RFP_SAQMMA13R0211A005_(Questions).docx

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

RFP SAQMMA13R0211

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

April 26, 2013

1. Question: Through Amendment 0004, the Government allows for the enlargement of the dimensions of the two desktop computers. These enlargements now make it possible for vendors to proposed compliant solution. However, the Government did not alter the dimensions of the LCD monitor as we requested. We hereby assert that after our exhaustive search, we have NOT been able to identify a LED monitor that would comply with the “monitor only” and “shipping” dimensional requirements as they stand. Once again, we believe that the Government did not appreciate the significance of the questions vendors raised concerning this matter. Since the Government specified the Samsung 2243BWT-TAA in the Market Survey, we went to Samsung to seek advice from them. They currently offer Model 22A460B that they market as a 22” monitor but actually measures only 21.5” diagonally. Model 22A460B would come close but does not comply - both its “monitor only” and “shipping” dimensions do not comply with the requirements. The Samsung 22A460B is the 21.5” monitor with the smallest dimensions we can find, and it will not comply with the dimensional requirements as they stand.

While we understand the Government’s desire in keeping the dimensions of all items as small as possible to save shipping cost, availability of compliant COTS products must also be taken into consideration. Please therefore give the request below due consideration and change the “monitor only” and “shipping” dimensional requirements to read.

RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO:

Shipping - (H X W X D) 18.7 X 23.4 X 7.7 in, ~ 15.6 lbs

The changes we suggest above would be beneficial in at least two respects. It makes it possible for vendors to propose LCD monitors that actually comply with all mandatory requirements. Secondly, it will open up the competition and will save DoS money. Based on what we can see from various manufacturers’ prices, we are more than certain that the product cost saving will far outweigh the increase in shipping costs that the slightly larger dimensions suggested above might introduce.

Answer: Weight has been modified to 12lbs. The diagonal dimensions (viewable area) has been changed to 21.5 (or larger).

2. Question: Through Amendment 0004, the Government enlarged the depth dimension from 17 to 18”. A slight increase in the width dimension will open up the competition to many other desktop model. We hereby request that the Government allow for an increase of the width dimension from 15.0 to 15.4” as shown below.

RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS

Answer: The dimensions can be met by multiple vendors and will not be changed.

3. Question: In answering Question 41, DoS states that “all proposed units should include a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) (either physical documentation or link to URL)”. In the PC and notebook business, typically MSDS is only issued by manufacturers for notebook batteries since they can be hazardous. Since this RFP calls for desktops and LCD display and there is no hazardous material in them, we believe this requirement is neither applicable nor necessary. Please exempt the required desktops and LCD monitors from this requirement.

However, if DoS must insist that a MSDS be provided for the desktop and LCD monitor, would a MSDS which simply states there is no hazardous material included in their product be acceptable?

Answer: Yes, a statement that no hazardous materials are included is acceptable. The requirement has been amended to read “if applicable”

4. We believe that the answers to Questions 37 and 52 will lead to erroneous interpretation. Please see the exchange below.

Question 37: Section 20.1.2 indicates that products will be scored as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and that no weighting will be applied. Will the government please confirm that a product will be evaluated as compliant (acceptable) if it meets the “Minimum Threshold” defined for each specification? In addition, will the government please clarify how products will be evaluated that meet the Minimum Threshold and may or may not meet some or all of the “Objective” levels for the specifications?

Answer: See answer to Question 37

Question: Actually, there are three types of requirements as shown in Question 52 below. We believe that an item must meet both “…/Minimum Threshold” and “Requirement” requirements for it to be deemed acceptable. Meeting the “Minimum Threshold” requirement alone will not be sufficient. Is our interpretation correct?

Answer: Correct.

Question: Furthermore, would the Government please confirm that meeting the “Value-Add” requirement is optional as is the “Objective” requirement? In other words, an item failing to comply with some “Objective” or “Value Add” requirements will STILL be deemed technically acceptable. Please confirm this interpretation.

Answer: Correct.

5. Question: In answering Question 54, DoS states that “individual orders over $3,000 will be competed on a technically acceptable, lowest price basis in accordance with fair opportunity.” If this is case, we respectfully request that the Government incorporate the “technically acceptable, lowest price” evaluation methodology language in Section 8.3.1 to make it binding upon contract award. The language of this section still refers to “best value” as the evaluation methodology.

6.

Answer: Technically acceptable, lowest price is on the Best Value Continuum. See FAR 15.101

7. Question: We would like to ask a follow-on question to the answer the Government provided at Row 126 on the Q&A spreadsheet. This question does not have a number assigned to it. However, since it appears on Row 126, we will refer to it as Question 126.

It is not exactly clear how the Government requires vendors to package Volumes I and II. We would like to present the question here again.

Volume I – Technical Proposal consists of Sections a through g. Are vendors required to submit a total of seven (7) separate electronic files or this volume? Or are vendors required to consolidate them all into one electronic file?

Volume II- Cost Proposal consists of Sections a through c. Are vendors required to submit a total of three (3) separate electronic files or this volume? Or are vendors required to consolidate them all into one electronic file?

Please note that if the Government requires vendors to submit individual files for each section of the two volumes, the e-mail carrying each vendor’s proposal will have a total of ten (10) files. Perhaps, the submission should be broken up into two e-mails to avoid confusion.

Answer: A single email is preferred with as few attachments as possible. However, technical and price volumes must be separate attachments. No pricing information is to be included in any of the technical attachments. Attachments shall be clearly labeled either Volume I or Volume II.