SP800026R0013 QA A00003_FINAL 06FEB26.pdf

SP8000-26-R-0013 Questions and Answers

1. The pricing table shows $/MT at the top header but then has a note below stating you want $/lb. Are you looking for USD/lb?

USD/MT

2. Section B-Supplies or Services and Price/Costs CLIN 0002- states a third-party testing cost per lot. Would third party testing be necessary with full internal testing and a clear and concise sampling and testing plan laid out?

a. Can the DLA recommend an accredited third party testing facility with all the credentials listed?

Third party testing is required for this material- even with internal testing. The Government cannot recommend a business.

b. Does DLA have any preferred laboratories in the U.S.?

The Government does not provide names of laboratories to be utilized for testing purposes. It is the responsibility of the vendor to utilize a certified laboratory.

3. Country of Origin – is it a concern?

If sole sourced for American production, needs to be produced in USA. If for maintaining balance of sources, no.

4. Section II, subsection B, point (5;1-2)- Would it be possible to have a permanent DLA employee on site for packing and repacking of material?

DLA can assign someone to witness packaging/repackaging for short periods of time (between 1 and 6 weeks), but not permanently or for a long period of time.

5. Section D- Certificates of Analysis- point (1)- approval of the CofA prior to shipping is okay but needs to be expedited within 48 hours. Would this be possible instead of 10 days?

No, acceptance of the COA within 48 hours is not possible. The Government requires 10 business days for review and acceptance of COAs.

6. Section F- Packaging-

1. Point (8; a-b)- we use plastic pallets as a standard, so would it be possible to use these with a size of 43x43 vs. 48x48?

No, offerors must follow what is required in the SOW Section F.

7. Would the Government consider permitting contractor-provided, CONUS-based storage of Government-accepted vanadium pentoxide as an optional capability under this IDIQ, prior to physical delivery to a Government storage depot?

No, the Government intends to store this material in Government-owned secure facilities.

8. Would the Government consider adding an optional CLIN for contractor-provided storage that meets DLA Strategic Materials storage, safety, and environmental requirements?

9. If contractor-provided storage were permitted, would the Government consider allowing title transfer upon Government acceptance, with custody retained by the contractor until call-forward?

10. What inspection, audit, or access requirements would the Government require for contractor-held material intended for the National Defense Stockpile?

N/A, the Government intends to store this material in Government-owned secure facilities.

11. The SOW establishes a maximum delivery period of up to 36 months after Delivery Order issuance. Would the Government consider allowing Delivery Orders to specify earlier or accelerated delivery schedules where available?

DLA will have SOW addendums which will specify a delivery schedule to simplify receiving and storage challenges at the depots for each DO that is issued.

12. Would the Government consider permitting Delivery Orders that allow call-forward delivery from contractor-held, Government-accepted inventory on an accelerated timeline (e.g., 30/60/90 days)?

No, DLA will have SOW addendums which will specify a delivery schedule to

13. Would the Government consider recognizing demonstrated early availability or accelerated delivery capability as a consideration at the Delivery Order level?

No, DLA will have SOW addendums which will specify a delivery schedule to

14. As written, FOB Destination delivery appears to require transportation costs to be included in CLIN 0001-unit pricing. Can the Government confirm this interpretation?

Yes, this is the correct interpretation.

15. Would the Government consider adding an optional CLIN for expedited, surge, or special transportation services beyond standard delivery requirements?

No, standard delivery in accordance with the solicitation requirements is the only type of delivery that will be considered.

16. Repackaging and Relabeling Flexibility Would the Government consider adding an optional CLIN for Government-directed repackaging, relabeling, or container replacement services in accordance with DLAD Procurement Note C14?

No.

17. In the event packaging, labeling, or storage standards change over the life of the IDIQ, would the Government consider utilizing such a CLIN rather than requiring a new procurement action?

18. Can DLA accept the 275 MT V2O5 High Purity currently located in Baltimore, MD, USA and 138MT V2O5 High Purity currently located in Rotterdam, Netherlands? This material is aerospace, defense grade and packed as per Largo standards. If yes, can DLA accept the material as currently packaged, including bags, drums, pallets, and labeling?

No, the Government will not accept any packaged material that does not conform to all packaging requirements specified in the SOW.

19. If the Baltimore and Rotterdam material are acceptable from a packaging standpoint, can DLA also accept it based on its existing specifications?

No, the Government will not any material that does not meet the sampling and testing requirements specified in the SOW.

20. Will alternative liners and/or drums be considered?

Section F.2 of the SOW requires 7 mil polyethylene liners. Drums need to meet SOW requirements.

21. Will alternative pallets be accepted by DLA?

Pallets need to meet SOW requirements.

22. Would the Government consider permitting optional periodic re-testing or re-certification of stored material prior to call-forward or delivery, if deemed necessary by the Government?

No, Section II.C of the SOW requires that all final verification testing prior to delivery to the Government must be done via a third-party independent lab.

23. Would the Government consider allowing CLIN 0002 (Third-Party Testing) to be used for re-certification or verification testing beyond initial delivery, as directed at the Delivery Order level?

24. Would the Government consider allowing optional enhanced material traceability and logistics status reporting (e.g., lot status, testing completion, storage location, delivery readiness) as a Delivery Order-level service?

25. Can the Government confirm whether such reporting, if permitted, would be limited to material traceability and logistics status and would not constitute advisory or market analysis services?

No, the Government will not consider this service.

26. In support of industrial mobilization objectives referenced in FAR 6.302-3, would the Government consider allowing optional surge production or priority allocation capabilities to be specified at the Delivery Order level?

