W519TC-24-R-0003 Question Log 12.21.23.pdf

# Referenced Document Section Question Answer

1 Solicitation A001 Request for due date extension to 60 days after receipt of outstanding documentation.

At the time of the original solicitation opening, the CDRLs were not included in the posting. The CDRLs were uploaded on 27 October 2023. The proposal due date has been extended 45 days from 27 October 2023, to 11 December 2023.

2 Solicitation B

CLINs for propelling charges all require FAT delivery 180 days after award or first delivery 180 days after award when no FAT is required. This timeline is not realistic based on the events that must take place prior to approval of the FAT report or first delivery. Respectfully request an extension of this timeline to require FAT approval 330 days ARO and first delivery (when no FAT is required) 300 days ARO.

The Government agrees to extend the timeline to require FAT approval 330 days ARO and first delivery (when no FAT is required) 300 days

ARO.

3 Solicitation B Please correct a typo in CLIN 2222: the 60mm

M235 CLIN is listed as "13-10-568-3208" instead of "1310-01-568-3208."

CLIN 2222 will be revised to reflect 1310-01-568-3208.

4 Solicitation E Please correct a typo in the Propellant Reassessment clause, par. (c)(1): "\bd"

Typo will be corrected.

5 Solicitation G-1 Request incorporation of FAR 52.213-1, Fast Pay, into the solicitation.

The USG does not intend to incorporate FAR 52.213-1 into the solicitation. Invoices for this program are paid through an approved ballistic test for the coorresponding lot (via PCO letter) which authorizes DCMA to approve the invoice and results in the contractor being paid.

6 Solicitation H.1.1 Request an increase to the timeline for responding to contemplation letters from 20 calendar days to

45 calendar days.

The USG extended the timeline for response to contemplation letters from 20 to 30 calendar days.

7 Solicitation I-133, I-134

In both Clause I-133, 52.209-3 First Article Approval – Contractor Testing (Sep 1989) – Alt. 1

(Jan 1997) and I-134, 52.209-3 First Article Approval – Contractor Testing (Sep 1989), the timeline listed for USG review of the FAT report in par. (b) is 30 days. This is inconsistent with all other areas of the contract, where the FAT report review timeline is 45 days. Please modify for consistency throughout the solicitation.

Clause I-133, 52.209-3 First Article Approval – Contractor Testing (Sep 1989) – Alt. 1 (Jan 1997) and I-134, 52.209-3 First Article Approval – Contractor Testing (Sep 1989), the timeline listed for USG review of the FAT report in par. (b) is 45 days.

8 Solicitation I-134

Requests removal of Clause I-134 FAR 52.209-3 First Article Approval – Contractor Testing Sep.

1989, as it is duplicative. Clause I-133 FAR 52.209- 3 First Article Approval – Contractor Testing (Sep 1989) – Alternate I (Jan 1997) includes the exact same language as I-134, with the addition of par.

(f). As such, there does not appear to be a need for the 1989 version of FAR 52.209-3, I-134.

Clause I-134 FAR 52.209-3 First Article Approval

– Contractor Testing Sep. 1989 will be removed.

W519TC-24-R-0003 60mm (M204, M235, M236); 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658); and 120mm (M234A1) Propelling Charges Solicitation Questions

9 Solicitation I-136

Requests removal of Clause I-136 FAR 52.209-4 First Article Approval – Government Testing Sep.

1989, as it is duplicative. Clause I-135 FAR 52.209- 4 First Article Approval – Government Testing (Sep 1989) – Alternate I (Jan 1997) includes the exact same language as I-136, with the addition of par.

(f). As such, there does not appear to be a need for the 1989 version of FAR 52.209-4, I-136.

Clause I-136 FAR 52.209-4 First Article Approval

– Government Testing Sep. 1989 will be removed.

10 Solicitation I-138 Please revise Clause I-138 52.216-19 Order Limitations (Oct 1995) to define "N/A" in paragraph (b).

Clause I-138 52.216-19 Order Limitations (Oct 1995) will be revised to define "N/A" in paragraph (b) as "Any order for a combination of items in excess of the highest quantity ranges in each of the CLIN Groups in Attachment 0001."

11 Solicitation I-146

Respectfully request that the USG update Clause I- 146 252.223-7007 Safeguarding Sensitive Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives (Sep 1999) to identify sensitivity categories at the subcomponent level in addition to the prop charge level.

The Government does not intend updated Clause I-146 252.223-7007 to provide sensitivity at the subcomponent level. The only subcomponent information would be the basic propellant ingredients.

12 Solicitation Section J Please provide Exhibits A-H as they were not included with the original solicitation release or with the release of controlled documents.

The Exhibits A-H (CDRLs) were uploaded on 27 October 2023.

