QA_006-_RFP_W15QKN-15-R-0017.docx

Questions and Answers_006:

Complete RFP W15QKN-15-R-0017 (Mortar Weapon Systems)

Question 1: Section L 4.3.1 states "Each Offeror must propose a firm-fixed-price for First Article Test CLINS for all ordering periods. Failure to provide a price for FAT may result in the offer not being considered for award." Attach 3 requires a unit price for each ordering period. There is only one unit price required to be inputted for Section B with a commodity name "ordering periods 1 through 5.

Question: Should Section B be updated to include space for each ordering period? If not, what price should be inputted into Section B? Upon award, will we billing the price of FAT in Section B for all 5 ordering periods, or the prices per ordering period provided in attachment 3?

RESPONSE: The Government is requesting single unit price will be applicable to all FATs for the Ordering Periods 1 through 5 under that specific item. The separate cells in Attachment 0003 pertaining to FAT should have been merged into one cell. For example, cells E4, F4, G4, H4, and I4 should be merged into one cell, covering all 5 Ordering Periods. An Amendment to the RFP is forthcoming.

Question 2: The RFP contains FAR clause 52.230-6 - Administration of Cost Accounting Standards. Section K requires information regarding cost accounting standards notices and certification.

Question: Can the Government confirm that having an approved accounting system is not a requirement for submitting a response to the RFP and for contract award?

RESPONSE: An approved accounting system is not required for submitting a response to the RFP or contract award.

Question 3: Section L 4.3.1 states "The proposed price for production CLINS shall be inclusive of all fabricating, testing, inspection, packaging and delivery of the solicited item". The production CLINs in Section B state under the Shipping Instructions: FOB Origin. FOB Origin is typically where the purchaser is responsible for all further shipping costs (insurance, transportation, etc.) once goods are loaded onto the delivery vehicle.

Question: Does the Government intend to take receipt of equipment at the Contractor's facility and pay the associated shipping costs from the contractor's facility?

RESPONSE: Yes for any CLINS that are marked FOB Origin.

Question 4: Section C.4.14 states "The contractor shall manage live-fire acceptance testing of both the bipods and baseplates in accordance with the TDPs that is deemed acceptable by the USG. This will include proposed location for testing, pre and post-fire inspections, ammunition storage/conditioning if utilizing non-USG test facilities, and personnel responsible for conducting the testing." The TDP's and QAP's for the bipods and baseplates suggest live fire is required per contract requirements, which says live fire requirements are determined by TDP. There are live fire requirements listed in the TDP's and QAP's for the bipod and baseplate completed parent weapon assembly. The M120A1 mortar assembly QAP (#12901293) provides live fire requirements under the STM-2 section of the document. The M-9 baseplate QAP (#12901321) which is a component of the M120A1, does not provide instructions for live fire test.

Question: For determining the requirements for First Article live fire Test of Bipods and Baseplates, should the live fire requirements of the completed weapon system be used?

RESPONSE: The M9 QAP 12901321 identifies the Proof Acceptance requirements in Standard Test Method (STM)-2. The M191 Bipod Assembly identifies USG Firings as part of STM-1, First Article Requirements. It is recommended that the M191 Bipod follow the Proof Acceptance Requirements outlined in STM-2 of QAP 12900890 for the M121 Mortar System. It is allowable to fire in the Ground Mounted configuration for the testing.

Question 5: Alternative testing. Is a qualified simulation testing plan, approved by Benet laboratories as outlined in the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), sufficient to meet live firing testing at the component level?

RESPONSE: Alternative testing is allowable provided USG approval is received prior to incorporation of the new test method.

Question 6: Is there a crating requirement for mortar systems and/or components being sent to Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers? If so, will that crating requirement be funded separately by the program office?

RESPONSE: FMS should use the same packing that would be used for our current systems.

Question 7: Is the 81mm Inconel cannon for the Marine Corps required to undergo live fire testing prior to delivery?

RESPONSE: The M253A1 81mm Inconel Cannon, 11581921, shall be tested in accordance with QAP 11581921. STM-7 of QAP 11581921 specifies the Proof Acceptance shall be in accordance with QAP 12901560 for the M252A2 System.

