Questions_and_Answers__W25G1V19R0002.pdf

W25G1V-18-R-0049 (NEW NUMBER W25G1V-19-R-0002)

Questions and Answers Dated 10/25/18

Q1: Do you know the physical condition of the units being sent in? Have they been removed recently or have they been laying around for some time.

A1: Refer to Performance Work Statement Scope: "Assets sent for overhaul have been determined unserviceable by Army Organizational Maintenance. Their condition ranges from no Evidence of Failure (NEOF) to failure of internal components from normal use."

Q2: Can the evaluation period be expanded longer than 30 days for all of the units?

A2: No. The time specified in the Performance Work Statement for pre-shop analysis is minimized to allow the contractor to determine material needs and initiate the purchase of materials that may have long lead times. The performance period and delivery schedule for this requirement are important.

Q3: Would 120 days be acceptable to develop a test panel?

A3: Refer to Performance Work Statement Paragraph 5: "The contractor shall certify that all necessary tooling, fixtures, test and inspection equipment is available for overhaul of the ID-2278B/A and the ID- 2277A/A. No test equipment, special tools and fixtures will be provided by the government."

Development of test equipment does not meet the government's requirement for schedule performance.

Q4: Are their alternative ways to get parts, perhaps through Tobyhanna?

A4: Parts acquisition and sources of parts supply is an important aspect of this requirement as it has a profound impact on the ability to meet schedule within the performance period of the contract. The government will not be able to supply any repair parts to the contractor.