13 Solicitation Page 50/122

FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Deviation 2023-O0002) DEC 2022;

deviation has been archived. Can we assume the latest date version (SEP 2023) applies to the solicitation?

Solicitation will be ammended to include the latest version of FAR 52.219-8 (SEP 2023)

14 Solicitation Page 50/122

FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan - Alt II (APR 2018) is listed in Section I. Can we assume the latest date version (SEP 2023) applies to the solicitation?

Solicitation will be ammended to include the latest version of 52.219-9 (SEP 2023)

15 Solicitation Page 51/122

DFARS 252.216-7010 POSTAWARD DEBRIEFINGS

FOR TASK ORDERS AND DELIVERY ORDERS (MAR

2022) is listed in Section I. Can we assume the latest date version (DEC 2022) applies to the solicitation?

Due to a contract writing system issue the Government is unable to amend the solictiation to include the latest version of DFARS 252.216-

7010 (DEC 2022)

16 Solicitation Page 58/122

FAR 52.232-16 PROGRESS PAYMENTS (MAR 2020)

is listed in Section I along with DEVIATION 2020- O0010 (NOV 2021). Can we assume the latest version of FAR 52.232-16 (NOV 2021) and Class Deviation 2020-O0010 Revision 2 (8 May 2023) applies to the solicitation?

Due to a contract writing system issue the Government is unable to amend the solictiation to include the latest version of FAR 52.232-16 and Class Deviation 2020-O0010 Revision 2 (8 May 2023) applies to the solicitation

17 Solicitation Page 76/122

FAR 52.219-28 POST-AWARD SMALL BUSINESS

PROGRAM REPRESENTATION (MAR 2023) is listed in Section I. Can we assume the latest date version (SEP 2023) applies to the solicitation?

Solicitation will be ammended to include the latest version of FAR 52.219-28 (SEP 2023)

18 Solicitation Page 78/122

FAR 52.222-19 CHILD LABOR--COOPERATION WITH

AUTHORITIES AND REMEDIES (DEVIATION 2020-

O0019) (DEC 2022) is listed in Section I. The Class Deviation has been archived; can we assume the latest date version (DEC 2022) applies to the solicitation?

Solicitation will be ammended to include the latest version of FAR 52.222-19 (DEC 2022) and the (DEVIATION 2020-O0019) (DEC 2022) has been removed from the solicitation.

19 Solicitation Section I

FAR 52.222-35 and FAR 52.222-36 are listed within section I along with alternate I (I-140, I-141) for both clauses and then the basic clause is listed again in full text (I-159 & I-160) without the alternates referenced.Are the clauses with their alternates applicable?

The clauses FAR 52.222-35 and FAR 52.222-36 are applicable. As there are no waivers of the clauses, the alternates are not applicable.

20 Solicitation Section L.3.1

Section L.3.1 states that the Technical Factor shall not exceed 20 pages. L.3.3 states that all attachments will count against page limitation.

L.4.1.1 states that the factor shall not exceed 100 pages. We assume the 100-page limit is correct and that the Government desires the IMS to be included within the 100 pages. Is this correct?

The Government agrees that the 100 page limit is correct and that the IMS should be included in the 100 pages. If it is printed on something larger than 8.5x11 paper and folds out each fold will count will count as one page.

21 Solicitation N/A

Would the Government consider adding the following FAR/DFARS Clauses to the solicitation and any resultant contract?

A. FAR 52.250-1 (Indemnification under Public Law 85-804) B. FAR 52.249-14 (Excusable Delays) C. FAR 52.248-1 (Value Engineering) and its Alternates D. FAR 52.245-1 (Government Property) E. FAR 52.227-5 (Waiver of Indemnity) F. FAR 52.216-4 (Economic Price Adjustment - Labor and Materials) G. DFARS 252.235-7000 (Indemnification Under 10 U.S.C. 2534 - Fixed Price)

The clauses noted will not be incorporated as they are not believed to be applicable.

22 Solicitation N/A

FAR 52.232-25 (Prompt Payment) is contained within the solicitation. Would the Government consider adding Alternate I to the solicitation and any reusltant contract award?

The Government does not intend to incorporated FAR 52.232-25 - Alternate I as this is will be considered a supply contract not a service contract.

23 Solicitation

Sections H and L

Section H, (Order Placement Procedures for Multiple Award Contracts) states, in part, “Prices submitted on the Price Matrix (Attachment 0001) will be the not to exceed ceiling prices for future requirements.” However, Section L.1.2(b) says, “The USG intends to award up to two Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for all the above CLINs as a result of this solicitation.” We have two related questions:

1. Based upon these clauses, it is our understanding that Attachment 0001 pricing is an NTE and, via the contemplation letter process outlined in Section H, a limited competition between offerors will be held and the result may be one or more FFP Delivery Orders. Please confirm this understanding or provide clarification.

2. Since Attachment 0001 pricing is an NTE, please advise whether a separate contemplation letter will be issued for OP1 Delivery Orders or if the USG will make an award determination for OP1 based upon the NTE (essentially turning it into an FFP)?

The Government concurs with statement 1. via the contemplation letter process outlined in Section H, a limited competition between offerors will be held and the result may be one or more FFP Delivery Orders.

Regarding part 2, award determination for the MGA would be based upon NTE matrix pricing.

24 Solicitation

Section B, par.

Since this contract will be subject to Fair Opportunity under FAR part 16, we respectfully request this sentence be removed or revised to reflect the requirement that awards are made in accordance with the criteria and order of importance set forth in each contemplation letter.

The solicitation will be ammended to reflect the requirement that awards are made in accordance with the criteria and order of importance set forth in each contemplation letter.

25 Solicitation

Request clarification as to whether the progress payments are at 80% of 90%. In May 2023 a class deviation was issued to revert progress payment rate for large businesses back to 80%. We would like the USG to confirm that any resultant award will include progress payments at the 90% rate.

The progress payment rate was reverted from 90% to 80% for large businesses. Due to a contract writing system issue the Government is unable to amend the solictiation to reflect this change.

26 Solicitation Please confirm it is the USG's intent for offerors to include the cost of FAT in the unit price.

The Government nonconcurrs with the assertion that the intent is to include FAT cost in the unit price. The price matrix has cells for offerors to submit intial and subsequent FAT prices.

27 TDP

In doing the review for the 81MM M658 (previously XM658) an error was noticed with the revisioning of drawing 19200: 13064716. The previously provided drawing for the 13064716 Revision Z was titled Charge, Propelling XM658 .

In the History Block for Revision Z it states NOR M220 to XM658/2016-10-18. In the new drawing provided within Solicitation W519TC-24-R-0003, 13064716 is at Revision B and titled Charge, Propelling M658 . It is understood the 81MM M658 is no longer considered in the experimental phase, but resetting the drawing to Revision B does not meet the required standards (nor any past practices) of drawing revisioning. Our ERP systems, Windchill and IFS, will not go in reverse order for revisioning. As we do not anticipate any acceptable work arounds for our systems, we ask that the government correct the drawing to meet the required drawing revision standards.

The Government is unaware of a revision Z to drawing 13064716. Revision B of drawing 13064716 is considered the current.

28 TDP

Please provide the below listed document which was not included within the released TDP documentation:

19203-9280588 "N"; Charge Propelling M219

The Government does not intend to procure M205 prop charges via this solicitation. As such the requested information is not being provided.

29 TDP

ACV00561 Unit Load Marking: This document calls out use of Rev G; It is requested this be revised to the newer Rev H.

Revision H has been added to the SAM.gov posting.

Solicitation Page 1

The first page of the solicitation lists the contract types as "Fixed Price with EPA - Actual Costs."

However, there is no EPA clause included in the solicitation. Based on the length of time for this FFP IDIQ and the volatility associated with the cost of propellant, respectfully request the USG incorporate an EPA clause for propellant.

The Government identified the contract type as FFP with EPA in error. However, due to the known volatility of NC pricing from the NTIB, the Government has incorporated surrogate price language in the solicitation in Section I0001.

Solicitation Section E

Respectfully request the subject solicitation be modified to eliminate the requirement for a Modified FAT for changeover scenarios. Instead, propose an alternate process which would (1) establish a government approved Changeover Checklist immediately after IDIQ award that would govern any changeover occurring under any delivery order throughout the life of the IDIQ and

(2) eliminate the need to submit a Modified FAT report after the agreed upon checklist is successfully completed. Under the proposed scenario, the USG (or local DCMA, by delegate) will still be required to witness the changeover process to verify successful completion of the checklist requirements, and the completed checklist will be submitted to the PCO’s office for documentation and informational purposes. However, upon successful checklist completion, the contractor will be free to immediately begin production, rather than having to wait for approval of a Modified FAT report.

The solicitation will not be amended to eliminate the requirement for a modified First Article Acceptance Test for changeover scenarios.

Solicitation I0001

After discussion with the propellant supplier it has been determined that the propellant quote will not be FFP. The propellant supplier uses commercial propellant pricing so they are unable to provide a certified proposal as required by I0001 (Nitrocellulose - Surrogate Price Clause). It is requested that the Government remove the I0001 clause and incorporate an EPA clause.

The Government has revised the surrogate price language and incorporated an attachment that is to be completed IAW the I0001 - Nitrocellulose - Surrogate Price Clause. A certified proposal is no longer required.