Response_to_RFP_Questions_R-0163_(5-27-14).xls
XLS spreadsheet 59 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Tires - Aircraft (QPL-PRF-5041)
- Solicitation number
- SPE7LX14R0163
About this file
Response to Questions (Amendment 0004) (Corrected)
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SF30_SPE7LX14R01630004 1 .pdf | ||
| Response_to_RFP_Questions_R-0163_(5-21-14).xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| SF30_SPE7LX14R01630003 1 .pdf | ||
| SF30_SPE7LX14R01630003 1 .pdf | ||
| Response_to_RFP_Questions_R-0163_(5-21-14).xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| 6_-_Att_C-2_to_RFP_-_LCC_NSNs_(Air_5041)_(Amend_2)(5-13-14).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amend_0002_to_0163_(Air_5041)(5-15-14)a.docx | DOCX document | |
| SF30_SPE7LX14R01630002 1 .pdf | ||
| 3_-_Att_B-1_Sec_B_Spreadsheet_(Air_5041)(Amend_0002)(5-15-14).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| New_WinZip_File.zip | ZIP file | |
| 3_-_Att_B-1_Sec_B_Spreadsheet_(Air_5041)(4-9-14).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
Text version
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 | |
| 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. Revised Answer: Section C.2.10 Forecasting will be added to solicitation via amendment 0004. It will state: Forecasting is the responsibility of the TSI Contractor. As required by contract SPM7LX-11-D-0157, Section P2 - 3.4.1., the TSI Contractor will provide the LTC Vendor the 12-Month Forecast report as stated below:
Report Name: 12-Month Forecast Report Definition: Identifies (a snapshot of) stock on hand, due-ins and anticipated demands (monthly or annually), by NSN Report Frequency: Monthly - no later than 14 days from the reporting period’s end
| 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 tires 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 agreement with the TSI contractor as permitted under section C.2.9. | |||
| 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 |
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 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. |
&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 .