Soliciation Questions From Industry and Government Responces.pdf

Question Government Response I noticed the solicitation was released yesterday but I have not received or seen the list of proposed NSNs. Could you please provide this list at your earliest, so we can start pursuing pricing.

The solicitation has several documents that are attached to the PDF file. Attachment 0001 is the list of NSNs.

The PWS states pricing should reflect “commercial packaging”, however Attachment 0008 includes specific packaging requirements for each NSN. We believe the intent is that we should follow the requirements in Attachment 0008 and not simply ‘commercial packaging.’ We request the Government please clarify.

4.12.1 Pricing The contractor shall

provide a price in accordance with guidance of this PWS for all items on any pricing list(s). The contractor shall exhaust all avenues for pricing the Government requirement prior to recommendation of any changes, enhancements or alternate items. In the event a price cannot be obtained, such as a no-bid, a NSN Obsolescence/Technical/Deficiency Report Form shall be completed outlining all of the steps taken in an attempt to obtain said price. The performance threshold for this requirement is 100%. Failure to submit either a price or a completed NSN Obsolescence/Technical/Deficiency Report Form for each pricing action will be considered non-compliant. The unit price will be FFP and is the Government’s fully burdened price, which includes material, labor, 3PL surcharge, commercial packaging, transportation, and any miscellaneous charges.”

Offerors should follow the packaging directions on the Tech Data Plans. Reminder the Tech Data Plans must be requested by the Government.

The PWS has been revised to delete Commercial Packaging language.

We have fully reviewed Attachment 0008 Amendment 0001 and found that it does not contain packaging requirements for NSN 1430-01-092- 0580. Can the Government provide this specification?

This NSN was denoted on the synopsis but has been removed from the solicitation and replaced with another NSN. The NSNs issued with the solicitation are the official NSNs for this requirement.

Attachment 0006 references a “PPI Tool” in the first paragraph and states “This table [Relevancy Table], in addition to the information provided by the offeror in the PPI Tool,…”. The PPI tool is not referenced anywhere else in the solicitation or attachments. Does it exist and how do we access it?

Language for the PPI tool has been removed. A PPI tool is not applicable to this requirement.

We are not clear on what portion of Attachment 0006 that the offeror completes for submission. If the “PPI Tool” does not exist, our understanding is that we complete and submit the Relevancy Table for each effort identified in the PPI (1st Question

– does it exist and where) and the Transmittal Letter for commercial contracts/customers submitted as past performance. Is this correct?

Language for the PPI tool has been removed. A PPI tool is not applicable to this requirement.

Does the identified commercial customer complete everything after the header “PRESENT/PAST

PERFORMANCE

QUESTIONNAIRE”?

The Offeror is to complete the Present/Past Performance Relevancy Table.

The information in the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire is to be completed by the Offerors customer identified in the Present/Past Performance Relevancy table.

OFFEROR requests that the USG provide potential DLA 3PL contractors with an official (short) letter/memo that describes the acquisition strategy and the Government’s intent to procure the items included through an LTC IDIQ contract. This will assist potential contractors when soliciting quotes from large Prime OEMs and sole source supplier that tend to be protective of their direct relationship with the Government.

A letter document has been created and will be provided to the offerors who request the tech data packages or request said letter.

L.A.(2)

Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 and should be on 8 ½” x 11” inch paper. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets may be on 11” x 17”.

Will the USG consider allowing text in charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, tables, figures, and supporting illustrations to be displayed in a smaller font size, such as 10 pt.?

Font size point 10 is allowable for text in charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, tables, figures, and supporting illustrations.

L.A.(2) – (4)

Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12…Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch…Each page shall contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and

3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Will the USG consider allowing headers and footers to be displayed in a smaller font size such as 8 pt.

or 10 pt.?

All text in the headers and footers proposal shall be

FONT 12.

Atch. 6 - Questionnaire

“Request the offeror/joint venture member complete a separate Relevancy Table for each effort identified for evaluation in the PPI Tool.”

There is no mention of the PPI Tool in Section L. Does the USG intend to issue an Amendment to require use of, and provide instructions for, the PPI Tool?

Language for the PPI tool has been removed. A PPI tool is not applicable to this requirement.

PWS paragraph 4.10, 4.12.1

PWS paragraph 4.10 states “FOB Point shall be origin and a Transportation

Delivery is FOB origin. The PWS has been revised.

Accounting Code (TAC) provided for each order.”

Paragraph 4.12.1 states “The unit price will be FFP and is the Government’s fully burdened price, which includes material, labor, 3PL surcharge, commercial packaging, transportation, and any miscellaneous charges.”

Will the USG confirm clarify shipping and transportation requirements or charges?

Atch. 0003 – H Narrative

H-5 B. Performance states “each Contractor will earn performance incentives for meeting or exceeding the required percentage and/or other stated performance objectives, as stated in paragraph 2.0 of the PWS.”

There are no other references to performance incentives found in the documents.

Will the USG elaborate on the use of performance incentives for this contract?

Performance incentives are not part of this requirement. Performance Incentives have been removed from the section.

Atch. 6 – Past Performance Relevancy Table

“Request the offeror/joint venture member complete a separate Relevancy Table for each effort identified for evaluation in the PPI Tool. This table, in addition to the information provided by the offeror in the PPI Tool, will assist the PCO in evaluating the relevancy of the proposed effort to the instant 3PL requirements.

Offerors/joint venture members shall only complete column three.”

Will the USG please clarify if the Relevancy Table

The 3PL offferor is required to complete the Relevancy table and submit the entire document to their customer to complete the Past Performance Evaluation Form.

The form should be completed by the 3PL offerors customer. The 3PL offerors customer should send the completed form to the Government by the specified due date detailed on the solcitation.

(understood to also be considered the

“FACTS

Sheet”) appearing in Attachment 6 – Past Performance Questionnaire should be included in the distribution of the questionnaires to POCs?

Will the USG also please clarify if the Past Performance Questionnaire (POC answer form without answers) should be included in the Past Performance Volume submitted on July 23rd?

Amendment 0001

Amendment 0001 changed the Question due date to 8 July 2020.

Several questions posed are relevant to the Past Performance Volume. Will the USG please consider extending the due date for the Past Performance volume to account for the time difference between the RFP release date and the date that Answers are provided to these Questions? For example, if Answers to Questions are provided on 8 July, will the USG consider extending the Past Performance Volume due date to 6 August and further extending the due date for the overall proposal to 20 August?

DLA is determining if the solicitation closing date should be extended. A decision has not been made at this time.

L.A., L.E.(2), L.E.(6)

The table in Section L.A, states that the Past Performance Volume is limited to 20 pages.

Section L.E.(2) states, “If the total number of such contracts exceeds four (4), each offeror/joint venture member

Section L has been revised to clarify the Past Performance Relevancy Table and the Past Performance Questionnaire submission and page limitations.

shall address its four (4) most recent and relevant contracts.” Furthermore, Section L.E.(6) states, “The answering space on the PPQ may be expanded so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of three (3) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages.”

Will the USG please clarify the page limitation for the Past Performance Volume, or consider extending the page limitation?

Also, will the USG please clarify whether both sides of three (3) 8 ½ x 11-inch pages are considered to be 3 of the 20 page limit, or 6 of the 20 page limit?

The PPQ is 5 pages long without expansion of the FACTS Sheet. If the FACTS Sheet is NOT expanded past the current answering space, and the Offeror provides 4 contracts, that in itself meets the 20 page limit, without the inclusion of a summary page. If the FACTS Sheet on any one of the 4 allowed contracts is expanded, that will then exceed the 20-page limit.

Atch. 2 PWS

There appear to be missing items in Attachment 2 – Performance Work Statement from 4.15 ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW to 4.20 ITEM

UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION (IUID)

REQUIREMENTS.

Does the USG intend to release an updated PWS with either the missing information or new paragraph numbering?

The PWS has been renumbered. The revised PWS has been attached in Amendment 0003 of the solicitation.

Section 4.4, are Source Approval Request (SAR) packages required for Full and Open items if a previous source can be identified who has sold the item to the DLA in the past?

Anything that is full and open does not require a SAR. Offerors should follow the SAR guidebook found at https://www.avmc.army.mil/Directorates/SRD/SAR/

If there are other companies with past sales history to the DLA for items that are not listed as Full and Open, can those sources gain approval if they were previously qualified?

Per the solicitation requirements, any sources the offerors use must be approved by the Government.

Previously approved sources who are not currently approved, must be re-approved by the Government.

The Government shall not accept any NSN that is supplied by a non-approved Government source.

Section 4.6, will surplus items that are bid versus new items offered by a contractor be evaluated as less desirable? How will contractors identify on the bid spreadsheet that they are supplying surplus versus new on each pricing action?

Section 4.6 of the PWS has been placed in RESERVE and has been deleted.

Section 4.9, mentions an FAI sheet as Attachment 10 but the form could not be found with the rest of the solicitation documents. Will this form be provided?

The First Article Testing (FAI) sheet has been attached to the solicitation as attachment Number 9.

Will the First Article Test Waiver Form be provided prior to submission of our offer so that we can understand under what conditions a waiver may be granted?

The First Article Testing (FAI) Waiver Form has been attached to the solicitation as attachment Number 10. However, it must be submitted and approval received by DLA.

Will DCMA inspection be performed at the manufacturers’ facility or will all items need to ship to the 3PL provider and have inspection performed at our facilities?

DCMA inspection shall be completed at the manufacture’s facility.

Only Full and Open Competition NSNS shall have DCMA inspection at the manufactures facility.

If the items can be inspected by DCMA at the manufacturers’ facility, what is the anticipated time that the Government estimates for DCMA delegation and inspection to occur?

The best estimate is 7 days after the item has been made available for inspection.

After the initial pricing of the 125 items, how many additional new items does the Government anticipate will be added each year?

Additional items to be added are dependent upon the needs of the Army Aviation Material Commands annual spend plan.

Section 4.12.1 states, "The unit price will be FFP and is the Government’s fully burdened price, which includes material, labor, 3PL surcharge, commercial packaging, transportation, Section 4.12.1 of the PWS has been revised.

https://www.avmc.army.mil/Directorates/SRD/SAR/ and any miscellaneous charges." Since the Government is responsible for transportation costs, what is being referred to in this part of the paragraph?

Will the Government consider providing solicitors with an authorization letter that we can provide to the required suppliers stating that we are soliciting quotations from them on behalf of this contract effort? Some suppliers listed as "required" have policies not to quote anyone but the Government for some of the items on the list.

A letter document has been created and will be provided to the offerors who request the tech data packages or request said letter.

Other than the price of the item, what are other criteria used to determine best value per FAR 15.101-2? It does not appear that a vendor can propose a shorter delivery date or other added value criteria as part of a best value evaluation.

This requirement is not a best value determination under FAR 15.101-2. Best Value evaluation determination shall be based upon the evaluation criteria detailed in the Solicitation Section M.

Section 5.0 states, "Contractors shall also be aware that there is a small business participation requirement for this procurement. Small businesses can self-perform under the small business participation plan. Contractors shall report the small business utilization prior to the end of each ordering period." Will this be evaluated as part of "best value" criteria? If so, what is the target participation level to be considered successful or best value under this section of the PWS?

It is not an element of the best value criteria for award. Refer to section 5.0 of the PWS as it has been amended.

In section 4.12.2 of the PWS and H-2 paragraph C: The 50 required items to be quoted include sole source items.

The paragraphs state that if a potential bidder that doesn't bid the required 50 items may be considered non-responsive. Some of these suppliers are no bidding or non-responsive. Is the government requiring sole source businesses to bid all potential 3PL contractors for items in the 50 required items? If not, what keeps a sole source

If an offeror can demonstrate after taking reasonable effort to obtain bids and provides documentation to the Government, the Government will conclude the offeror is responsive and will accept their proposal.

However, the Government will validate all “no-bids”.

supplier within that 50 required items grouping from using its position as a sole source supplier to then "choose" the resultant group of successful bidders by limiting competition and only quoting specific businesses? Will documented "No Bid" submissions in this instance (per H-2 (C)) allow a potential contractor or to be considered responsive?

In section H7 of the Narrative document, the section titled

"PRODUCTION QUANTITY WITH

FIRST ARTICLE - CONTRACTOR

TESTING JUN/1997 (USAAMCOM)"

is missing the last part of the paragraph.

Will the Government please provide that information that is missing from the document?

Section H7 has been revised to include the missing information.

In the solicitation, page 3, the following statement is listed:

"NOTICE: YOUR ATTENTION IS

INVITED TO FEDERAL

ACQUISITION REGULATION

(FAR) 15.403-4, RELATIVE TO THE

REQUIREMENT FOR OBTAINING

CERTIFIED COST AND PRICING

DATA. IN THE EVENT THIS

REQUIREMENT IS SOLE SOURCE,

THE SOLE OFFEROR IS REQUIRED

TO SUBMIT CERTIFIED COST AND

PRICING D A T A WITH THE

PROPOSAL. FAILURE TO PROVIDE

CERTIFIED COST AND PRICING

DATA WILL RESULT IN YOUR

OFFER BEING CONSIDERED

UNACCEPTABLE." The government has identified 63 of the 125 line items as sole source items. Per the notice above listed in the solicitation, are bidders required to obtain certified cost and pricing data on these 63 items in order for their proposal to be considered acceptable?

Only if the TINA threshold is exceeded.

Concerning the mandatory items to be priced by sole a source or specific

The price authorization letter should assist in alleviating these issues.

vendor we have had the following issues that we would like to bring to the Government’s attention:

•Non-responsive or No bid (Raytheon and Microsemi Corp) •Refuses to quote as they are working direct with customer (Drs Network – Leonardo and R&D) •Item is specific to customer so vendor can’t quote without authorization letter. (General Micro Systems) •Some required vendors take 45 days+ to quote. (Raytheon, Lockheed, etc.)

We would like to make the Government aware of and the request assistance to encourage the highest degree of competition on the contract.

On PWS paragraph 4.4 Vendor Qualification.

The section states:

“All prospective manufacturers, or distributors, seeking to compete for a solicitation for Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command (AMCOM) Spares, for any restricted source parts, are required to be an AMCOM approved source."

In regards to the phrase “any restricted source parts,” on items that are notated in pricing requests (including this solicitation attachment 0001) with the term “Full and Open” which have a completed data package, is a Source Approval Request required? Or, similar to other open DLA competitions with full data packages, are those items open to any manufacturer that has the technical capability to produce the product within the requirements of the data package and contract terms?

A source Approval is not required for “full and open” competed NSNs. Additional information can be found on the SAR link above.

Please refer to Attachment 0001 column I as to whether this is a restricted or full and open.

Since the answers to these questions will impact our proposal significantly, we would like to request a sixty (60) day extension to the solicitation due date in order to prepare our proposal taking your response into consideration.

DLA is determining if the solicitation closing date should be extended. A decision has not been made at this time.

NOTE: The Solicitation revisions, changes to the existing attachments, and the new solicitation attachments shall be posted in a forthcoming Solicitation Amendment on beta.sam.