Questions and Answers SP800025R0013.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DLA - Natural Graphite Flakes
- Solicitation number
- SP8000-25-F-0013
- Issued by
-
Defense Logistics Agency
About this file
This document is a comprehensive Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) solicitation for natural graphite flakes. The solicitation (SP8000-25-R-0013) is for an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a five-year base period, seeking natural graphite flake material from multiple potential sources. Key requirements include CONUS-based testing, material segregation by production lot, and delivery of up to 10,000,000 kg annually, with a maximum of four trucks per delivery day. Pricing will be on a per-kilogram basis, with vendors required to propose unit prices for different quantity ranges.
Significant details include a proposal submission deadline of September 5, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. EST, with electronic submissions to specific DLA contacts. The solicitation is full and open competition, with NAICS code 335991 and a size standard of 900 employees, intending to reserve some awards for small businesses. Vendors must provide a Certificate of Analysis (COA), ensure material homogeneity, and meet specific graphite flake specifications. The first delivery order will be released within one week of the IDIQ award, with subsequent orders solicited on an as-needed basis, and payment terms set at Net 30 from invoice submission.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 3 - Clauses and Provisions_Graphite.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - Schedule B Graphite Flake.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW_Graphite Flake_Updated.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 3 - Clauses and Provisions_Graphite.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 1 - Schedule B Graphite Flake.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 3 - Clauses and Provisions_Graphite.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 2 - SOW_Graphite Flake_Updated.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| SP8000-25-R-0013 Natural Graphite Flake Questions and Answers | ||||
| Number | Document | Section | Question | Response |
| 1 | SOW | 7 | Statement of Work states that the Contractor “shall submit with their proposal a sample COA of graphite flake from past deliveries.” If the Contractor does not have a sample COA from past deliveries, is this disqualifying? | This is not disqualifying. Please state no prior work (rated neutral), and provide an example COA. |
| 2 | SOW | 6 | Statement of Work states that “performance of all testing operations associated with this SOW shall occur within the Continental United States.” If the Contractor does not have a lab operation in the CONUS, can testing be performed by a third-party testing company, employed by the Contractor for testing purposes? | Section 6 of the SOW describes testing requirements. A CONUS-based independent third-party laboratory is acceptable for testing/analyses leading to the data reported in the contractor's COA they submit to the Government for this material. |
| 3 | SOW | 4 | Statement of Work states that “the Contractor shall ensure the material from each production lot is segregated from the material from any other production lot. Co-mingling of multiple production lots into one larger lot will not be accepted.” Does this provision allow for the sourcing of natural flake graphite by the Contractor from multiple sources (E.g., assets) or jurisdictions (E.g., a combination of natural flake from Australia, Europe, and Africa) – as long as they are segregated, packed, labeled, and shipped accordingly? | Yes, this is acceptable as long as the material is not from a prohibited source. Please state all potential sources and ensure proper labeling. The contractor must also ensure homogeneity of each lot of material it ships to the Government. Also ensure that each sample of that lot is representative of the material in chemical and physical properties contained in that lot. |
| 4 | Attachment 1 | B | Section B specifies that the Period of Performance for this IDIQ contract is for a five (5) year ordering period. Are Contractors permitted to submit proposals that only propose the supply of quantities for a portion of the PEP (E.g., supply quantities for Year 3 – 5)? Moreover, are Contractors permitted to use supplies from multiple sources (E.g., assets) or jurisdictions (E.g., a combination of natural flake from Australia, Europe, and Africa) at different times during the PEP, if some supplies are in current commercial production, while others are not yet in commercial production, but will become available during the middle of the PEP? | Multiple sources are acceptable as long as the material does not come from a prohibited source and is properly identified and labeled. A guaranteed minimum amount must be satisfied within 2 years of signing, so delayed production will not be found acceptable. |
| 5 | Attachment 1 | B | Table #2 of Attachment 1 Section B, specifies that the Contractor must propose pricing on a per-pound (lb.) basis, while the QUANTITY column of the chart uses Kilogram (Kg) metrics. Please advise what weight metrics should be used to ensure alignment across the RFP. | KG - this has been updated |
| 6 | General Question | Will DLA allow delivery orders to be backloaded into Years 3–5 if earlier-year deliveries are partially constrained by mine development timelines? | This is not acceptable as the minimum must be satisfied within 2 year delivery period upon signing of the contract. | |
