Response_to_RFP_Questions_R-0163_(5-21-14).xls

XLS spreadsheet 89 KB Posted May 29, 2014

Attached to: Tires - Aircraft (QPL-PRF-5041)
Solicitation number: SPE7LX14R0163
Issued by: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime

About this file

From the source

Response to Questions.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Response_to_RFP_Questions_R-0163_(5-27-14).xls	XLS spreadsheet	May 29, 2014
SF30_SPE7LX14R01630004 1 .pdf	PDF	May 29, 2014
SF30_SPE7LX14R01630003 1 .pdf	PDF	May 29, 2014
SF30_SPE7LX14R01630003 1 .pdf	PDF	May 21, 2014
Response_to_RFP_Questions_R-0163_(5-21-14).xls	XLS spreadsheet	May 21, 2014
6_-_Att_C-2_to_RFP_-_LCC_NSNs_(Air_5041)_(Amend_2)(5-13-14).xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 16, 2014
Amend_0002_to_0163_(Air_5041)(5-15-14)a.docx	DOCX document	May 16, 2014
SF30_SPE7LX14R01630002 1 .pdf	PDF	May 16, 2014
3_-_Att_B-1_Sec_B_Spreadsheet_(Air_5041)(Amend_0002)(5-15-14).xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 16, 2014
New_WinZip_File.zip	ZIP file	Apr 18, 2014
3_-_Att_B-1_Sec_B_Spreadsheet_(Air_5041)(4-9-14).xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Apr 17, 2014

Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Jims

Section	Comment	Question
B.2.1	52.216-930 Economic Price Adjustment - Dept of Labor Price Index (Nov 2011) Pending Approval	In order to finalize the pricing, LTC Vendors need to understand all factors which impact pricing. DLA needs to make a final determination on the EPA formula.
B.3.1	Surge Requirements are addressed in Award SPM7LX-11-D-0157 and will be supported by TSI Contractor with supply support from the LTC Vendors.	Since LTC Vendors are required to support Surge requirements, DLA needs to provide the LTC vendor copies of those requirements. We do not possess contract SPM7LX-11-D-0157.
B.3.2	S&S Capability is defined as the ability of the LTC Vendor to meet increased quantity / accelerated delivery requirements in support of "a broad spectrum of possible contingincies".	Need DLA to be more specific on what Surge and Sustainment will be used for. The S&S volumes identified in attachment B-2 are not reflective of tire demands for major or minor contingency operations (volumes are within the standard deviation of current demand). Based on this Michelin needs to understand how DLA intends to use this clause.
C.2.3	Maximum Monthly Delivery Order Quantity: The total monthly Delivery Order quantity should not exceed the quantity noted in column n. (All or None Tab) or column m. (Split Award Candidates Tab) on the Section B spreadsheet. If a requirement develops, to include FMS orders,	Does this mean that FMS orders are not included in the forecast?
C.2.4.1.2	Upon concluding the Government's review of the "condition" non-conformance, the Contrationg Officer will provide disposition instructions regaring the suspect material.	Does this mean that the KO alone will make dispostion decision regardless of the position of the LTC vendor?
C.2.5.3	If the TSI Contractor fails to pay the LTC Vendor for conforming tires received, pursuit to C.2.8, the KO will issue a final decision that authorizes payment by the Government directly to the LTC Vendor.	What is the time frame for the KO decision. In accordance with C.2.8, by the time the decision reaches the KO, the contractual payment terms have already been exceeded.
C.2.7	When either party, the TSI Contractor or LTC Vendor, provides the Government with information regarding Reliability Management of specific NSNs in accordance with the terms of their contract, that same information shall be provided to their TSI Program counterpart at the same time. During the term of the contract, the LTC Vendor may need to share confidential information with DLA (especially in quality issues). This information could address manufacturing processes and technical fixes. The TSI Contractor does not have a confidentiality agreement with LTC Vendor and would be under no obligation to keep that information confidential. This is not acceptable to the LTC Vendor. We see no issue with providing information "necessary for the TSI Contractor to perform his role but that level of information could be substantially different than what is provided DLA.	How does DLA protect LTC Vendor confidential information? Will DLA modify the RFP to specifty that only reliability data that the TSI demonstrates is necesarry to fulfill its contract shall be provided to the TSI and that the TSI must sign a condidaity agreement to receive the data?
C.2.9	Any additional commercial contract requirements established between the TSI Contractor and LTC Vendor shall be the responsibility of the two parties, but in order to maintain the integrity of the TSI Program, all agreements shall be provided to the Contracting Officer, in writing, to ensure said agreements are not in conflict with the terms of the applicable TSI Program contracts. The

