RFP W15QKN-25-R-0004 - Industry Question Set 4 - 6 May 2025.pdf

24 April 2025

RFP W15QKN-25-R-0004

Industry Question Set 4

Question 17

On page 158 of the solicitation ¶M.3.5a states “IMS utilizing 1 May 2025”. However, Q4 of 2025 has been stated as the anticipated contract award date.

Question: Should the contract award date to start the IMS be May 1, 2025, September 30, 2025, or another date?

USG Response: 30 September 2025 should be utilized as the forecasted award date for IMS submission. Paragraph M.3.5a will be revised accordingly.

Question 18

CDRL A012 requires submittal of a Critical Characteristics Control Plan (CCCP) “at least 180 days prior to FAT”. In addition,” the USG will respond within 45 days of receipt of the CCCP”.

Question: Question #4 in Industry Question Set 2 specifies “if an offeror proposes a FAT timeline beyond 180 days, that would be rated as unacceptable and disqualify their proposal”.

We will be proposing a FAT timeline within the required 180 days but submittal of the CCCP would have to be on the same day as the contract award to meet the CDRL. Please clarify if submitting the CCCP sometime after the contract award disqualifies our proposal.

USG Response: The USG will update the language for CCCP and MSE submission to “Contractor shall submit 120 days prior to First Article Test (FAT) or production if FAT is not required”. The updated CDRLs A0006 and A012 will be posted along with the forthcoming RFP amendment.

Question #19

In our review of provided technical data, drawing # 9287837 states that the provided drawing is Sheet 2 of 2 and we have been unable to locate Sheet 1. Can that drawing please be provided?

USG Response: Sheet one of drawing 9287837 can be provided.

Question #20

Understanding that the USG has considered and rejected applying the broad FAR 52.216-4 clause, would a narrower application (perhaps to raw material pricing only) be considered? For example, FAR 52.216-4568 limits EPA only to steel.

USG Response: The inclusion of EPA was researched and considered. However, it was decided that including FAR 52.216-4, titled “Economic Price Adjustment – Labor and Material – Actual

Cost Method” is not in the best interest of the Government at this time. Contractors should factor in cost fluctuations in their proposed pricing.

Question #21

Solicitation states that evaluation of responses will be based on Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. Is this Lowest Price considered on a unit price basis, or on total contract value? If on total contract value – can the USG provide the weighting calculation they are utilizing to calculate total value from FAT and unit pricing?

USG response: Per M.3.6.1, Prices proposed in the Price Matrix to the solicitation for the Initial and Additional FAT CLINs and Production CLINs will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price.

As for providing the weighting calculation, the USG will not provide any weighting calculations.

As stated in Paragraph M.3.6.3, the USG will calculate the total evaluated price by summing the weighted evaluated prices for the Initial and Additional FAT CLINs and Production CLINs computed from the unit prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix.

See Paragraph M.3.6, titled “Factor 2: Price”, for additional information.

Question #22

Solicitation includes DFARs 252.204-7012 and 7020, and the SOW includes supplements to these clauses. If the contractor has a Level 2 Assessment level on file with SPRS, would the USG consider waiving the initial review requirement in the SOW Supplement?

USG Response: DFARS 252.204-7012 is the Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting clause. DFRS 252.204-7020 is the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements clause. Both clauses are required for all solicitations and contracts. At this time, it is undetermined if the initial review will be waived.

Question #23

This contract states that each facility must have a Level II Eddy Current Inspector (IAW NAS- 410). Should this only apply to facilities processing the M31?

USG Response: Yes, Eddy Current is only applicable to M31 Fin production.

Question #24

Has the USG identified sufficient resources to ensure timely review of MSE submissions to meet the 180-day FAT requirement? Or is the USG willing to provide guidance prior to MSE submission to accelerate this process, particularly for automated inspection equipment?

USG Response: MSE submission due date under CDRL A006 will be updated from 180 days to 120 days prior to First Article Testing (refer to Question #18 above). MSE submissions are due 120 days prior to First Article Testing, and USG will respond within 60 days of receipt. Revision will be due within 10 days of the USG’s response. Guidance can be provided to Contractors prior to MSE submission.

Question #25

Section C.6.8 of the SOW calls out requirements for SPC data to be presented as part of FAT and post-award quarterly meetings. Xbar & R charts are specified for all collected data. Should this be interpreted as a requirement for variables data to be collected for all identified measurements (including in post-FAT production)? Or will alternate charts be allowed for collected attribute data?

USG Response: Attribute data may be used for SPC data collection although variable data typically provides more benefit. Variable data collection for SPC do not need to utilize the USG approved Acceptance Inspection Equipment; alternate gages may be used.

Question #26

The U.S. has limited domestic aluminum production, and if tariffs are fully implemented, the burden on small businesses could be significant. From a team perspective, is there any contract language or mechanism that could help address challenges tied to tariffs on raw materials?

USG Response: The potential impacts of the tariffs have been acknowledged; however, DFARS 252.225-7013, titled “Duty-free Entry” is included in this solicitation.

Under this DFARS clause, raw materials that are being sourced out of this country should not be affected by any potential tariffs. Duty-free entry forms will need to be completed by the Contractor and will need to be approved in the PIEE module.