| 7 | General Question | Will DLA permit a phased sourcing plan, where initial years are supplied from qualified third-party or affiliate assets, with subsequent years supplied from the Contractor’s wholly-owned mine once operational? Moreover, for past performance evaluation, will the Government consider production and delivery experience from affiliated operations as “recent and relevant”? | This is acceptable as long as properly outlined in the proposal. The past performance will be evaluated based on what is submitted, and at worst will be rated neutral depending on details. | |
| 8 | General Question | Does DLA require the full volume per Attachment 1 – Section B to be supplied across all five years of the PEP or are smaller volumes acceptable either volumes per year or in total volume? | As long as the guaranteed minimum is met upon contract signature, later deliveries will be considered for negotiation. | |
| 9 | Attachment 3 | Offerors are responsible for submitting offers, and any modifications, revisions, or withdrawals, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by July 28, 2025 at 3:00pm EST. All offers shall be emailed to the following Government points of contact: Ms. Christy Boyer (christy.boyer@dla.mil) and Ms. Alicia Barrowman (Alicia.barrowman@dla.mil). Offerors may use DoD SAFE ( https://safe.apps.mil/ ) to upload and transmit files to these same Government points of contact. | This is a typo. This will be updated to reflect the correct information | |
| 10 | General Question | What is the solicitation number? | SP8000-25-R-0013 | |
| 11 | General Question | The time specified in the solicitation for receipt of offers? | 12:00 PM EST | |
| 12 | Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 SOW states under 12. Delivery that "12.3. The contractor must plan delivery of material so that no more than two trucks arrive per day. “ However given the requirements for palletized steel drums and the typical size and weight limitations of trucking within the United States, it would not be possible to deliver 10,000,000 kg of graphite flake per year with only two trucks per working day with the packaging requirements specified. | We can make this 4 trucks per day. That will take into consideration holidays. SOW updated | |
| 13 | SOW | It is a bit unclear the purpose for CLIN 0002 - Third-Party Testing Pricing. Is this intended for potential contractors to propose pricing to test the Graphite Flake provided by another entity? Or is this solely for entities providing Graphite Flake to test their own flake or have their own flake tested by a third-party? Also, it is unclear whether it is required that testing for any Graphite Flake COA be done by a third-party or whether it can be completed by the entity providing the graphite flake. It would be more cost effective for us to perform our own testing in our in-house lab for the Graphite Flake to produce our own COA, in which case we would state the pricing to perform in-house testing for CLIN 0002. | All testing operations for this material must be CONUS. | |
| 14 | Attachment 1 | Table 2 lists the volume in kg, but the notes request pricing in $/lb. Which unit of measure should we use for populating Table 2? | KG - this has been updated | |
| 15 | Attachment 1 | The language states: "The Offeror may propose range pricing, on a per kilogram basis, for the following quantity ranges of Natural Graphite Flake." However, Table 3 does not contain any "data" for the ranges. |
a. Should we consider offering a "range" of weights for each contract year or for the bid in total?
b. This table asks for pricing in $/kg, which seems to conflict with Table 2. Please clarify which unit of measure we should be using. a. The vendor should propose ranges
b. KG - this has been updated 16 SOW 6 The statement of work section 6 has no instructions on "sampling," and as such, we are unclear on how we are to propose a price based on the number of lots. How should we approach the number of "lots" to be tested?
| Sampling is mentioned in section 5 - schedule B has been updated to reference both sections 5& 6 | |||||
| 17 | Attachment 3 | "DFARS 252.204-7019: NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment must be current and posted in SPRS." We are not currently in compliance and will not be able to complete a "self-assessment" before the bids are due. We will need to make an exception to this clause in our offer, but we will note that we intend to immediately begin a self-assessment. Will that be sufficient for our bid to be considered? | As long as an assessment is complete prior to AWARD, this is acceptable. | ||
| 18 | SOW | Our active SAM Cage code is related to our primary site in NJ, but we may utilize additional Asbury sites as internal "sub-contractors" as necessary to meet the volume requirements. All documentation, contracts, etc., would flow through the SAM entity. We assume this is acceptable? | Yes, you may use your primary cage code | ||
| 19 | General Question | Does the DLA look at non-conforming bids? | We will review any bid that is submitted, but if it doesn’t follow the SOW it will be found not technically acceptable and not considered for award. | ||
| 20 | General Question | Are multiple supply options possible in the proposal? | Are you are asking if mineral can be mined from multiple locations? As long as the material conforms to the SOW requirements, this is acceptable. | ||
| 21 | General Question | Do the units all need to be customs cleared and delivered DDP to your facilities (where inspection occurs at destination)? Or can units be provided CIF nearest major port? | The material will need to be delivered to the depot location listed on the SOW. All aspects of the SOW must be adhered to, including delivery locations and inspection requirements. | ||