Government is not a party to any such agreement. No disputes over terms or conditions negotiated between the TSI Contractor and the LTC Vendor beyond the Government LTC’s terms and

conditions shall justify delay in LTC Vendor performance under this contract.	If DLA is not a party to the agreement why must the agreement be delivered to DLA. The T&Cs of the LTC are between the LTC Vendor and DLA. What is in other commercial contracts should be of no interest to DLA. Please explain.
	C.9.4	For all of the above reports/deliverables: All of the above reports/deliverables shall be delivered to

the Government with unlimited rights and shall not be identified as proprietary data. “Unlimited Rights” means the Government has the rights to use, disclose, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, of the data (including the contents of reports) in any manner and for

any purpose, and to have or permit others to do so.	This means that if we have a quality issue (C.9.2.1) we must detail to DLA of the date of the failure, the cause of the failure and the date the problem will be resolved (all of which could be considered proprietary or confidential data) and DLA has the right to make this data public. The release of our confidential production and / or quality information is unacceptable.
	C.10.1.1	The LTC Vendor(s) shall submit for approval to the Contracting Officer all known

configuration changes that affect the supply of tires to include the impacted system,

old and new part numbers, and the reason for the proposed change.	Does this include USAF LCCs?
	C.10.1.2	Known configuration changes that affect Foreign Military Sales (FMS) will be

identified and forwarded to the Contracting Officer for consideration and include the impacted system, old and new part numbers, and the reason for the change. The Contracting Officer will submit this information to DLA HQ and the appropriate

International Logistics Control Organization to advise FMS customers.	Does this include USAF LCCs?
	C.10.3	The LTC Vendor shall monitor and immediately notify the Contracting Officer of

any weapon system program developments or modifications that may impact the performance and/or require a change to the current configuration of tires covered by this Solicitation. The Contracting Officer will then take whatever action, if any, deemed necessary to coordinate with the ESA the possible configuration change and any resulting addition, deletion or modification of a tire

or tire type.	Does this include USAF LCCs?
	C.13.2	The LTC delivery terms to the TSI Contractor shall apply to

any LCC evaluation requirement, unless otherwise identified in the resulting TSI Contractor

delivery order.	Does this mean the delivery terms for LCC tires is FOB destination to the TSI Contractor's location?
	C.18.4.1	For Direct-Buy orders for FMS support, the FOB point shall be Origin with

Inspection and Acceptance to occur at Origin. Transportation instructions will be included on delivery orders or can be obtained in accordance with DLAD 52.247-

9034.	Will KO notify LTC Vendor that the order is an FMS order?
	C.18.8	The Government may pay the LTC Vendor under Fast Pay terms (see 52.212-9001 under Section I)

provided the delivery order dollar value does not exceed the Fast Pay threshold. Payment will be

made under Net 30 terms for Direct Buys if Fast Pay is not authorized.	What is the Fast Pay threshold?
	E.1b(1)	Restriction on Subcontractor Sales	Legal Please explain
	E.1b(40)	Buy America Act	Is this Act applicable to this contract?
	E.1d	Comptroller General Examination of Record	Is this RFP considered a sealed bid?
	pg 30	DLAD 52.209-9013	If indicated elsewhere within the body of this solicitation/award that the item(s) being procured contain “one or more components which must meet QPL/QML specifications”, the contractor represents by submission of its quote/offer that it will supply such component item(s) only from sources currently qualified on the applicable QPL(s)/QML(s). Does this conflict with other sections in the contract?
	Pg 31	DFARS 252.211-7005	Need explanation of this clause
	Pg 38	FAR 52.215-21	Need explanation of this clause
	Pg 38	FAR 52.216-19	Review, section (d) seems to conflict with C.2.3
	Pg 43	DFARS 252.225-7020 Trade Agreements Certificate	Need explanation of this clause
	Pg 43	DFARS 252.225-7020 Trade Agreements Certificate Alternate 1	Need explanation of this clause

QPL

	RFP Section(s)	Context / Comment	Question/Request
1	Section A.2.1; Attachment C-2; Hybrid QPL & LCC Index Summary; Attachment C-3 LCC Program MOA	RFP citations reference the Qualified Parts List (QPL), represented as Attachment C-2 in the RFP. Both an official QPL and RFP Attachment C-2 contain data essential to implementing DLA’s evaluation strategy. RFP citations reference the QPL, represented as Attachment C-2 in the RFP. Both an official QPL and RFP Attachment C-2 contain data essential to implementing DLA’s evaluation strategy.

1. The RFP cites QPL-5041-32 dated 2007. We are aware of a version published August 2012..

2. In addition to not reflecting the most recent QPL, Attachment C-2 is incomplete and in error..

i. For NSN (last 4) 5161, Att. C-2 shows a qualified vendor without an LCC index value for an LCC tire.

ii. For NSN (last 4) 7607, Att. C-2 shows part number 461B-3383-TL as a qualified tire. As we understand it, the USAF disqualified that particular tire in October, 2008.

iii. For NSN (last 4) 6037, we understand that the specified product is an E3 tire that may also be installed on an E8 aircraft. The ply/load rating potentially puts E-8 aircrews at risk. NSN (last 4) 9505 is a sole source tire and might be included in Section B.

iv. For NSN (last 4) 2972, Att. C-2 index does not reflect the most current LCC index for all part numbers. Some tires reflect current engineering data, some reflect old engineering data.

v. RFP Att C-2 does not include qualified sources for CLINs 3, 4, 29, or 30, which do appear in RFP Attachment B-1. 1. Will the RFP contain the most recent US Air Force Qualified Products List? (Issues 1 & 2.iv)

2. Will the RFP provide current/accurate LCC indices for all competitors? (Issue 2.i)

3. Does DLA believe that multiple sources are qualified to provide NSN (last 4) 7607? If so, does DLA intend to apply the provisions of RFP Attachment C-3 when determining a value to use when calculating revised offeror LCC index values and tire prices? (Issue 2.ii)

4. Will the RFP contain NSN (last 4) 9505? (issue 2.iii)

5. Will Attachment C-2 be amended to reflect all items shown in B-1? (issue 2.v)

			1. The current Attachment C-2 removed from the RFP via Amendment 0002 and replaced with a document that only lists the LCC indices (currently available from the Air Force), per part number and CAGE Code . Attachment C-2 was never intended to represent QPL-5041-32, and while it was titled "Actively Supported Air Force Qualified Tires List," no reference to the official QPL is ever made on the document. It's intent was only to provide the most current LCC indices provided to DLA by the Air Force. Section A.2.1 does not cite QPL-5041-32, "dated 2007." In fact, it does not cite any date for the QPL. The latest and "Official" copy of the QPL can be found at http://quicksearch.dla.mil/, and will not be included as an attachment to the RFP. 2. Yes, current LCC indices provided by the Air Force provided in a replacement document for C-2 in Amendment 0002. 3. Sources for NSN 7607 are listed in the QPL. Currently, there is only one source listed. 4. No, 9505 will not be included in this solicitation. 5. No, Attachment C-2 only identifies LCC indices that are currently available from the Air Force. Qualified sources for all of the CLINs are listed in the QPL.
2	All Sections	The RFP makes no reference to a TSI or DLA provided forecast.	1. Which entity, the TSI, the DLA, or none, will provide LTCs with a tire forecast?

2. How far forward will that forecast look?

3. Please amend RFP Section C to include the promised frequency and anticipated accuracy of forecast data provided to LTCs. (Historical TSI forecast data being the most reliable).

4. If the Answer is “in accordance with the TSI contract”, please provide that language for LTC consideration.

5. Will the Government define and track the quality of the forecast given LTCs using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs?) If not, how will DLA know if its forecasts are any good? If not, why should LTCs have confidence in the forecast? If DLA does elect to use forecast quality measures, is there any penalty for the forecast provider if/when the forecast is inaccurate? If not, does DLA understand that it poses downstream cost and delivery risks?

			1-5. DLA does not provide forecasts. We provide only the current ADQ which is based on Demand History. The TSI Contractor is responsible for providing a forecast. No language referring to forecast will be added to the LTCs.
3	SF 1449, Blocks 13a through 18 a and block 27a.	Incomplete and conflicting information of SF 1449. RFP B-1 indicates DPAS Ratings, could impact SF 1449 Block 13. Block 27a should be one or the other; if both, indicate which are attached and which are not.	Will the Government revise the SF 1449 before the proposal due date?
			The DPAS rating is applicable to each indidivual Delivery Order, not the basic LTC. Reference to Block 13b added to A.2.2. via Amendment 0002, as the system will not allow a fill-in in block 13b.
4	Section A, Item A.4	Timely Submission and Evaluation. Cut-off date for submitting traceability documentation is unclear.	Will the Government please clarify the requirement in the first sentence by inserting the word “initial” before the word “offers”?
			Yes, the word "initial" inserted via Amendment 0002.
5	B.1.3 – AMSC and Attachment B-1 Column e; and Section F, DLAD 52.211-90-23	We notice that DLA changed Attachment B-1, column e from AMSC code C to AMSC Code T. Code T requires that an offeror’s product be listed in RFP Attachment C-2 prior to award. It is conceivable that an offeror might submit an initial offer for a tire that is not a qualified tire (not on RFP Attachment C-2); subject to Contracting Officer validation. It is also conceivable that a Contracting Officer might, in error, proceed to award without amending RFP Attachment C-2.	Please confirm that if the Contracting Officer approves a tire before or after initial proposal submissions and before contract award, the Contracting Officer will Amend RFP C-2 and make a formal call for revised proposals to offerors qualified under that NSN.
			AMSC codes listed in Attachment B-1 are current. Again, Attachment C-2 is not the QPL. (See answer to #1.) If a tire is submitted on a proposal that is not listed in the current QPL published in ASSIST, ESA will be consulted to verify qualification. No formal call will be made when an update to the QPL is made.
6	B.1.3 – AMSC and Attachment B-1 Column e.	We notice that DLA changed Attachment B-1, column e from AMSC code C to AMSC Code T. Code T stipulates that the procurement is constrained by a Qualified Product List. The RFP contains Attachment C-2, which is a non-official representation of an outdated QPL.	When will the Government provide a QPL that aligns with the USAF formal engineering configuration baseline?
			See answer to #1.
7	B.1.3, C.2.3	Language is unclear. C.2.3 addresses tire quantity, not delivery order quantity (i.e. Delivery order count). Appears twice in the RFP, once under “all or none” and once under “split awards”.	Please confirm that the cited part of RFP B.1.3 intends to address tire piece count and not delivery order count/total. Perhaps, retain the reference to C.2.3 but eliminate the confusing language in B.1.3 that addresses delivery order quantity.
			Both references amended to add language addressing the tire piece count, rather than the delivery order count, via Amendment 0002.
8	B.2.1, EPA	RFP contains draft terms. Pricing/vendor risk cannot be assessed and assigned until the EPA terms are made firm.	When will the Government release Section B.2.1 in final form?
			Once approval is received from HQ, B.2.1 will be amended.
9	B.2.(b)(1) EPA	Incorrect Index number cited. WP78U061 should be WPU061.	Will the Government amend the cited index?
			Yes, corrected via Amendment 0002.
10	B.3.1	The cited RFP section says “Surge Requirements are addressed in Award SPM7LX-11-D-0157 and will be supported by TSI Contractor with supply support from the LTC Vendors.” We do not possess contract SPM7LX-11-D-0157. LTC Vendors are required to support Surge requirements stipulated “elsewhere”.	Will DLA provide copies of those requirements prior to the proposal due date with sufficient time for LTC vendors to assess the impact?
			Please submit a FOIA request to obtain a copy of contract# SPM7LX-11-D-0157.
11	B.3.1	RFP B.3.1 language is very loose and could be construed to mean any surge order, not just surge orders subject to CLIN 9000 constraints.	Please replace "as needed" with "when ordered in accordance with contract provisions". Please replace "all surge requirements" with "surge requirements ordered in accordance with CLIN 9000 procedures.
			Corrected via Amendment 0002.
12	B.3.1	RFP B.3.1 reference to lead times is potentially confusing. Leads times differ from delivery times.	Please clarify/distinguish the use of the terms "lead time" and "maximum order time" as used by DLA throughout the RFP.
			A lead time is the latency (delay) between the initiation and execution of a process. For example, the lead time between the placement of an order and delivery of a new car from a manufacturer may be anywhere from 2 weeks to 6 months. The term "maximum order time" is not in the RFP. The term "lead time," as defined, only appears once, (in B.3.1). In that instance, you could probably substiture "delivery," but it won't be changed in the RFP.
13	B.3.2 and B.3.4	RFP section B.3.2 says “S&S Capability is defined as the ability of the LTC Vendor to meet increased quantity / accelerated delivery requirements in support of a broad spectrum of possible contingencies". RFP section B.3.4 The Monthly Wartime Rate (MWR) is the surge quantity, which is a quantity above normal requirements that may be ordered by the Government in a military contingency. The Government is not obligated to order any of the surge quantities and the LTC Vendor should not ship such quantities without receipt of an order clearly designated for surge quantities. The MWR is expressed as a 30-day recurring surge quantity requirement for S&S Items. We are concerned that DLA considers CLIN 9000 as a way to exercise regular orders.	Does DLA intend to use CLIN 9000 to supplement regular orders? Does DLA consider non-availability of a particular tire due only to lack of TSI lack of inventory a valid reason to exercise CLIN 9000? Does DLA deem CLIN 9000 a valid means to rectify inaccurate tire forecasts not impacted by unannounced unit mobilizations or FMS contingencies?
			No.
14	C.2.3	The cited RFP section says “The total monthly Delivery Order quantity should not exceed the quantity noted…on the Section B spreadsheet. If a requirement develops, to include FMS orders,”	Will the forecast provide LTCs with insight into FMS orders?
			No forecast requirement language will added to the LTC RFP.
15	C.2.4.1.2	Clarity on authorization for decisions regarding disposition.	Please confirm that only the Contracting Officer, not the TSI, has authority to return tires based on a “condition” inspection.
			Both C.2.4.1.1 and C2.4.1.2 amended via Amendment 0002, removing the requirement for notifying the contracting officer. Any disputes will be resolved per the disputes paragraph.
16	C.2.5.3	RFP C.2.5.3 says "If the TSI Contractor fails to pay the LTC Vendor for conforming tires received, pursuit to C.2.8, the KO will issue a final decision that authorizes payment by the Government directly to the LTC Vendor." In accordance with C.2.8, by the time the decision reaches the contracting officer, the contractual payment terms have already been exceeded.	How much time does the Government get to make payment once notified that procedures under C.2.8 are exhausted?
			The solicitation will be amended to require the government to initiate payment to the LTC Vendor within 20 days of the final decision being made.
17	C.2.6.3	The investigation cited in C.2.6.3 should be a joint DLA-LTC investigation.	Please amend C.2.6.3 by adding "joint LTC and" between the words "the " and "government".
			The official investigation will remain the responsibility of the Government. It will not be a joint investigation with either the LTC Vendor or the TSI Contractor. Obviously, all parties will be involved, but the government will be the final arbiter. No change will be made to the solicitation.
18	C.2.7	RFP C.2.7 says "When either party, the TSI Contractor or LTC Vendor, provides the Government with information regarding Reliability Management of specific NSNs in accordance with the terms of their contract, that same information shall be provided to their TSI Program counterpart at the same time. During the term of the contract, the LTC Vendor may need to share confidential information with DLA (especially in quality issues)." Such information could address manufacturing processes and technical fixes. The TSI Contractor does not have a confidentiality agreement with LTC Vendor and would be under no obligation to keep that information confidential. This is not acceptable to the LTC Vendor. We see no issue with providing information "necessary for the TSI Contractor to perform his role but that level of information could be substantially different than what is provided DLA.	How does DLA protect LTC Vendor confidential information? Will DLA modify the RFP to specify that only reliability data that the TSI demonstrates is necessary to fulfill its contract shall be provided to the TSI and that the TSI must sign a confidentiality agreement to receive the data?
			C.2.7 is a subsection of C.2, entitled TSI Program Execution: TSI Contractor and the LTC Vendor(s) Relationship. Given the structure of TSI, the goal of these provisions is to ensure a sharing of information between the TSI contracator and the tires suppliers to make the program work. In most cases, the tire manufacturers will be more likely to know of reliability issues than third party integrator. However, the third party integrator is the one ordering rires for our customers, so it needs this information to know what to order. If the LTC vendor is concerned that the TSI contractor will release this information to others, perhaps the LTC vendor should try to establish a separate confidentiality agareement with the TSI contractor as permitted under section C.2.9.
19	C.2.9	RFP C.2.9 says "Any additional commercial contract requirements established between the TSI Contractor and LTC Vendor shall be the responsibility of the two parties, but in order to maintain the integrity of the TSI Program, all agreements shall be provided to the Contracting Officer, in writing, to ensure said agreements are not in conflict with the terms of the applicable TSI Program contracts." The Government is not a party to any such agreement. No disputes over terms or conditions negotiated between the TSI Contractor and the LTC Vendor beyond the Government LTC’s terms and conditions shall justify delay in LTC Vendor performance under this contract.	If DLA is not a party to the agreement why must the agreement be delivered to DLA?. The T&Cs of the LTC are between the LTC Vendor and DLA. Items in commercial contracts should be of no interest to DLA. Please explain.
			The Government only wants to know of any terms agreed upon between the TSI and LTC contractors to ensure they do not somehow frustrate our goals in this program, particularly since the TSI is required to use the LTCs where the LTC Vendor and the Government are the contracting parties.
20	C.9.4	RFP C.9.4 says "For all of the above reports/deliverables: All of the above reports/deliverables shall be delivered to

any purpose, and to have or permit others to do so." This means that if and LTC plant has a quality issue (C.9.2.1) we must detail to DLA of the date of the failure, the cause of the failure and the date the problem will be resolved (all of which could be considered proprietary or confidential data) and DLA has the right to make this data public.	The release of LTC Vendor confidential production and / or quality information is unacceptable. Please select a FAR based distribution statement for deliverables. It should not reflect unlimited rights (see DoD Directive from November 2013).
				It is DLA's opinion that the LTC vendor is giving this provision an overbroad interpretation. Section C.9.2 relates to orders that failed a kind, count and condition inspection by the TSI contractor. Under the TSI strcture, the TSI contractor is using tire supply contracts that DLA Land and Maritime has awarded to fill tire orders. This places DLA Land and Maritime in between the TSI contractor and the LTC vendor with a long term tire supply contract. Without this basic information on why a partcular order was rejected DLA Land and Maritime would be unable to resolve any dispute between the LTC vendor and the TSI contractor. Moreover, DLA Land and Maritime would need to be able to share that information with the TSI contractor in resolving the dispute. The section asks for basic information including identification of the order, the NSN at issue, the date the inspection failed, the explanation or reason on why the order was rejected, and some statement on when the matter will be resolved. DLA Land and Maritime does not think that this requires the LTC vendor to provide a detailed explanation of quality or production issues within its production facilities. DLA believes there is sufficient flexibility to permit the LTC vendor to explain the problem, and still keep confidential any internal operating problems it does not want made public. In most cases the reason why the order was rejected is going to be the reason stated to the LTC vendor by the TSI contractor as the basis for rejecting the tires.
	21	C.10.2.1	Waivers prior to initial submission and/or before award.	Does the Government intend to restrict competition to only those items qualified in accordance with the USAF engineering baseline, represented in RFP C-2? If such a waiver is granted any time before contract award, will the Government notify all LTC offerors of the waiver than the affect on RFP Attachment C-2?
				See answer to #1.
	22	C.13.2	The LTC delivery terms to the TSI Contractor shall apply to any LCC evaluation requirement, unless otherwise identified in the resulting TSI Contractor delivery order.	Please stipulate that FOB destination specifically excludes the TSI's facility? Test tires are shipped direct to test sites.
				Section C.13 amended via Amendment 0002 to state that LCC NSN testing requirements will be handled directly between the Government and the LTC Vendor. Tires will be shipped direct to the Air Force testing site.
	23	Section F	FAR 52.215-21	provision is made under FAR 52.215-20. No detail is stipulated for Alt. IV. Suggest eliminating -21 because the issue is covered in -20.
				FAR 52.215-21 amended via Amendment 0002 to add the same verbiage as stated in -20. 52.215-21 is specificallly for Modifications to the contract.
	24	Section A and Section F	DLAD 52.215-9016. Following the note/instruction about the LTC contract not using the uniform contract format, it is unclear why Section J, DLAD 215-9016 addresses Sections H, I and J. Should be other references per Section A.	Will DLA amend the cited DLAD before submission date?
				No. Sections H, I, and J correspond to Sections K, L, and M in a contract using the uniform contract format. This solicitation and subsequent award does not use the uniform contract format, that is why DLAD 52.215-9016 was tailored to read Sections H, I, and J. Those sections are traditionally removed from the award,
	25	Section F	FAR 52.216-19(d). The filled-in NA is unclear.	Does NA mean that no time limit is placed on the contractor? Does NA mean the (d) is not applicable? Alternatively does NA mean that a contractor cannot refuse an order? Please clarify.
				"N/A" amended to read 5 calendar days, via Amendment 0002.
	26	Section F	FAR 52.216-19(b)(3). The Reference to C.2.3 does not provide an answer to the number of days stipulated.	Will the Government add the number of days required to C.2.3?
				Yes, via Amendment 0002 (30 days).
	27	Section G	SECTION G lists surge and sustainment as Attachment B-2. Elsewhere (several places) it is referred to as B-3.	Will the Government align use of RFP B-2 and B-3?
				Yes. All reference to Attachment B-3 in the RFP changed to read B-2, via Amendment 0002.
	28	J.3.2.2.1 Technical / Quality Control Plan	RFP citation alignment clarity. J.3.2.2.1 states… “The offeror shall submit a plan to address its Reliability Management system to ensure compliance with the elements of C.11 Configuration Management, C.12 Obsolescence Management, and C.13 Quality Management.”	Will the Government amend the cited portion of J.3.2.2.1 to align with Section C titles?
				Yes, Change made via Amendment 0002.
	29	Section F DLAD 52.211-9037	The referenced DLAD says "† For Direct Buys, the LTC Vendor has filled a FOB Origin FMS Delivery Order when the LTC Vendor has tendered the material for Government source inspection requirements in accordance with the TDD requirements identified. Tendered for source inspection is defined as the LTC Vendor contacting the DCMA Quality Assurance Representative for inspection and having documented evidence of such contact, accurately completing the DD250"	Please insert LTC "contractor's portion of" between "the " and "DD 250".
				Concur, Change published in Amendment 0002.
	30	Sections I and G	Section Titles in red where others are not.	Please either change the red titles to black or confirm that the difference is not relevant to the RFP.
				The difference is not relevant to the RFP.
	31	I.3.5.2	Page constraint causes standard plan violation. We have a DLA signed/approved small business plan. It is a .pdf document that exceeds the constraints in RFP I.3.5.2.	Will DLA please lift the RFP Section I.3.5.2 page constraints for small business plans. If not, explain how it is reasonable to truncate evaluation of a previously accepted DLA plan.
				Yes, page constraints for small business plans lifted via Amendment 0002.
	32	RFP Attachment B-3.	The Electronic file for RFP Attachment B-3 contains a sheet labeled B-2. Other RFP references throughout make no reference to B2 together with surge and sustainment.	Will the Government amend the content of B-3 to have the title reflect the RFP title?
				No. "B-2" refers to the Attachment number, not subject of Paragraph B-3 in the RFQ.
	33	RFP Attachment B-3	Clarity on Split award S&S efforts.	Do split award percentages apply to RFP Attachment B-3 orders?. That is, if the Government issues an S&S order, will the tire provided under that order contribute to the LTC's guaranteed split award?
				Yes
	34	RFP Attachment C-2.	NSN (last 4) 2028. The Part number should be M06104.	Will the Government amend C-2 to reflect the most recent part number?
				Yes. See #1.
	35	J.1.3	Evaluation plan in jeopardy. It is difficult to see how DLA can or will implement Section J when RFP Attachments 2 and 3 remain out of configuration control with USAF engineering baselines and monthly war time rate projections.	Will the Government amend C-2 to prevent a protest before submission date and after awards?
				Yes. See #1.
	36	Section F DLAD 52.217-9000	Offerors shall complete the eCAP online using website http://wicap.hq.dla.mil/wicap.	We visited the web site No RFP is posted.
				Please use https://wicap.hq.dla.mil/wicap. Solicitation is posted.
	37	Section F DLAD 52.217-9001	Offerors shall complete the eCAP online using website http://wicap.hq.dla.mil/wicap.	We have tried to access the eCAP website twice since RFP release. Both attempts indicated RFP not posted. Additionally, during the last round of LTCs, we made an effort to use the ECAP as prescribed. It did not work. We provided DLA with a detailed account of data fields that did not work. Please confirm that if an offeror tries to enter the ECAP data, that the system will work. If DLA cannot not affirm that condition, please provide instructions that offerors may use when the ECAP system does not take an offeror's ecap data.
				Solicitation is now posted. Please retry. If you experience problems, contact the acquisition specialist.

&L&"-,Bold"&12Attachment 1 to Amendment 0004 to SPE7LX-14-R-0163 Response to Questions&RQUESTIONS FOR SPE7LX-14R-0163

29 APR 2014

&R&P

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.