Responses to Questions_EMM SP8000-22-R-0002_Final.pdf

Responses to Questions for EMM Solicitation SP8000-22-R-0002

1. Are there any restrictions on the purchase of Electrolytic Manganese Flakes from Russia or China for this bid?

Answer: China is an acceptable potential source. There are several pages within the combined synopsis solicitation such as (but not limited to) pages 15, 19, 21, 25, 34 and 48 that address restrictions. Additionally, the solicitation also asks all offerors to identify the source and origin of the material in their bid.

Using Russia as a source is highly discouraged. While there are no current US sanctions against Russia in the metal market, using Russia as a supply source does create an appearance issue that companies and the DoD would want to avoid. Should Russian sources be added to sanctions, it would potentially require a termination for convenience of the Government based on the updated sanctions.

2. Unopenable attachments with solicitation documents.

Answer: Please notify us immediately if there are any unopenable solicitation documents or attachments.

3. It is my understanding that this is a set aside and also that the DLA is looking to assist small disadvantaged businesses in disadvantaged geographical HubZones not to hinder them.

Answer: On Page 1, block 10 of the solicitation document, it states that “This Acquisition is Unrestricted” and not a Set Aside.

4. Attachment B, Factor 1: (1).b.1 Material Packaging, states supersacks in accordance with SOW Section 5.3; however, SOW 5.3.1 states that the material shall be packaged in new UN 1A2 rated steel drums with a rated capacity of 30 to 55 gallons or metric equivalent capacity. Which one is correct, super sacks or steel drums?

Answer: The vendor shall package the material in UN 1A2 drums, as specified in the SOW, before the material is shipped to SM. The reference to super sacks in the Evaluation Criteria attachment to this solicitation is made in error.

5. Attachment B, Factor 1: 2.C Submittals and Proposal, Testing and Methodology for the test performed on the COA, is Manufacturer (South Manganese formerly known as Dameng, the world’s well-known EMM industry manufacturer) COA acceptable? The SOW 5.2.6g “Name of the company of the laboratory.” This statement seems unclear.

Answer: Section 5.2.6 does not state “name of the company of the laboratory; rather Section

5.2.6 of the SOW states, “Name of the company or name of the laboratory” For example, if Dameng performed the analyses in their own laboratory, then Dameng is the name of the company of the lab. If Dameng had the analyses performed by a different laboratory than their own, then the name of the company with the lab is required. Thus, only the name of the laboratory performing the analysis shall be on the COA.

6. IF a third-party testing laboratory is required, is SGS China acceptable?

Answer: There is no requirement in the SOW for the vendor to have a third-party laboratory.

7. Attachment B, Factor 1: 1.d Delivery and Material Transportation states deliver the material to

Hammond, IN storage facility I accordance with the SOW Section 5.5. The SOW 5.5.1 Transportation, it states storage depot in Scotia, NY. Which is correct, location Hammond, IN or Scotia, NY?

Answer: The correct Point of Delivery is identified in the SOW, 7.1.1:

Defense Logistics Agency Route 5, Building #12 Scotia, NY 12302-9463 United States of America

Telephone: (518) 370-3347

8. Statement of Work (SOW): 5.3.5.2 Alternate Pallet Design and Construction: *All pallets shall be approximately 48 inches deep (front to back) and 48 inches wide (side to side) in size.

Question: The standard 20’ or 40’ shipping container—Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) or Forty-foot Equivalent Unit (FEU)—has an internal width of 7 feel 8 inches. Is the DLA agreeable to pallets of 45 inches x 45 inches? We can fit two rows of 45” x 45” pallets as opposed to one row of 48” x 48” pallets.

Answer: 45” by 45” is OK as long as the pallets meet ALL other requirements defined in the

SOW.

9. Statement of Work (SOW): 5.3.3 b - Every (plastic) bag shall be heat sealed. Can an alternate method such as metal tie be utilized?

Answer: No.

10. Statement of Work (SOW): 5.3.5 - All drums shall be banded/shrink wrapped on pallets. Does this mean both are required or either of the methods is acceptable. Can stretch wrapped be used in place of shrink wrapped? If pallets are domestically sourced, do they have to be heat treated? ISPM-15?

Answer:

a) All drums shall be banded or shrink wrapped or both.

b) Stretch wrap can be used in place of shrink wrapped drums.

c) All pallets, irrespective of their country of origin, must satisfy ISPM-15.

11. Statement of Work (SOW): 7.2.3 - Will the DLA be receptive to use of a split sample for testing. Contractor will take a sample of a specific weight, say one kg, split it evenly, conduct chemistry on the contractor 50% of the sample and submit the other 50% to the DLA for comparison testing.

Answer: No.

12. Statement of Work (SOW): 7.2.4 - “testing methods to include mass spectrometry and thermogravimetric." What are the specifications the product must meet for thermogravimetric analysis? What result is considered acceptable (thermogravimetric information not included in the previously listed chemical and physical specifications.)

Answer: Upon inspection of Table 1 in Section 5.1.1, please note some elements may involve quantitative analysis via a thermogravimetric method (i.e. “LECO”). Carbon is one such element.

13. Statement of Work (SOW): 7.2.5 - Acceptance provision could delay payment in excess of 120 days. Request the DLA review this point as to how this extended time frame could be shortened to minimize the negative impact it will have on a contractor cash flow.

Answer: Section 7.2.5 of the SOW states, in full, “Acceptance will be provided in writing to the Contractor within ninety (90) calendar days of delivery. The Contractor shall not submit an invoice until the COR has issued a notification of Acceptance for the delivery.” The government cannot shorten this 90 day period or process a WAWF submission until we determine the material is acceptable.

14. Attachment B, Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1.b.1 - List super sacks as the packaging method while

1.b.2 lists drums. Does the DLA want a quote for both packaging types? Does the DLA have a preference of sacks or drums?

Answer: The SOW requires drums, and the drums are specified in the SOW. The inclusion of super sacks in the Evaluation Criteria is in error. Super sacks are unacceptable packaging.

15. Our resin composite pallets meet and exceed the minimum rated load capacity of 1,000 pounds per square foot in addition to meeting other standards for design and construction. As they are designed to maximize efficiency when shipping, they measure 1100 mm X 1100 mm (43.3 inches X 43.3 inches) allowing two pallets to fit side-by-side in a standard 20-foot shipping container. Would the government consider allowing vendors to offer this efficient pallet size (43.3 inches X 43.3 inches) as a method to create cost savings in shipping and space savings in storage?

Answer:

a) Resin composite pallets which exceed the minimum rate load capacity of 1,000 pounds per square foot are acceptable as alternative pallet design and construction described in Section 5.3.5.2.

b) Section 5.3.5.2 of the SOW requires pallets to be approximately 48” by 48”. 43.3” by 43.3” is the smallest pallet size the government will accept as long as no drum overhangs any side of the pallet.

c) ALL pallets shall satisfy ALL other pallet requirements described in Sections 5.3.5.1 and 5.3.5.2.

d) Section 5.3.5 of the SOW states, in part, “The contractor shall submit detailed design drawings and manufacturer’s certifications for all pallets proposed for use under this SOW for review and acceptance approval from the government prior to their utilization.

No pallets shall be utilized that have not been preapproved for use under this SOW by the government. The use of used, recycled, repaired, remanufactured and/or refurbished pallets will not be acceptable.