No. Surge production or priority allocation capabilities will not be considered, as contingency requirements would not utilize this contract vehicle to acquire contingency quantities.

27. Would the Government consider pre-negotiated surge pricing or surge support CLINs to facilitate rapid response during contingency requirements?

28. Should our company attach its most recent commercial price offer as a reference, or does DLA prefer pricing to be submitted only after specific CLINs are defined and accepted?

There are two defined CLINS in the solicitation: CLIN 0001 is the material CLIN and CLIN 0002 is the third-party testing CLIN. Refer Table #2 in Section B of the solicitation for the material CLIN. This allows for pricing projections for the entirety of the IDIQ broken down by year 1-5.

29. Does DLA anticipate incremental CLINs to address:

• Market price movements over time?

Vendors have the option to price based on projected market trends over the lifetime of contract and can input those in Table #2 in Section B of the solicitation for the material CLIN.

30. What payment terms does DLA expect to apply for: Would DLA consider different payment structures (separate CLINs) for inventory versus future shipments?

No. Refer Table #2 in Section B of the solicitation. This allows for pricing projections for the entirety of the IDIQ broken down by year 1-5.

31. At what stage of the process is it appropriate and acceptable for Largo to make any public announcement or disclosure regarding discussions or negotiations with DLA?

Is public communication restricted until the contract is fully executed and committed, or are there circumstances under which earlier disclosure is permitted (e.g., conditional award, intent to award)?

No disclosure or public announcements should be made until after contract award.

32. What is the expected timeline for the contract award?

Currently there is no expected timeline for contract award.

33. What are the remaining steps or milestones prior to award?

Vendors will be notified of any next steps.

34. When will DLA issue the final RFP?

This is the final RFP.

35. Will offerors be allowed to submit additional questions?

The question deadline was January 26, 2026.

36. Will offerors be required to hold prices for 180 or 60 days? (See pdf pages 6, 47)

Offerors will be required to hold prices for 180 days. Reference to 60 days revised to 180 days.

37. Are the maximum values in Table 1 the annual single maximum order limitations or are offerors expected to be able to fulfill the full amount as set forth in the Order Limitations Clause? (See pdf pages 13, 40)

Table 1 contains estimated order quantities for pricing purposes. Order Limitations clause contains the maximum dollar value for any delivery order generated against the contract.

38. Will supplies delivered under delivery orders be granted duty-free exemptions relative to tariffs under FAR 52.225-8 or DFAR 252.225-7013? (See pdf page 13)

The Government is adding clause at DFARS 252.225-7013, as a part of this amendment .

39. Please confirm that only the name of the testing lab is required for the proposal and offerors are not required to submit a draft testing plan at the time of proposal submission. (See pdf pages 17, 46)

SOW section II.C.4 indicates that only the name of the laboratory be submitted.

A rough draft of the testing plan would be appreciated but is not required.

40. The RFP references a requirement to submit a testing plan IAW section 7.4 of the SOW. Is that in reference to SOW Section II (C) para 7 (a-e)? Is the testing plan required or merely the name of the testing lab? (See pdf pages 17, 46)

The testing plan is required to be submitted for review and approval 30 business days post-award, but is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

41. Are offerors required to submit a sample certificate of analysis (COA) at the time of proposal submission? (See pdf page 18)

Yes.

42. Are offerors required to demonstrate CMMC compliance at the time of proposal submission? If not, will awardees be required to be compliant with CMMC requirements and by when? (See pdf page 27)

The Government is removing the clause at FAR 52.204-21. Therefore the CMMC requirements do not apply.

43. Are offerors required to demonstrate compliance with NIST SP 800-171 at time of proposal submission? If not, will awardees be required to be compliant with NIST SP 800-171 and by when? (See pdf page 64)

Vendors mustbe complaint with all terms and conditions of subject solicitation at time of award to include the NIST SP 800-171 assessment requirement.

44. Due to the long ordering period and potential for changes in market prices, will the final RFP include an Economic Price Adjustment and/or Price Redetermination type clauses such as those in FAR Section 52.216 and/or DFAR Section 252.216?

45. How will DLA evaluate offerors' prices for purposes of award? Will prices be evaluated on the basis of lowest price technically acceptable, best value trade-off, or some other method? Will prices be evaluated at the time of delivery orders?

Prices will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness and technical proposal will be evaluated on acceptable/unacceptable basis for purposes of award.

Additionally, prices will be evaluated to determine if they are fair and reasonable at time of delivery order.

46. Will there be one IDIQ awardee or will DLA issue multiple IDIQ awards? If a multiple awardee IDIQ scenario, how will awardees compete for delivery orders?

The intention is a multiple award IDIQ. (DELIVERY ORDER PROCESS:All requirements for supplies will be ordered as delivery orders that can be issued using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures, Best Value Tradeoff Procedures or the Government could initiate a direct award in the interest of Industrial Mobilization.)

47. Will DLA conduct a price realism analysis prior to making an IDIQ award and/or prior to awarding delivery orders? If not, why not?

Price reasonableness will be determined prior to IDIQ award and delivery order issuance. The Government does not deem a price realism analysis to be necessary.

Will DLA evaluate past performance? Are offerors required to submit information about past performance, including past use of product by aerospace customers? If not, why not?

The Government will award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the technical requirement of the solicitation. In determining a contractor's responsibility (in accordance with FAR 9.104-1) the offerors past performance records (via CPARS and other DoD repositories) may be reviewed.