A07_Questions_and_Answers_5_19_17.pdf

Questions and Answers – 5/19/17

Question #1:

a. When it says equivalent parts must be approved by TYAD, does that mean prior to our quote or as part of our quote? If prior, what is the process for request approval of an equivalent, and is there a list of equivalents that have already been approved by TYAD?

Answer: Equivalents, drawings, spec sheets are to be submitted with your proposal for technical evaluation pre-award. Please refer to Atch 4 Submission Instructions and Evaluation Criteria, Paragraph 4.1(e), “Part Drawing and Specification Sheets (if proposing equivalents

ONLY) IAW SOW”.

b. On a similar note, if the drawing says suggested source, but there is an alternate source to provide that item, I assume we are okay using the alternate without any additional approvals?

Answer: Alternate sources are approved by the customer for use if on the drawings.

c. The requested delivery schedule is not feasible given vendor lead time for much of this material, not to mention the extension of the due date for this solicitation. We have the production capacity to meet those timelines given a quick turn around on an award, but many of the vendors are quoting 12-16 weeks, which would put push delivery out to September, best case. I do not want to be excluded from consideration for providing realistic delivery dates, when that may not always be the case for every manufacturer.

Answer: The Government acknowledges that due to Solicitation extensions, the delivery time lines may no longer be realistic. Per Amendment 0003, the “required delivery schedule” verbiage has been revised to “desired delivery schedule” and the evaluation criteria has been revised accordingly. Evaluation will be in accordance with FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Items and Atch 4 Submission Instructions and Evaluation Criteria REV1 requirements.

Question #2:

a. In reference to the Questions and Answers on 5/17/17, the drawing provided, 07006B0034-14 is helpful for the sub assembly, we still require drawing 08002B0163 or at least the P/N of the required over-molding material. For all other assemblies over-molding has been replaced with the boot alternative, but for the 07006B0033-30014, the sub assembly will still require over-molding.

Answer: Attached drawing 08002B0163.

b. Following up on a question from 4/18, Atch 1 and the corresponding notes do not give enough information on assembly 07006B0056-06 to quote accurately. Sub assembly 07006B0057-07 is not available from PEI Genesis and as such we require the drawing to ensure we can meet the necessary requirements.

Answer: Attached drawing 07006B0057.

Question #3:

The part number referenced in this paragraph is 08006B0076 instead of 07006B0076.

I currently see nowhere where RoHS or non RoHS compliance is listed. Would you be able to provide me this information?

Answer: Tobyhanna is non RoHS as government qualifies for this exemption.

Question #4:

My Proposal Team have a few questions concerning Solicitation Number: W25G1V17R0014 - Cable Assemblies. Can you please help us?

1. Drawing # 07006B0034 does not show the required length for the -14 Cable as it was called out in Drawing # 07006B0033.

Answer: The length for this cable is 168 inches (14 FT) +/- 2.50 inches.

2. Can you please provide the following Drawings?

-08002B0122 -07006B0038 -08002B0183 -07006B0035

Answer: Attached 08002B0122, 07006B0038, and 07006B0035. There is no drawing 08002B0183 to provide.

Question #5:

Can you provide drawing 08002B0061?

Answer: Attached drawing 08002B0061.

Question #6:

Would you be able to complete our pre-quote checklist. I have filled out majority of the pertinent information. Some of the information left would be RoHS, Class 2 or 3, and type of requested test. I can then begin launching these assemblies for quote tomorrow.

Answer: We do not fill out any contractor documentation. Please review the Solicitation, all Attachments, Amendments and Posted Questions and Answers to aid in filling out your checklist.