ATT 0008 - QA Set 04DEC2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 105mm M1 Wood Box
- Solicitation number
- W519TC-23-R-0036
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document containing 25 questions related to RFP W519TC-23-R-0036 for 105mm M1 Wood Boxes (NSN: 8140-01-077-2004, P/N: 9271047) being procured by Army Contracting Command - Rock Island. The Q&A clarifies that this will result in up to two IDIQ contract awards with a $5,000 minimum order for technical data package review, and subsequent minimum orders of 10,000 wood boxes. The current incumbents are Kaiyuh Services, LLC and Choctaw Defense Manufacturing, LLC under 5-year IDIQ contracts.
Key details from the Q&A include: proposal submission deadline extended to December 12, 2024; First Article Testing requires 15 samples for testing and 3 for visuals; Economic Price Adjustment applies only to production CLINs in ordering periods 2-5; contractors must have a Level II OPSEC coordinator; and preservative treatment requirements beyond ISPM15 are specified in MIL-DTL-2427. Technical drawings are provided in Attachment 0006, and proposals can be submitted via DOD SAFE or email. The minimum monthly delivery requirement is 7,000 wood boxes after contract award.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ATT 0002 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| W519TC-23-R-0036 AMD 0003.pdf | ||
| ATT 0007 - Wood Box Hardware Drawings.pdf | ||
| W519TC-23-R-0036 AMD 0002.pdf | ||
| ATT 0008 - QA Set 26NOV2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATT 0007 - Wood Box Hardware Drawings.pdf | ||
| ATT 0008 - QA Set 21NOV2024.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W519TC-23-R-0036 AMD 0001.pdf | ||
| ATT 0002 Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| W519TC-23-R-0036_105mm Wood Box RFP_31Oct2024.pdf | ||
| ATT 0003 - DD1423 CDRL Guidance.pdf | ||
| Exhibit A - CDRL_final.pdf | ||
| ATT 0001 Price Matrix for 105mm Wood Box with EPA Index Application_final.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATT 0006 - Wood Box TDP Drawings.pdf | ||
| ATT 0004 - ASSIST INSTRUCTIONS.pdf | ||
| ATT 0002 - Past Performance Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATT 0005 - Sample OPSEC Plan.pdf |
Show all 17
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
Written Q&A
| 105mm Wood Box | ||||
| Industry Questions and Answers (Q&A) | ||||
| # | Question | Answer | Column1 | |
| 1 | In reviewing the documents provided on SAM, we are not able to locate a detailed drawing and technical data package. | The TDP drawings are located at Attachment 0006. In the notes on page 1 of the TDP attachment additional drawings can be found in SPEC MIL-DTL-2427. | Green = RESOLVED | |
| 2 | Is procurement history available for the subject RFP notice? | Yes. Current contracts listed below: W52P1J-19-D-0007, Kaiyuh Sevices, LLC. W52P1J-19-D-0008, Choctaw Defense Manufacturing, LLC.Both contracts awarded FFP, 5-year IDIQ. | Yellow = Needs attention | |
| 3 | Do we need to submit a request to review the controlled documents for our quoting effort on the 105mm M1 Wood Box? | All Wood Box drawings/TDP docs should be available under Attachment 0006. No additional controlled documents are available. | ||
| 4 | Are there any cushioning requirements/specs for the munitions/armaments that the crate may hold? If so, which document is it located in? | No cushioning requirements. | ||
| 5 | Outside of the ISPM 15 heat treat requirements, are there any other preservative method needed such as copper preservation for example? | 1. There are requirements for preservative treatment besides ISPM15. Requirements are within MIL-DTL-2427. | ||
| 6 | Please confirm the correct drawing for Solicitation W519TC-23-R-0036 is drawing 115802-1/2/3/4. | Hardware drawings will be added as an attachment to the RFP. | ||
| 7 | I sent an email to Drawing-Request@pica.army.mil to get copies of the plans for the hardware. The email was located on page 3 of MIL-TDL-2427H. It was returned saying this email does not exist. Is there another email that I can request drawing from. Also, is there a manufacturer of the hardware? | Hardware drawings will be added as an attachment to the RFP. | ||
| 8 | The Past Performance Questionnaire document requested to be completed seems to reference an incorrect Request for Proposal #. Additionally, the POC listed on the document doesn’t seem to match the one listed on the solicitation. Will the Past Performance Questionnaire need to be revised? | PPQ has been revised. | ||
| 9 | I am reaching out to clarify if contractors are required to have an identified certified level II OPSEC coordinator per AR 530-1? We wanted to confirm if this was perhaps added by mistake, as the AR 530-1 would require us to obtain at least a SECRET clearance. | The requirement for a level II OPSEC Coordinator is correct. This requirement is due to the effort being performed at the Contractor's own facilities. | ||
| 10 | Request clarification regarding D.1.a.5 under section L of the solicitation for the 105mm Wood Box. D.1.a.5 excerpt states that the “Offeror must submit a description of any facility, process, inspection, or equipment modification, and any quality control modifications necessary to meet the requirement of the Technical Data Package (TDP). The offeror must demonstrate understanding of any TDP changes, as well as an appropriate approach to meeting the requirements”. We understand that D.1.a.5 requires a description of any modification necessary to meet the requirements of the TDP. However, we would like to confirm the appropriate response if our organization determines that no modifications are needed for the facilities, processes, inspections, equipment, or quality control measures needed. In this case, should we still provide a statement confirming our assessment and understanding of the TDP, even though no changes are required? If so, would we need to demonstrate our existing infrastructure and procedures are fully compliant with the current TDP specification despite no modifications being required on our end? Or should we submit a response explicitly stating the no modification are required? | Either response would be acceptable. You can submit a response stating no facility, process, inspection, or equip modifications are necessary to meet the requirements of the TDP and can provide a statement confirming the assessment and understanding even though no changes are required. | ||
| 11 | Can you please confirm the quantity needed for the FAT testing ? | Per the MIL DTL 2427 FAT requires 15 samples for the tests and 3 samples for visuals, all FAT requirements are in the DTL. | ||
| 12 | Do we need to request a code so we can upload our documents or is it okay to send it to you? Also do you have an example of an IMS Integrated Master Schedule? | Proposals can be sent via DOD SAFE with a request to Joe DePover or Eric Mauricio for a DOD SAFE Link. Sending through email is also acceptable. | ||
| 13 | Section L recommends that only past performance as a prime should be submitted. We have one submission in particular where design, manufacturing, and delivery of repeat deliverables was subcontracted to us, the prime was only a passthrough. Would this be reasonable to include or would the Government still prefer only prime submissions? We are in contact with the Government customer and can provide a PPQ from them. | The Offeror shall submit no more than three contract references with its proposal representing recent and relevant records of |
performance. It is recommended that offerors limit references to those involving its performance as a prime contractor only. Therefore, the Government prefers only prime submissions.
