Attach_0031_Solicitaion_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W31P4Q-17-R-0046
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a solicitation for Hydra-70 Rocket System production and engineering services. The U.S. Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal plans to award a single-source hybrid firm-fixed-price and cost-type contract for a period of five years. The contract will provide for the procurement of the Hydra-70 Rocket System family of 2.75-inch munitions, including various rocket motors and warheads, containers, packaging, and engineering services to maintain system capabilities. Questions covered pricing templates, quantity calculations, and the page limit for past performance information. Responses addressed errors in templates and provided clarification on submission requirements.
Attachment 0031, Solicitation Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 42
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Questions and Responses
| TrackingNo | Title | Date Rec'd | Contractor Question | Govt Response | Date Closed |
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0001 | TEST | 9/26/18 | |||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0002 | TEST | 9/25/18 | |||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003 | Attachment 0025 Price Template Questions | 10/10/18 | 1) On Tab FFP Evaluated - All Cells in Column AY-BC - it appears that the formula for these columns are inconsistent, they are generating a "False" result in some rows. It looks like the formula is missing a, 0 for one of the "if-then" statements. - Not Fixed, still getting FALSE error in row 66. | The formulas in tab “FFP Evaluated” cells AZ66 to BC66 were corrected, the if-then-else statement was updated to reflect if (AZ$6=0,then 0, rather than proceed with the next nested if statement. | 10/11/18 |
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(a) | 2) On Tab FFP Evaluated – Cells in Column HE-HI row 44 – it appears that the formulas are calculating off the incorrect quantity of units per container. It should be dividing by cell HD7 (quantity 3 per box) rather than HD6 (quantity 6 per box). – Partially fixed. | The formulas in tab “FFP Evaluated” cells HE44 to HI44 were corrected, and the divisor was changed from HD6 to HD7 to reflect the proper quantity “6 per box.” | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(b) | 3) On Tab Offeror Hardware Price List – Cell HP7, based on the definition defined in the CLIN description this should be palletized as 4 motors per box and 20 boxes per pallet (see CLIN 0021AA Packaging and marking) = 80 in a pallet, not 48. | The formulas in tab “FFP Evaluated” cell HP7 quantity was corrected from 48 in a pallet to 80 in a pallet. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003© | 4) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Cells in Row 6 for wood boxes (EW-FB, FI-FN)- For EW-FB you should look at the max quantity, it appears to be low. I entered a reasonable year (not high) of warhead onlys and it is over the max (9,590 boxes > 8,500 boxes). When you put in a high year you could have as many as 12,500 and in max condition you would have 91,250 boxes (if all warhead types maxed out). For FI-FN it appears that it is calculating the total need based on quantity 3 per box, but the requirements for the MK66 motor are 6 per box, therefore that portion of the quantity would be divided by 6 to adjust the maximum. | The intent of the Attachment 0025 price model for the containers was to capture the quantities as palletized totals and not individual box quantities. Attachment 0025 revised in RFP amendment 003. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(d) | 5) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 10, 12, 14 & 92 are not pulling prices for the M151 Warhead (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 10, 12, 14 & 92. The model pulled the M151 Warhead table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(e) | 6) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 18, 20 & 22 are not pulling prices for the M274 Warhead (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 18, 20 & 22. The model pulled the M274 Warhead table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(f) | 7) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 26, 28 & 80 are not pulling prices for the M156 Warhead (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 26, 28 & 80. The model pulled the M156 Warhead table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(g) | 8) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Row 82 is not pulling prices for the M264 Warhead (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on row 82. The model pulled the M264 Warhead table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(h) | 9) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 32 & 84 are not pulling prices for the M255A2 Warhead (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 32& 84. The model pulled the M255A2 Warhead table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(i) | 10) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 36 & 38 are not pulling prices for the M255A2 Warhead (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 36 & 38, these rows are for the M255A1 Warhead, however, the model pulled the M255A1 Warhead table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(j) | 11) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 10, 18 & 26 are not pulling prices for the GFM Refurb M643 Container (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating). | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 10, 18 & 26. The model pulled the GFM Refurb M643 Container table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(k) | 12) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 32, 36, 82 & 84 are not pulling prices for the Wood Box 4 Long box (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 32, 36, 82 & 84, these rows are for the GFM PA150 Container, however, the model did pull the GFM PA150 Container table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(l) | 13) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 12, 20 & 28 are not pulling prices for the GFM PA151 Refurb Container (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on rows 12, 20 & 28. The model pulled the GFM PA151 Refurb Container table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(m) | 14) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 38 are not pulling prices for the Wood box long 4 or Wood Box long 4 LAP (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on row 38. The model pulled the “Wood Box 4”, and the Wood Box Long 4 LAP” table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No Issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(n) | 15) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 86, 88 & 94 are not pulling prices for the Wood Box long 6 (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on row 86, 88 & 94. The model pulled the “Wood Box Long 6” table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No Issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(o) | 16) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Row 92 is not pulling prices for the M648 Container or M648 container LAP (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on row 92. The model pulled the “M648 Container” and the ”M648 Container LAP” table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No Issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(p) | 17) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 32, 36, 82 & 84 are not pulling prices for the PA150 LAP (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on row 92. The model pulled the “PA150 LAP” table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No Issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003(q) | 18) On Tab FFP Evaluated - Rows 12, 20 & 28 are not pulling prices for the PA151 LAP (formula looks good, can't figure out why not populating) | Could not repeat the error reported on row 12, 20 & 28. The model pulled the “PA151 LAP” table data and properly calculated within the “FFP Evaluated” tab. No Issues. | 10/25/18 | ||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0003r | 19) On Tab Offeror Hardware Price List - Cells in Columns CJ, CK and CL starting in row 10,015 there appears to be a formula that should not be there and when data is populated it overwrites the data in column CJ, CK and CL which will impact the pricing calculation sheets (FFP CLIN Pricing Proposed and FFP Evaluated) | (Part A) The formula in question in tab “Offeror Hardware Price List” is a sequential item calculation string. This is simply the previous cell plus one. Column CJ is a blank column, column CK is the item “quantity” count column, and column CL is the “Hardware Item” description. |
(Part B) after populating the tab “Offeror Hardware Price List”, all data was pulled properly into the “FFP CLIN Pricing” and “FFP Evaluated” tabs including all of WTU-1/B. No Issues.
| 10/25/18 | |||||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0004 | Past Performance Question - Pg 213, 214 Section L Para L-21.f. | 10/15/18 | Under Past Performance it indicates that the forms are excluded from the 20 page limitation, but does the 20 page limitation include all of the elements referenced in the note; the Table of contents, executive summary, narrative discussion and acronym list. Or are the table of contents, executive summary and acronym list excluded from the page count? | RFP Amend 0002 Issued as Attachment 0030 | 10/15/18 |
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0005 | Past Performance Question | 10/15/18 | This requirement requests the Offeror provide a list of major subcontractors and the dollar value of the work they will perform in Volume V Past Performance, but in section L-21.d on page 213 it states "No Cost/Price information or qualifications that bear on, relate to, or impact pricing shall be presented in any part of the proposal except Volume IV.” Can the government update this paragraph to remove the requirement for cost information? | RFP amend 0002 as attachment 0030 and that has been posted to FBO. | |
| 10/15/18 | |||||
| FRFP-17-R-0046-0006 | Past Performance Submission Clarification | 10/15/18 | L-21. h. Early Proposal Information. The Offeror is requested to submit the Past Performance Volume V 15 calendar days after the RFP issuance date, to the Contracting Officer at the address specified in L-14(g). Early submission of Volume V is highly encouraged. |
L-22.d.6. Offerors are requested to submit the Past Performance Volume V 15 calendar days after the RFP issuance date, to the Contracting Officer at the address specified in L-18(g).
And
L-22.d.6. Offerors are requested to submit the Past Performance Volume V 15 calendar days after the RFP issuance date, to the Contracting Officer at the address specified in L-18(g).
"Past Performance volume is requested 15 days after issuance of RFP" is correct. 10/15/18
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .