Hydra-70_Final_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Hydra-70 Draft RFP and Industry Day Questions and Answers Continued 23-Apr-18

TrackingNo Title Contractor Question Govt Draft Response

RFP0046-055 RFP Question For DSL Attachment 0001 and CDRL A002 of Exhibit A is the appropriate DID reference DI-RELI- 80254 rather than DI-SESS-80255A?

No because DI-RELI-80254 is cancelled with no replacement. Will tailor the DI-SESS-80255A for clarification purposes.

RFP0046-056 RFP Question

There is a discrepancy between the SOW and CDRL A015 in Exhibit A. The SOW states that the FPI report shall be approved by the Government, but the CDRL does not indicate an approval is required (block 8 says N/A). Which is correct? Additionally, the SOW paragraph references FAT and TFAT hardware. Is the intent to reference FPI hardware instead?

The CDRL is correct. The SOW paragraph will be updated to remove approval language and FAT/TFAT references.

RFP0046-057 RFP Question

There are discrepancies between the Attachment 0016 MK90 Grain TDPL and the Grain section of the Attachment 0004 TDPL. Please clarify which grain TDPL takes precedence and/or update the TDPLs to match.

The discrepancies that were found are addressed as follows:

AS2543-R06Y2014/R10Y5001R1 are not on Att 4, the will not be added as they are against industry specs that we do not list on Att 4. They are still applicable to grain inspection/requirements.

IHSP07-512-R08R4329 - Will be added to Att 4 as Hanging Paper

MIL-STD-1322/53 - Industry Spec and will not be added to Att 4

233AS171 - Not on Att 4 because it is for the grain cage and the cage is not used in the production of Motors, which is what is called out on Att 4. Still applicable for Grain inspection/requirements.

233AS418-MI-P4566R1C1 - Reference to the ECP will be removed from Att 16 as it was cancelled (C1)

12987995 - Att 16 will be updated to reflect Revision E which was released by MI-P1692R2A1

LD288346 - Document is for the pallet for grain cages, it is not used in the production of motors and will not be added to Att 4. Still applicable in inspection/requirements for grain.

RFP0046-058 RFP Question There is no data in the LAP price point tab. Should the information on this tab match the same information on the same titled tab of attachment 0025? Yes, this has information in the 180320 version.

RFP0046-059 RFP Question There is a discrepancy between the MIL-DTL-11195 specification and refurbishment criteria for paint color. We believe the correct color is 34079. Please verify Color should be 34079 Att 22 will be updated.

RFP0046-060 RFP Question For DSL Attachment 0001 and CDRL A005 of Exhibit A, is the appropriate DID reference DI-MGMT- 81808 rather than DI-AVCS-80700?

The DI-AVCS-80700 is not the correct DID. The CDRL A005, the SOW and the DSL will be updated accordingly.

RFP0046-061 RFP Question The same requirement for CDRL B033 has defined tailoring for Format 6 IMS/IMP, should those same tailoring instructions be included here for consistency? No, these are two different contract structures and therefore the tailoring will not be the same.

RFP0046-062 RFP Question P/N 13654277 is not the Container Assembly, Rocket. It should be 13654227 Correct. The RFP will need to be updated to reflect 13654227.

RFP0046-063 RFP Question

In the amendment to the DRFP a paragraph was added stating “The Government may waive the requirement for the first article approval test...FATs proposed for waiver shall be identified and presented to the government in the contract proposal. All costs associated with proposed waived FATs shall be disclosed to the Government and excluded from the contract price.”

Our understanding is the costs for the waived FATs should be excluded from the production unit prices, but the costs should be disclosed and included in the First Article Test CLINs (XXXXFA) only for evaluation purposes. Is that correct? Please clarify.

Correct, all FAT costs shall be excluded from the hardware unit price. However, costs of each of the First Article Test CLINs identified in Attachment 6 are to be disclosed and evaluated by the Government.

RFP0046-064 RFP Question

Why is a waiver of FAT required? Since the First Article CLINs (XXXXFA) are options, wouldn’t the exercise of the CLIN dictate the requirement for a first article approval test? If not exercised, then it is waived?

: FATs that normally would be required by contract (i.e., meet the criteria for FATs in Attach 12 of RFP) may be waived by the Gov, if the supplies are “identical or similar” to supplies that have been previously furnished and accepted by the Government. The Government may elect not to exercise the option.

owssvr