Government Responses to Industry Questions.pdf

Government Responses to Industry Questions

1. The MFF list has provision for eight HPH trailers on page 2 of the SOO, we believe that there should only be four HPH trailers.

Government Response: The requirement is for eight (8) HPH trailers.

2. Also, on page 2 of SOO, the MFF excludes variable costs that would include materials and utilities, but direct labor is listed as a variable cost item even as Manpower is listed as a fixed cost that belongs in the MFF. Also, in the Product Purchase Price section that follows, it states that labor shall be included in MFF and not in Product Price. I’m guessing all labor belongs only in MFF and none in variable costs excluding in MFF.

Government Response: Solicitation Amendment 0001 and a revised Statement of Objectives (SOO) are being issued to address an inconsistency regarding the treatment of labor costs, ensuring clarity for all offerors.

To clarify, all labor costs, both direct and indirect, shall be included in the Maintenance & Facility Fee (MFF) and are not to be included as part of the variable costs associated with hydrazine production (product costs). The intent of the MFF is to cover all fixed costs associated with maintaining a ready state of production capability, including the workforce.

The reference to "direct labor" as a variable cost in the original SOO was an error and should be disregarded. As stated in the "Product Purchase Price" section, all labor costs must be included in the MFF and not in the Product Price.

3. CLIN 0001 is missing Year 5 but would presume it to be 198,000 lb for 09/20/2029 –

09/19/2030.

Government Response: See revised SF1449, issued with Amendment 0001, which adds Year 5 pricing line at the bottom of page 6.

4. CLINs 0005 and 0006 for Evacuation/Purging containers and Cleaning to Level 100A indicate a pricing unit of EA for an estimated quantity of 5 EA. I’m guessing that would be an annual amount for each of 5 years, perhaps? Alternatively, it could be an estimated quantity of 5 containers, but clarification on what the EACH is would be helpful.

Government Response: The estimated quantity of five (5) represents the Government's best projection for the entire contract period, based on historical service volumes for Government-provided containers, including 55-gallon and 119-gallon 4BWs. As this is a requirements-type contract, the unit price remains fixed, but the quantity is subject to negotiation and subsequent modification should actual requirements exceed the initial estimate.

5. Seeking clarification on conflicting information between SF 1449 and Attachment J as well. Factors and Volumes got renumbered as it appears a fifth Volume was added in Attachment J, bumping Factor 4 Small Biz to Volume V instead. Also note that Summary and Misc Data is marked as Volume VI, but is likely meant to be Volume IV, except it is later numbered as Volume V in the table at the end of Attachment J. I presume Attachment J is the correct direction to follow with Volume numbering and page limits as shown in the table at the end on page 13. On pages 11 and 12 of Attachment J the Volumes are numbered differently again (two Volume IV’s) Correct to assume that the table at the end of pae 13 in Attachment J is the correct representation of Volumes (or Factors) for the proposal?

Government Response: See revised Attachment J being issued with amendment 0001, which clarifies there are five volumes: Factor 1 - Technical (Volume I), Factor 2 - Past Performance (Volume II), Factor 3 – Price (Volume III), Factor 4 – DLA Small Business Subcontracting Plan Form (Volume IV), and Volume V – Summary of Miscellaneous Data. The roman numbering typo has been corrected in the revised Attachment J, including on pages 11 and 12. Yes, page 13 also represents the volumes required for the proposal.

6. Traditionally, precision cleaning to 100A has been performed as part of the cylinder recertification process (CLIN 0003). With the inclusion of CLIN 0005 (Evac/Purge) for cleaning related to recertification and other purposes, is CLIN 0006 - Precision Cleaning Level 100 (4BW) still applicable?

Government Response: The government acknowledges the industry partner's inquiry regarding the relationship between CLIN 0003 (cylinder recertification), CLIN 0005 (Evac/Purge), and CLIN 0006 (Precision Cleaning Level 100 (4BW)).

Based on historical practices, where precision cleaning is performed as part of the cylinder recertification process under CLIN 0003, the Contracting Officer (KO) has determined that CLIN 0006 represents an overlap in requirements. Therefore, CLIN 0006 will be removed from the solicitation via amendment 0001.

7. Request clarification on Statement of Objectives (SOO) , paragraph 9.d. - Annual Valve Pressure Leak Test: The valve and valve body (to include valve seating and packing) shall be bubble tight when tested at approximately 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% and 150% of the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of the vessel onto which it is to be installed (not to exceed 1.5 times the valve pressure rating). Perform internal and external leak tests. Leak tests shall be performed with helium, or a nitrogen/helium mix with at least 10% helium. If leakage is not detected for at least one minute, the valve passes the pressure/leak test. If the valve passes the pressure/leak test, fully disassemble valve prior to cleaning the wetted flow path to level 100A in accordance with specification KSC-C- 123J or equivalent and re-assemble with new soft goods. If the valve fails the pressure/leak test, repair or replace the valve. Please contact DLA Energy CO for instructions.

There is no line item covering this work in RFP. This is typically done at the time of cylinder recertification (once/5 years). Annual leak checks are probably not necessary. Also, questioning this procedure requiring that the valve is disassembled after a successful test as that essentially voids the test outcome. Please confirm that this is part of the cylinder recertification testing and if the once/5 years frequency can suffice.

Government Response: Solicitation Amendment 0001 and a revised Statement of Objectives (SOO) clarify that paragraph 9.d requires valve pressure leak tests every five years, coinciding with cylinder recertification. This leak testing is performed every five years. If a valve is disassembled during testing, it must be replaced with a new valve. The valve pressure leak test service shall be included within CLIN 0003, Cylinder Re-Certification Testing.

8. Attachment J Subfactor 1.b. and SOO item 6.c shown below list consistent volume requirements for bulk storage, but it appears Attachment J Subfactor 1.c. conflicts with those volume requirements. Is the requirement for 250,000 lb of combined bulk storage, or 500,000 lb that can be combined storage, rather than 250,000 lb/each of two tanks?

Government Response: See revised Attachment J, issued with Amendment 0001, which clarifies subfactor 1c to state a "minimum of two (2) bulk storage tanks, with a combined minimum capacity of 250,000 pounds." The requirement is for a minimum of two (2) HPH storage tanks, with a combined usable capacity of at least 250,000 pounds.

9. Secondly, in the SOO on page 4 of 8, item 6a. PRODUCTION & STORAGE it suggests that quantities above and beyond the 198,000 lb annual estimated quantity would be required to be delivered within 30 days of the separate delivery order issued, but no quantity limit is specified, and of course, a plant does not have infinite capacity. Our next expansion, for example, could take our annual capacity up to 275,000 lb (nearly 23,000 lb/mo) while the 198,000 lb/year equates to 16,500 lb/mo, leaving an excess capacity of possibly 6,500 lb/mo. As 6.a. is stated, that may or may not be an acceptable capacity limitation.

Government Response: See revised SOO, issued with Amendment 0001, which removes the 30-day delivery requirement and replaces it with mutually agreed-upon quantity and delivery dates between the parties.

10. Item 6.a. on page 4 of 8 in the SOO requires an indefinite quantity of additional product to be delivered within 30 days of receiving a delivery order, even as production for the subsequent year’s 198,000 lb requirement will have already started. Is there a maximum additional monthly quantity requirement that a plant’s capacity should be capable of delivering in 30 days above and beyond the 16,500 lb/mo that equates to 198,000 lb/year?

Government Response: See revised SOO, issued with Amendment 0001, which removes the 30-day delivery requirement and replaces it with mutually agreed-upon quantity and delivery dates. While there is no specific required maximum additional monthly quantity, offerors should demonstrate the capacity to surge production beyond the standard 16,500 lb/month to meet potential urgent needs. The government anticipates that additional delivery orders, if issued, will generally be for quantities up to 5,000 lbs above the standard monthly production beyond the standard monthly production rate. Offerors should address their surge capacity capabilities in their technical proposals under subfactor 1a Production Capability.

The mutually agreed-upon quantity and delivery dates will take into account the offeror's demonstrated surge capacity and the urgency of the requirement.

11. In QAP E45 and SF1449 paragraph 22. (2) on Page 4 states, “draw two (2) representative, homogenous 2-liter samples”. Can 4ea 500ml samples be considered equivalent to 2 liters? The 4 samples would be drawn consecutively from the container containing the homogenous material.

Government Response: No. While the specification requires two 2-liter samples, the pre-production sample approval requirement may be waived for suppliers who already have a Department of Defense (DOD) laboratory-approved hydrazine product currently being used by DLA Energy Aerospace. Offerors seeking a waiver should request it in their technical proposal under subfactor 1f - HPH and H70 Pre-production Samples Approval. However, offerors shall still submit a copy of their certificate of analysis (COA) showing compliance with the most recent version of the relevant specification, MIL-PRF-26536 (HPH) or MIL-PRF-87930C (H70). The COA must reflect testing conducted within the last 12 months and be reflective of current production processes.

12. At present, we plan to ship samples of both HPH and H-70 on July 1 for arrival on the 2nd or 3rd. Given the deadline for pre-production samples delivery by July 7 and the Government’s closure for the 4th of July holiday weekend may delay delivery on base facilities, will the Government consider a “ship by” date on samples evidence of timeliness even if samples arrive later than the deadline in the Solicitation?

If the Government has previously been provided samples of a vendor’s products, and if vendor government lab test results demonstrate the vendor’s products meet or exceed Solicitation requirements, will evaluators accept these lab results in lieu of samples?

Government Response: The solicitation's 30-day response time is considered sufficient for offerors to submit pre-production samples to the specified DOD laboratory, in accordance with Aerospace QAP 45. The pre-production sample approval requirement may be waived for suppliers who already have a Department of Defense (DOD) laboratory-approved hydrazine product that is currently being used by DLA Energy Aerospace. Offerors seeking a waiver should request it in their technical proposal under subfactor 1f - HPH and H70 Pre-production Samples Approval. However, offerors must still submit a copy of their certificate of analysis (COA) showing compliance with the most recent version of the relevant specification, MIL-PRF-26536 (HPH) or MIL-PRF-87930C (H70). The COA must reflect testing conducted within the last 12 months and be reflective of current production processes.