Question 8: C.5.2- Is the intent of this section to ensure only the piece of material failed not be put back into service or all similar material be held waiting ACO approval e.g. if one baseplate in a lot of 10 fail, can we continue assembly with the other 9 or is the whole lot on hold until we get ACO approval to proceed?

RESPONSE: Non conformances will be dealt with per the quality assurance provisions.

Question 9: C.5.4- If the Government facility already has a SAR or equivalent is that acceptable if nothing in the test is changed i.e. Will the ACO accept the equivalent of a SAR in the event that the Government site chosen does not routinely use the SAR format but has the same information in a different format?

RESPONSE: If the testing will be done at a USG facility that is currently or has previously conducted equivalent testing, then a SAR would exist. Otherwise a SAR will need to be developed and subsequently approved by the appropriate USG personnel. SAR can be in contractor format.

Question 10: C.5.4- If a Government facility is used to perform production e.g. a baseplate, is a SAR required for the routing production testing said Government facility already performs?

RESPONSE: Need additional clarification to this question. Please resubmit your question with additional detail.

Question 11: If after conducting a competitive source selection and a U.S. Government is found to be the low cost bidder for products and services, is that dollar amount of those goods and services obtained from that government entity to be included in the total sub-contracted amount for determining small business participation goals?

RESPONSE: All subcontracted dollars should be included when determining small business participation goals.

Question 12: Company X submits the following questions regarding DFARS 252.247-7023, Transportation of Supplies By Sea, Clause:

Section C of the clause indicates that waivers are available only in very limited circumstances; requests must be supported and documented in accordance with Section d of the clause; and that requests for waivers must be submitted at least 45 days prior to a shipment. Additionally DFARS 247.573 (a) requires that requests based upon price must be submitted by the PCO to (1) The Commander, United States Transportation Command, for excessive ocean liner rate determinations; and (2) The Secretary of the Navy for excessive charter rate determinations. Accordingly we have the following questions:

1. Given the documentation requirement and the involvement of other DoD agencies, does the PCO anticipate being able to act on such requests within 45 days?

2. Is there an established standard of “excessive costs”?

3. We understand that non-availability waivers must be granted on a case-by-case (shipment-by-shipment) basis and cannot be granted for the duration of the program. Is this understanding correct?

4. In the past, PCO’s have looked to the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to assess non-availability waiver requests and to look for available US Flagged vessels. Is that the PCO’s intent for this contract if foreign supplies or components are transported by sea?

RESPONSE: 1. The requirement to submit a waiver at least 45 days prior to a shipment is based on the anticipated timeframe required for waiver approval. Actual timeframes may vary due to the involvement of other DoD agencies not under the purview of ACC-NJ or PM-CAS.

2. There is no established standard or excessive costs.

3. Waivers will only be granted on a case by case basis. Blanket waivers for the duration of the contract will not be granted.

4. The Government intends following the procedures as outlined in the DFARS PGI PGI 247.573 General.

Question 13: 1. Company X, requested a 15-day extension to the 22 June proposal due date for Mortar Weapons System Procurement (Solicitation # W15QKN-15-R-0017) on 22 May 2015. To date no information regarding this request has been received.

RESPONSE: A 15 day extension will be granted. An amendment to the RFP is forthcoming.

2. Given the government transmitted and continues to transmit substantial changes and new information pertaining to the associated technical data packages (TDP) nearly 2 weeks after the initial request for proposal (RFP) release, Company X now requests a 21-day week extension for submitting our proposal. Suggested proposal due date is 14 July 2015.

RESPONSE: A 15 day extension will be granted. An amendment to the RFP is forthcoming.

3. This extension is essential in order to obtain new supplier price quotes in view of the multiple and substantial TDP changes. Two of our vendors in particular must obtain a complete new set of vendor quotes before they provide pricing information to us due to these substantial TDP changes. Furthermore, the large exceptionally CLIN structure of 400 plus CLINS, makes it is impossible for Company X to provide accurate pricing to the government in accordance with Section L. Failure to approve a reasonable extension would preclude us from competing.

