Response to Industry Questions_ 1-11_Solicitation W15QKN23R0042.docx

Solicitation W15QKN23R0042 Reponses to Industry Questions Questions 1 through Question 11 Dated: 21 March 2023 Revised: 11 April 2023 23 May 2023

Question 1: Can the Government provide forecasted procurement quantities for the Bodies and Tail Cones? This would be helpful for us to determine the resources necessary to fully support the procurement.

Answer 1: Given this is an IDIQ contract and the quantities can change, the Government will not provide forecasted quantities for the Body Tubes and Tail Cones.

Question 2: The minimum required delivery rate is stated as 5,000 units per item per month. This is very aggressive and will require the coordination of multiple subcontractors. Can the Government consider a lower minimum rate such as 2,500 units per month (2,500 Body Tube Assemblies and 2,500 Tail Cones)? Note: It is assumed that the minimum rate applies to a single configuration at a time, i.e. 60mm Illumination Body Tubes & Tail Cones OR 81mm Smoke Body Tubes & Tail Cones, not concurrent configurations.

Answer 2: In order to meet the Government requirements, the minimum rate of 5,000 units per month cannot be changed. In addition, pursuant to Section L.4.1.2.f of the solicitation, production should be concurrent configurations for both 60mm and 81mm Body Tube Assemblies and Tail Cones.

Question 3: The minimum guaranteed order of $108,380 for all 5 years combined is a concern and does not seem to align with the production quantities and rates discussed in the solicitation. We believe that our Non-Recurring Engineering and tooling costs would exceed this value without any production. Can the Government increase the minimum guaranteed value?

Answer 3 REVISED: Upon further consideration, the Government has made the determination to increase the minimum guarantee value from $108,380.00 to $196,000.00.

Question 4: The Solicitation includes DFARS 252.204-7021 Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Requirements at clause I-91. This clause requires certification to the level required for this Contract. There is no CMMC level specified in the solicitation. Further, CMMC 2.0 is undergoing the rulemaking process and there is no means to obtain certification.

DFARS 204.7503(a) requires this clause “if the requirement document or statement of work requires a contractor to have a specific CMMC level.” Will the Government remove this clause from the Solicitation?

Answer 4: The Government has removed DFARS 252.204-7021 - Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Requirements from the solicitation and contract. See Amendment 0001 of solicitation W15QKN23R0042.

Question 5: The Solicitation is for a 5-year period IDIQ. With the current inflationary forces in the economy and the duration to maintain firm fixed prices, will the Government add an EPA clause for steel and aluminum to enable pricing without having to build in significant inflationary risk to the material pricing?

Answer 5: The Government has reviewed current and projected indices for Steel and Aluminum pricing and will keep the solicitation as is at this time. The Government reserves the right to revisit the addition of Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clauses in the future.

Question 6: Will the Government consider and add Performance Based Payments (PBP’s) into the solicitation?

Answer 6: The Government would be open to considering Performance Based Payments at time of contract award dependent upon review of proposals received for this effort.

Question 7: XXX would like to request an extension for solicitation # W15QKN23R0042. We were exploring teaming opportunities and, in order to provide the best technical response and solution to the Government now that our approach has been decided, we would like to request two additional weeks. We are looking forward to submitting our proposal and thank you for the opportunity to work together in the future.

Answer 7: The Government agrees to extend the proposal due date to 30 May 2023 at 16:00 EST. No further extensions of the proposal due date for solicitation W15QKN23R0042 will be entertained.

Question 8: What is the order of precedence for the evaluation. In the Executive Summary Paragraph 2 Acquisition Strategy, states; “For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor, and the Price Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor.” However, in Section M.2.1 the RFP states that; “The Government will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

0. Factor 1: Technical

0. Factor 2: Past Performance

0. Factor 3: Price

Can you please clarify what the order of precedence is for the evaluation.

Answer 8: The Order of Precedence for evaluation purposes is: (1) Technical, (2) Price, and (3) Past Performance as stated in the Executive Summary of Section A.

Paragraph M 2.1 is revised in Amendment 0001 to say: The Government will assess the results of the following Factors:, listed below in descending order of importance:

Question 9: In section L.4.1.2 Subfactor 2: Manufacturing Plan can you clarify if there is any difference between the Process Flow Diagram in section L.4.1.2.a and the process map in section L.4.1.2.e? Can we provide the Process Flow Diagram and then refer to that as these Process Flow Diagram and Process Map will be the same document?

Answer 9: There is no difference between the Process Flow Diagram of L.4.1.2.a and the Process Map of L.4.1.2.e. They can be referred to as the same document.

Question 10: My name is XXX and I'm a member of the Business Development team at XXX, a XXX contractor interested in submitting an offer for W15QKN-23-R-0042. I wanted to reach out to see if the contracting office would consider an extension to the 5/15 due date. We believe the extra time would allow us and our partners to offer the USG the most robust and beneficial solution.

Answer 10: Please refer to the answer to question #7.

Question 11: Will the PCO consider the past experience of company principals that is directly related to the RFQ for past performance in the RFQ?

Answer 11: The past experience of company principals will be reviewed for relevancy and recency in order to be determined meaningful in terms of past performance for this effort.