B08 - Attachment 0010 - BLU-136 Industry QA.pdf

Attachment 0010 – Industry Q&A

RFP W519TC-25-R-0019

BLU-136/B 2,000 lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container

Q1. Page 76, L.3.1.a, Option 1 – If we utilize this option, is the government looking for just one WAWF document for the BLU-136/B bomb assembly and/or one for the CNU-417/E shipping and storage container?

A1. The Offeror needs to provide a WAWF document for both bomb body and storage container in order to avoid providing a proposal IAW Option 2. One WAWF document would be sufficient for Option 1 as long as it contains both the bomb body and storage container. However, an Offeror can use Option 1 for the BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and Option 2 for the CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container and vice versa.

Q2. Page 84, Section L-19 – since page 3 (item 160 states that certified cost or pricing data is not required, what is the reason for including Section L-19?

A2. Although certified cost and pricing data is not required, the U.S. Government reserves the right to require certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 52.215-20 Required for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

Q3. Section L.4.4.2, page 82 – The Small Business Participation Plan is referred to as Attachment 0005. The document we received is named as Attachment 0006 and when this document is opened it is titled as Attachment 0006 as well. Is this an error?

A3. This should be Attachment 0005. The Attachment 0003 Instructions for Form DD1423 is already included as the last page of the CDRLs and has been removed.

Document has been updated to show Attachment 0005 and all other Attachments have been renumbered to match Section J. The Small Business Participation Plan was corrected from Attachment 0006 to Attachment 0005 on the document itself.

Q4. Minor technicality but we believe Section M2.1.3 on page 89 should be marked as Section M.2.1.2.2 as it pertains to Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 1 was marked as Section M.2.1.2.1?

A4. Yes, this is a typo and should be M.2.1.2.2 this is corrected.

Q5. Similar to item 4, we believe Section M.2.1.4 on page 90 should be marked as M.2.1.2.3?

A5. Correct this should be M.2.1.2.3 and has been corrected.

Q6. Since we plan to utilize Option 1 for in our Volume I Technical Ability, may we only include a single WAWF instead of the requested two documents?

A6. One WAWF document would be sufficient as long as it contains both the bomb body and container. The WAWF document needs to be dated within one year from the date of the RFP

Q7. We have found three locations in the solicitation where the revision level on the shipping container is specified as Revision K. We believe this is an error as:

We are currently fabricating shipping containers to Revision F and the TDP documents provided to us for this solicitation reference Revision F. Please confirm if this should be Revision F, not K.

A7. The solicitation reverence to Rev K is regarding TDP’s Data List DL8463244-10 and that the pallet drawing 8463244 per this DL is Rev F.