| 14 | We have an CMMC do we need to do an OPSEC plan? | Per Section H of the RFP, the contractor shall prepare and submit a written OPSEC Plan to the Contracting Officer for approval IAW DD 1423/DI-MGMT-80934C within 30 calendar days after receipt of the CI information addressed in paragraph (c) above to be reviewed and approved by the responsible Government OPSEC officer. | ||
| 15 | Do we need to do a CDRL? If so is it possible to get a blank copy of a CDRL? | Offerror must include all Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLS) submissions located in "Exhibit A". | ||
| 16 | We want to do option 1 but the solicitation is not on WAWF what can we do? | A WAWF acceptance document shall be provided for the 105mm Wood Box configuration. If a WAWF acceptance document is not submitted, the Offeror will need to submit a response in accordance with Option 2. | ||
| 17 | We respectfully request an extension to the submission deadline for solicitation W519TC-23-R-0036. The extension is requested to address two key challenges currently impacting offerors’ ability to submit competitive and accurate proposals: Delayed responses from material providers and the upcoming Thanksgiving Holiday. | Extension granted until 12 DEC 2024. | ||
| 18 | ATT 0002 - Past Performance Questionnaire; L.D.3.2 - Section 1. | |||
| L.D.3.a.2 of the solicitation states that the, "Offerors shall complete Sections II.A. and II.B. only." After review of the Att 0002 - Past Performance Questionairre, it seems the incorrect PPQ was provided to potential offerors. The PPQ provided on Sam.gov on Oct 31 references Blasting Caps – M6, M7, and M30 and solictation #W519TC-23-R-0006. Would the Government please provide a PPQ for solicitation W519TC-23-R-0036? | PPQ has been updated for this Wood Box requirement. | |||
| 19 | Attachment 0001, Price Matrix | |||
| Is it the intent of the Government for Offerors to propose first article testing (FAT) prices beyond OP1? Per Section H.7 Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) and the EPA Baseline Factors in Attachment 0001, it does not appear that these calculations are being applied consistently IAW with the verbiage in the solicitation. The cells are password protected, so we cannot change the calculations, as we think those formulas need to be updated to apply the EPA factor beginning in OP2. Please address or advise on this to allow for the best price to be provided by the offeror. | Intent is for Offerors to provide prices in the blue shaded boxes, which includes FAT for each Ordering Period. The EPA only applies to the production CLIN (0002) and only allows for adjustments to Ordering Periods 2-5. The EPA factor and baseline factor are based on an index from 3rd Qtr 2024 forecast. | |||
| 20 | W519TC-23-R-0036_105mm Wood Box RFP_31Oct2024 | |||
| Per Section L. C.a.-c, regarding Past Performance, the Government states, "1. Cover Page - Solicitation Number, Offeror Name, CAGE and DUNs - one page." Will the Government confirm that this is the only cover page required for Volumes. | Confirmed. | |||
| 21 | The Government did not provide a requirement for File Naming for Volumes 1 -3 for Offerors. Will the Government provide a naming convention, or confirm no naming convention is required? | No naming convention is required. | ||
| 22 | Can you please confirm that ISK Biocides product 13060578-6 “CUSOL-5” Listed in 13060578 - TABLE -Approved Source(s) of Supply - is either Approved or Not Approved for use on this contract?" | IAW MIL-DTL-2427 para 3.10 calls out only type I or III preservatives are allowed for this box. 1306578-6 Cusol 5 in table shows this is a Type II product and not a MIL-DTL-2427 box preservative. | ||
| 23 | In Section B, under the production CLIN 0002 at the very end states “THE MINIMUM MONTHLY DELIVERY REQUIREMENT IS 7,000 EA. WOOD BOX.” If this is accurate, then the minimum order amount should be around 84K (7K x 52 weeks) wooden boxes per ordering period, much less than the current Attachment 0001 – Price Matrix figure of 10,000 – 29,999. Will the Government correct this discrepancy in Attachment 0001 - Price Matrix numbers to match? | The resulting awards from this RFP will be up to two IDIQ contracts with a minimum order requirement of $5k for a tech data package review. The minimum order amount at any time after the initial IDIQ awards is 10,000 wood boxes (approximately 1.5 mos production). | ||
| 24 | Additionally, should Ordering Period 1 (OP1) be adjusted to begin after the completion and acceptance of FAT rather than the date of the basic contract award? Our interpretation is that OP1 could only be for a minimum of three months assuming that the FAT will take 9 months, so OP1 will not be a full year. Can you confirm this? If confirmed, can you correct the estimated quantity expected in OP1? | Ordering period 1 is a full year to order from date of contract award. It is set for ordering, not production. Production can run beyond the ordering periods. | ||
| 25 | Given the workload of our selected PPQ references post-holiday, I am requesting an extension of the PPQ due date from December 3rd as listed on the document to the solicitation response due date of December 12th. | We will accept PPQs up until the proposal due date of 12 DEC 2024 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .