6

Vendor Question 3 - Will these trailers be inspected by GSA or at destination?

Government Response 3: GSA+ EXWC will conduct an inspection of the first production trailer at origin.

Refer to section 4.4 for additional operational testing at Gulfport, MS. EXWC will conduct the inspections at the destination for the balance of orders.

Vendor Question 4- These trailers for the Navy require air certification and 12/24-volt electrical service, which normally means they are intended for overseas operation and no activity on US roads once they are delivered to the final destination. These are going to be expensive trailers and Federal Excise tax will be very substantial.

Please clarify if vendor is required to pay Federal Excise tax as a part of their bid?

Government Response 4: Seller is responsible for all applicable taxes, trailers will be used in the USA and may be deployed outside the USA.

Vendor Question 5 - We also found nothing in the documentation regarding stacking these for delivery (would require crane service at the ship to. Please clarify if stacking trailers for delivery is acceptable and whether vendor will be required to have crane service at delivery (with or without stacking in threes)?

Government Response 5: Refer to section 6.1 of the Technical Specifications document: "The contractor may stack trailers (wheels down only) for transport to destination. The contractor shall be responsible to offload and present the trailers for final destination inspection with wheels on ground. The Navy shall inspect for damage in transit prior to acceptance at destination and shall submit claims in accordance with the offeror’s proposed damage in transit terms and conditions."

Vendor Question 6A Section 3.7 – Paint and Marking, “Undercoat Corrosion Protection”. The specification states: “A corrosion resistance and wear protection preventive undercoating (e.g., Tectyl, LINE-X, or equivalent) shall be applied evenly to top flanges and outer webs, and all surfaces, frame down, including wash down areas, for protection from corrosion and road debris.” Please clarify: Does “all surfaces, frame down” mean the undercoating must cover the entire steel frame, including top and bottom flanges, beams, and crossmembers? Or is the intent that the undercoating be applied only to the underside surfaces (e.g. bottoms of frame rails and crossmembers) exposed to road spray?

Government Response 6A: The undercoating must cover the entire steel frame of the trailer area (The trailer axles and suspension is excluded from the undercoating requirement).

Vendor Question 6B: Should the top surfaces of beams and flanges that will later be covered by the decking also receive undercoating or remain bare metal/primed prior to deck installation?

Government Response 6B: Yes, the top surfaces of beams and flanges should be coated prior to the decking being installed.

RFQ47QMCA25Q0051 - Navy Lowbed Trailers 60 Ton Page 3 of 6

Vendor Question 7A: Applicability of CID A-A-59295A, Section 3.1.1.3 (Isocyanates). Please confirm whether Commercial Item Description A-A-59295A (“Coating, Polyurea or Polyurethane, Spray-Applied, for Corrosion Protection and Chemical Resistance”) applies to this solicitation. If applicable, Section 3.1.1.3 of CID A-A-59295A restricts coatings containing isocyanates. The specification for this RFQ references LINE-X or equivalent materials under Section 3.7, and LINE-X products typically contain isocyanates.

Government Response 7A: Does not have to be Line -X it can be a similar product that will meet the wear protection. CID A-A-59295A is “Corrosion Preventive Compounds, Cold Application, for New and Fielded Motor Vehicles and Trailers and Protection of Steel Enclosed Spaces”. This CID is applicable to solvent dispersed corrosion preventive compounds for spray, brush, or dip application on new and fielded motor vehicles and trailers enclosed spaces. CID A-A-59295A and the restriction on isocyanates is not applicable to the permanently applied wear and corrosion resistant undercoating referenced in specification.

Vendor Question 7B: We request confirmation on whether: Coatings containing isocyanates (e.g. LINE-X or equivalent polyurea formulations) are acceptable for use under this contract; and If so, whether prior approval of the coating product data sheet and safety information (as required under the “Vendor Suitable Primer/Paint/Finish/Undercoat Alternatives” paragraph) will be sufficient to establish compliance.

Government Response 7B: CID A-A-59295A is “ Corrosion Preventive Compounds, Cold Application, for New and Fielded Motor Vehicles and Trailers and Protection of Steel Enclosed Spaces”. This CID is applicable to solvent dispersed corrosion preventive compounds for spray, brush, or dip application on new and fielded motor vehicles and trailers enclosed spaces. CID A-A-59295A and the restriction on isocyanates is not applicable to the permanently applied wear and corrosion resistant undercoating referenced in specification.

Vendor Question 8: Section 3.7 – Paint and Marking, “Non-CARC Paint System”. The requirement specifies “Non-CARC” epoxy primer and polyurethane finish but uses a CARC-style color (#34094). Please confirm that non-CARC paint system matching color #34094 is acceptable, and CARC-specific certification is not required for this solicitation.

Government Response 8: The specified Olive Drab Green color is acceptable. Non-CARC paint system matching to Olive Drab Green is also acceptable.

Vendor Question 9: Section 3.7 – Paint and Marking, “Alternate Coating”. The requirement allows vendors to propose alternate primer/paint/finish systems but does not define when approval must occur relative to production start. Should all alternate paint/coating system approvals be obtained prior to production start (e.g. before Final Design Review), or may they be submitted during verification testing?

Government Response 9: All alternate paint/coating system approvals should be obtained prior to production start. The government anticipates holding an initial production "kick-off" meeting with the awarded vendor to document all vendor production requests.

Vendor Question 10A: Section 3.10 – Verification Requirements. Verification Test Responsibility – The section outlines ET (Engineering Test), COC (Confirmation of Compliance) and QAPVT (Quality Assurance Performance and Verification Testing) but does not specify which systems require which type of verification.

Please clarify which specific trailer subsystems (e.g. hydraulic, braking, suspension, lighting, paint) must undergo Engineering Test (ET) versus QAPVT (Quality Assurance Performance and Verification Testing).

RFQ47QMCA25Q0051 - Navy Lowbed Trailers 60 Ton Page 4 of 6

Government Response 10A: A mix of Engineering Testing (ET), Confirmation of Compliance (COC), and Quality Assurance Performance and Verification Testing (QAPVT) will be used to verify the design and physical trailer depending on the phase of review (Verification Design Review, Final Design Review, and Trailer Inspection). More than one type of verification may be used where necessary (e.g. physical inspection of paint application during a trailer inspection to verify coating system meets what was approved via Confirmation of Compliance). The type of verification is not broken out by subsystem

Vendor Question 10B: Additionally, confirm whether verification testing must be witnessed by Government personnel or if contractor self-certification is acceptable for COC (Confirmation of Compliance) items.

Government Response 10B: QAPVT is intended to be witnessed by Government personnel during the Trailer Inspection for validation of quality/functionality of the as-built trailer. COC items are submitted to the Government for review and approval but are not required to be witnessed by Government personnel.

Vendor Question 11: Please clarify Section 3.11.3 – Additional Operator/ Maintainer/ Equipment Training, specifically Training Locations. Training Locations specifically list Port Hueneme, CA; Gulfport, MS; Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Yorktown area, VA. Please confirm whether these are the only training locations where the Government anticipates training to occur, or if additional or alternate locations maybe requested after award.

Government Response 11: The four locations listed on the technical specification document (Poca, WV;

Gulfport MS; Port Hueneme, CA, and Williamsburg, VA.) will be the only locations to receive the training.

Vendor Question 12A: Section 3.11.3 – Additional Operator/ Maintainer/ Equipment Training, specifically Number and Duration of Training Sessions. Section 3.11.3 describes a four-day training requirement, consisting of two (2) consecutive 2-day training sessions per location, but does not specify the total number of sessions or total locations required. As currently written, the specification also states: “The OEM shall not put time constraints or expiration dates on purchased training. Specific training dates and daily training times shall be coordinated between the Government (NAVFAC EXWC/TSA) and the OEM.” This language suggests an indefinite requirement without defined session quantities or time limits, which prevents accurate pricing. Please clarify whether “purchased training” refers to a predefined number of sessions to be performed under this contract or allows the Government to procure additional sessions post-award as a separate purchase.

Government Response 12A: The government required training is a predefined number of training sessions.

The required training sessions are 2 training sessions at each delivery location. Each training session will be 4 days in duration (2 days of training for operators and 2 days of training for maintainers/mechanics) and the training sessions shall be conducted during normal duty hours of 0800-1600, Monday thru Friday.) The training must take place no later than 3 months after final order delivery at the specified delivery location latest. Any additional training requirements by the Navy will be considered a new requirement separate from this contract award and treated and procured as a new contract/purchase.

RFQ47QMCA25Q0051 - Navy Lowbed Trailers 60 Ton Page 5 of 6

Vendor Question 12B: Alternatively, we request the Government establish this as a separate Contract Line Item (CLIN), priced per training session (defined as one four-day “block” consisting of two, 2-day sessions).

Specific training locations would still need to be defined.

Government Response 12B: Vendors must quote their pricing as Firm-Fixed Price which includes all costs associated with this requirement to include the training requirement. The government does not anticipate establishing a separate CLIN for the training requirement.

Vendor Question 12C: Section 3.11.2 states training shall be coordinated “not to exceed the contract POP,” but section 3.11.3 removes that phrase. Please confirm whether Additional Operator/Maintainer Training must be conducted within the same contract period of performance as the base trailer production, or if it may occur under separate scheduling after delivery.

Government Response 12C: The government required training is a predefined number of training sessions.

The required training sessions are 2 training sessions at each delivery location. Each training session will be 4 days in duration (2 days of training for operators and 2 days of training for maintainers/mechanics) and the training sessions shall be conducted during normal duty hours of 0800-1600, Monday thru Friday.) The training must take place no later than 3 months after final order delivery at the latest. Any additional training requirements by the Navy will be considered a new requirement separate from this contract award and treated and procured as a new contract/purchase.

Vendor Question 12D: Please confirm whether this requirement is only for the initial Training period.

Government Response 12D: All the training must be completed at all locations no later than 3 Months after the final trailer delivery to the location the training is being conducted.

Vendor Question 13: ATTLA Certification Timeline. ATTLA certification is required before acceptance, but the timeline overlaps with testing and delivery milestones. Please confirm whether ATTLA certification must be completed and submitted before First Article Acceptance, or if conditional acceptance is permitted pending ATTLA approval.

Government Response 13: Submission and preliminary approval of the design must be completed before First Article Acceptance based on the design and testing/engineering analysis. Final ATTLA approval does not need to be completed prior to First Article Acceptance as the final issuance of the ATTLA cert requires the first article to be built and pictures/measurements of the physical item submitted to ATTLA.

Vendor Question 14A: Section 3.7 (“Undercoat Corrosion Protection”) specifies that “a corrosion resistance and wear protection preventive undercoating (e.g., Tectyl, LINE-X, or equivalent) shall be applied evenly to top flanges and outer webs, and all surfaces, frame down, including wash down areas, for protection from corrosion and road debris.” Please confirm whether a specific grade or formulation of Tectyl is required for this application, or if the contractor may propose an appropriate grade based on performance, environmental exposure, and material availability, subject to Government review and approval.

Government Response 14A: Any Tectyl permanently applied corrosion/chip resistant coatings are acceptable (e.g. Tectyl 3335, 2423). Most generally are listed under underbody coating applications (https://www.daubertchemical.com/coatings/automotive-transportation/impact-resistant-underbody/), but other

RFQ47QMCA25Q0051 - Navy Lowbed Trailers 60 Ton Page 6 of 6 similar products that are similar performing are acceptable (e.g. Tectyl 2423, listed under Multi-purpose category).

Vendor Question 14B: Additionally, please clarify when the Government would require review and approval of the proposed undercoating product – for example, prior to production start (e.g., during design or first article review) or later during verification testing.

Government Response 14B: Yes, the government review and approval of proposed undercoating product will be conducted during initial design review and verified as a part of the overall coating system approval.