RESPONSE: A 15 day extension will be granted. An amendment to the RFP is forthcoming.

Question 14: The instructions for the Small Business Participation volume, in Section L.4.4.2, include this sentence: “For the purpose of evaluating Small Business Participation, the total contract price is determined by multiplying the unit price for a single M191 Bipod Assembly from ordering period 2, range 50‐149 times 5,000 which is the estimated maximum number of M191 Bipod Assembly to be purchased on this contract.” Could the Government please explain the intent of this sentence, and in particular:

1. How is “total contract price” determined by reference to a single item – i.e., the bipod assembly?

2. How are 5,000 bipod assemblies intended to demonstrate the offeror’s small business participation plan?

3. What is the particular relevance of ordering period 2?

RESPONSE: The intent of the instructions in PARA L.4.4.2 is to set parameters for the Small Business Participation factor and its subsequent evaluation. The total contract price listed here is not representative of the maximum contract value of any eventual contract. There is no particular relevance to ordering period two.

Question 15: We also note that the Army has not yet responded to the previously‐submitted question whether it intended, as the RFP currently reads, for offerors to submit both a small business subcontracting plan in Volume V, as well as a small business participation plan in Volume IV.

RESPONSE: Response posted on FBO via Question Set 5 on 6/10/15.

Question 16: There is a conflict of information in the Solicitation as Section B.2 states, “…CDRL DD1423, is a requirement for the contract but shall not be separately priced (NSP)” vs. Section L.4.5, Volume V, under Section J which states, “CDRL (DD1423) with blocks 17 & 18 completed.” To complete Block 18 on each CDRL would suggest separately priced. Please provide clarification.

RESPONSE: CDRLs shall not be separately priced IAW Section B.2 of the RFP. However, the Government still collects data regarding the costs required/estimated to generate the data submission. Completing Block 18 on each CDRL does not suggest separately priced. It is informational only.

Question 17: Request further clarification to Answer 3 of the attached entitled QA_0004‐ _Part_3 (Sections_A_through_M)_RFP_W15QKN‐15‐R‐0017 posted on the FBO website on 8 June 2015. Is the true intent to delete Volume V from L.3.1 or is the intent to delete Volume V from L.2.3.1?

RESPONSE: The intent is reword Section L so only one copy of the Volume V is required. The amendment mentioned in Answer 3 to QA_0004‐_Part_3 (Sections_A_through_M)_RFP_W15QKN‐15‐R‐0017 will clearly reflect the requirement. An amendment is forthcoming.

Question 18: In section L.4.4.6 (RFP page 364) a table format is provided to show small business participation. Although the total contract price is stated as $102M, the denominator used to calculate percentages in the table is $43M, which presumably is the total cost of all subcontracts (small and large). Can we therefore conclude that this was an error, and that $102M rather than $43M should have been used as the denominator, with the participation percentages adjusted downward accordingly?

RESPONSE: The total contract price in PARA L.4.4.6 should have been $43M, as the chart is an example of how the calculations are performed and not intended to be representative of the contract ceiling. An amendment to the RFP is forthcoming.

Question 19: Company X has the following question regarding the purchase of the M326 Stowage Kit:

CLINs 0001 – 0011 include the M120A1 120mm system per SOW paragraph C.3.1. Historically, the M326 stowage kit has been purchased as a separate accessory and at different quantities than the full-up M120A1 system. Please confirm whether or not the USG means for us to include the cost to manufacture and deliver the M326 Stowage Kit, MSK BII and installation to the M1101 trailer with every M120A1 system purchased on CLINs 0001 – 0011 with quantity ranges up to 200 ea.

RESPONSE: CLINs 0001 through 0011 includes the M326 Mortar Stowage Kit (MSK), MSK BII and installation to the M1101 trailer. One (1) M326 MSK, MSK BII and installation to the M1101 trailer is being purchased with every one (1) M120A1 system purchased on CLINs 0001 through 0011.