| 22 | Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 SOW states that: "The contractor’s methods, materials, processes, policies, and practices shall also conform to all requirements of ASTM B391-18 Type 1 R04200 unless otherwise required in this SOW. " | |||
| ASTM B391-18 Type 1 R04200 references an ASTM standard for Niobium ingots? Is there a typo? It is unclear how this is applicable. | This is a typo. This line will be removed from the SOW and an updated copy will be published to SAM.gov. | ||||
| 23 | Attachment 1 | In the “Unit Price” column of the above Table #2, the Offeror must propose pricing, on a per pound basis, for each contract year and for each of the three quantity ranges listed in the “Quantity Range (in LB)” column of the table. “ | |||
| The table lists quantities in kg. Please confirm if unit price is desired in a per kg or per pound basis? There is a similar discrepancy under Table #4 that references a per pound basis, but I believe the table asks for a per lot cost basis. | The quantities should be in KG. This is a typo and will be corrected and updated documents will be posted. | ||||
| 24 | Will proposal price details be made public post-award? | No. | |||
| 25 | Will there be an offeror debriefing post-award to requesting offerors? | Yes | |||
| 26 | When will tenders be awarded? | The first DO will be released within 1 week after IDIQ award. All others will be solicited and awarded on an as needed basis. | |||
| 27 | Regarding CLIN 0002 - Third Party Testing Pricing, internal testing at our domestic mine within CONUS will be performed per our QAQC policy. Do we still need to perform third party testing, which will be cost prohibitive and duplicative? | The contractor does not need to employ a third-party for testing. In the event of a dispute between the government and the contractor about the quality of a lot of material, a third party will be employed to settle the dispute. SOW updated. | |||
| 28 | Regarding a statement under 4.1.1.3: “The contractor’s methods, materials, processes, policies, and practices shall also conform to all requirements of ASTM B391-18 Type 1 R04200 unless otherwise required in this SOW.” | ||||
| -This ASTM method refers to niobium and niobium ingots. We request clarification on how this ASTM method applies to graphite. | This is a typo and has been removed. | ||||
| 29 | General Question | How do you intend to allow price adjustments based on potential tariff impacts over the IDIQ period? It’s not something producers can control or have any clarity moving forward to guarantee pricing over a 5-year period. The US produces no flake graphite concentrates currently, so all material in the next 3-4 years would be sourced from imported sources and be subject to varying and ongoing trade negotiations. Can that be included as a potential price variable to be negotiated if and when changes occur? | The clause DFARS 252.225-7013 - Duty Free Entry has been included in Attachment #3 Clauses and Provisions. Please follow the clause instructions for DoD duty-free entry certificates. | ||
| 30 | SOW | DOs are presented every year of the IDIQ. Delivery schedule has the following quantities per year, but the delivery date says NFG to be delivered with 24-months after delivery order. So my understanding is the Yr 1 vol could be potentially delivered up to 24 months after the Yr 1 DO, and so on through time on the IDIQ. Is that the correct interpretation and the contract delivery date could extend for an additional 1-2 years beyond year 5 depending on when DO is issued in year 5? | That is correct. | ||
| 31 | Attachment 1 | Can u clarify what you mean by column titled EXT PRICE in table #2:CLIN 0001? | column title updated to "total price" | ||
| 32 | Attachment 1 | Can you clarify that that every ROW referring to Contract Year needs to have 3 prices based on Range of DO presented in Table #3 CLIN 0001? | In Table #1 vendors should input unit pricing and total pricing for each year based on the quantities listed. If the vendor is providing qty range breaks those prices should be inputted into Table #3. The unit price for the highest qty range should correlate to the unit pricing in Table #2. | ||
| 33 | Attachment 1 | Can you clarify the pricing to be used as per pound or per kg. table #2:CLIN 0001 lists US$/LB but Table 3 Proposed Order 1 is US$/kg? | KG - this has been updated | ||
| 34 | General Question | Can you confirm the payment terms. | Payment Terms: Net 30 from Invoice submission IAW SOW Para 13.4 | ||
| 35 | General Question | As part of a testing program, duplicate samples would automatically be collected overseas and can be sent to the US for analysis. Is that suitable for the testing requirements or do you also want additional samples collected in the US at the time of delivery? | Contractor sampling operations must take place CONUS. SOW updated | ||
| 36 | General Question | What are the insurance requirements on shipping products. | Typically the carrier takes on responsibility for products while in transit, to include insurance. The government is not aware of the specific requirements. | ||
| 37 | SOW | Can you confirm by fixed carbon in Table 2 of SOW that LOI is the preferred carbon testing procedure. | We do not specify the preferred method, however we did amend the table to add that the test should be perfromed at 1000°C. See amended table 2. | Amend Table 2 to |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .