SCAAP_Ind_Day__2_QAs_Final_-_25_Jan_17.pdf

SCAAP Industry Day #2

15‐16 November 2016

Questions & Answers List

Solicitation #: W52P1J15R0023

SURGE

1. Is a bidder required to have a surge plan?

A: Yes, per Surge PWS.

2. How do you price surge? How do you price MIF/LIF?

A: Please refer to MIF, LIF, and surge PWSs.

3. Under Section 3.1 for surge; is the current surge capacity listed?

A: Yes. The USG’s estimated surge capacity is provided in the Surge PWS.

4. Are bidders allowed to know how the surge capacity numbers were reached?

A: Surge capacity numbers are based on Total Munitions Requirements (TMR) and take into account concurrent production across all products at a given facility.

5. Can different product mixes affect surge capacity numbers?

A: Surge is not defined using capacity/capability as a basis. Surge takes into account concurrent production across all products at a given facility based on TMR. As stated in the PWS all items included in the Surge Facilitization Plan must be produced concurrently over a specified ramp up period.

6. It appears that the intent of the Government is for Contractor to submit a Surge Plan (direct funded per page 4 of 0023). The PWS for Surge indicates that the Surge Plan may be executed by the Government but does not specifically state that this will be executed under a funded modification. Please clarify.

A: It would be executed via a delivery order to the base contract, as FFP as identified in the price matrix: CLIN 0400, 0500, and 0600 for M795 only, M120mm only, or both respectively.

7. The PWS states that, "contractor shall update their Surge plan at the Governments request‐‐". Please clarify the scope of revisions and how these updates will be funded?

A: Revisions will be made on a case‐by‐case basis, if and when deemed necessary by the USG, and funding may be provided for the updates at that time.

8. Paragraph 4.1 states a ramp up period of 18 months and paragraph 5.4 states a period of 24 months. Please clarify.

A: The ramp up period should read as 18 months not 24 months and will be revised accordingly in the Final RFP.

9. Can surge dollars be spent at other facilities?

A: Yes.

MIF/LIF

10. Do all contractors have to respond to MIF/LIF if equipment is moved to another facility? Would one contractor be at a disability?

A: Yes, all contractors shall respond to MIF/LIF requirements, as laid out in the PWS. There is

Government‐owned equipment that is already laid away at SCAAP, which will need to be maintained in layaway.

All equipment is active, unless the Government approves a request to make it inactive. The contractor must maintain ALL Government‐owned equipment. Maintenance of active equipment should be included as overhead on the product price. Maintenance of inactive equipment/facilities should be submitted separately in accordance with the MIF PWS for direct funding as a potential PBS project.

MIF and LIF cover Government‐owned equipment regardless of physical location. If the Offeror does not intend to layaway additional equipment, the LIF proposal should be $0. If the Offeror intends to maintain ALL Government‐owned equipment in an active state, the MIF proposal should be $0.

11. In paragraph 2.6, it is stated that, “the Government reserves the right to change these requirements at its convenience”. How will the Government pay for these requirement changes?

A: Direct funded PWS’s will be funded directly by the Government to include any changes to requirements.

12. When will the enclosures referenced in paragraph 3 be provided to prospective bidders?

A: They will be provided in the Final RFP.

13. If the entire facility is laid away, would the cost be funded by LIF?

A: Yes, the cost to layaway the facility would be covered by LIF.

14. If SCAAP is laid away completely, how are the PWSs paid?

A: All costs, including PWS costs, should be in the MIF proposal.

15. Would layaway activities be warm or cold?

A: The LIF/MIF PWS and applicable attachments will define the LIF/MIF requirements associated with layaway activities.

16. Page 4 states that Contractor "may” be required and it lists a set of PWS's. When will the Government determine if 'Funded PWS's' will be included?In the CDRL listing items 11 and 12 are shown as not separately priced. How will PWSs 11 and 12 be “funded”?

A: Please refer back to the price matrix for line 0300AA and 0300AB for MIF and LIF respectively. Both require fill‐ins and are to be priced. They will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP) when awarded. We expect to award MIF and LIF shortly after awarding the Property Management contract, based on availability of funding.

17. On Page 9, would the Government consider funding a guaranteed level of Production Based Support (PBS) Projects as part of the funded workload under this contract?

A: MIF and LIF are considered PBS. We intend to award MIF each year defendant on availability of funding. We do not intend to guarantee further workload.

18. PWS 11, how do you address inadequacies of laid away equipment?

A: There is a process in place to address any inadequacies of laid away equipment in PWS 11.

Projects to address issues are submitted on an individual basis and may be funded by LIF.

EPA

19. Q: Does the current contract have an EPA for energy?

A: No.

20. Q: For 3‐year gas and electric pieces, would an EPA for the last 2 years be feasible?

A: The Government has given careful consideration to the request to include an EPA for energy and is looking to Industry for suggestions. The Government will be requesting that Industry provide specific methodology(ies) and a solution(s) on how to allocate utility costs for specific product lines.

21. Clause H‐2 (EPA) appears to apply only to the M795. Can the Government include the steel for the Mortar Shell Bodies?

A: The Government will apply an EPA clause for steel for both the M795 and Mortar Shell Bodies accordingly.

22. In Clause H‐2, please clarify the year ranges associated with the limits on EPA increase? Would the Government increase the EPA limit to 25%?

A: The Government will currently allow 10% for Yrs 2‐5 and then 17% for Yrs 6‐10 and will take the above request to increase for Yrs 6‐10 under advisement.

23. A question was previously asked if the Government would consider an EPA to cover energy costs, e.g. gas, electric, to manage long term uncertainty. The Government responded that this was being taken into consideration and that more information would be provided in the draft RFP. There is no EPA coverage for this area in the draft RFP. Given the length of time that the Offeror is expected to provide firm fixed pricing, will the Government add an EPA clause to cover this cost area?

provide specific methodology(ies) and a solution(s) on how to allocate utility costs to specific

ARMS

24. Q: With ARMS, is there a 4% revenue on what is being brought to the facility? Can the revenue be used to restore/maintain equipment?

A: Yes, if commercial products are manufactured using Government‐owned equipment and/or Government‐owned facilities, a percentage of that revenue will be used for the facility. The specific percentage is negotiable with the Request for Use of Facility (RUF) and will depend on factors such as the amount and frequency of equipment/facilities being used.

Any Government‐owned equipment being used for commercial work is considered active, and the contractor is responsible for normal maintenance of that equipment. The ARMS credit can be used to restore the Government‐owned equipment/facilities being used for commercial work (or future commercial work).

Please see Table 1 and Section 5.1 of the ARMS PWS for further information on how ARMS dollars will be utilized/applied.

PWS

25. Are all PWSs in place as written, or were they rewritten for this competition?

A: The PWSs were rewritten for this draft RFP but do not deviate significantly from those currently on contract. Slight revisions from the current state may take place prior to issuance of the Final RFP.

26. PWS 1 – will a property list be available, and when? (Manuals, drawings, etc.)

A: Class I, Class II, and Class III Real Property and Facility drawings will be included with the release of the RFP.

27. PWS 1, section 5.2; restoring equipment to original condition, the wording doesn’t seem to make sense if modifications were made to the equipment.

A: This will be reviewed and corrected, if necessary, prior to issuance of the Final RFP.

28. PWS 7, section 1; last sentence, why does it say “privatize utilities”?

A: This was an error and will be corrected prior to issuance of the Final RFP; utilities are already privatized.

29. OH & IH PWS, section 6; is the facility compliant?

A: Yes, the SCAAP facility is currently compliant with OH/IH.

30. Are the enclosures in PWS 11 available?

A: The enclosures will be provided with the Final RFP.

Transition Plan

31. How will the Government ensure that the incumbent (and competitor for this contract) acts in "good faith" in negotiating support for the Contractor funded transition?

A: The Government will not be intervening with the transition. It will be up to the incumbent and non‐incumbent to transition facility/production operations accordingly.

32. The listing of funded PWSs listed on page 4, paragraph 5 is not all inclusive of those listed in W52P1J‐15‐R‐0023? Please clarify.

A: The list provided in the draft RFP on page 4 is accurate. The inconsistencies will be corrected in the Final RFP.

33. What is the formula based on for major maintenance?

A: Major maintenance requirement will be released with Final RFP.

34. Who was responsible for funding requirements?

A: PEO Ammunition.

35. Will there be progress payments in the contract?

A: Progress Payment requests can come in after award at which time a determination will be made. The clause can be incorporated into the contract at that time.

36. When will the Government be providing a complete and detailed listing of all production equipment and facility machinery, e.g., make, model year, quantities, condition, maintenance records, date last in operation?

A: Class I, II, and III Real Property and Facility drawings will be included with the release of the RFP. Listing does include make, model, year, and quantities. For each piece of equipment, a condition code is assigned: operable, inoperable, laid away, etc. Maintenance records will not be included.

37. Will prospective Offerors have access to the IP to allow responsible proposal preparation, e.g., facility layout, small batch production capabilities, capacity, equipment cycle times?

A: All the IP will be provided to the awardee.

38. What costs has the Government directly paid or reimbursed under the current SCAAP facility contract? Will these costs be made available to prospective Offerors?

A: The Government has not paid directly for any PWSs under the current SCAAP facility contract. PWS costs shall be allocated as overhead across the production requirements of the facility which is then paid for by the individual product unit prices. All delivery orders can be viewed on a public website (www.fpds.gov). The Automated Data Processing (Supplied for Government on‐site staff) is directly paid under the Property Management contract. PBS projects are directly paid under the Property Management contract.

39. Does the Government intend to release production DOs concurrent with new facilities/production contracts?

A: Unlike an IDIQ contract, a requirements contract does not mandate a minimum award quantity be defined. Requirements will be awarded as needs arise.

40. If the current contractor is in production at the time of transfer, will such requirements be the responsibility of the awardee?

A: No, it is expected that all current production will be complete before the awardee of the new property management/production takes over the facility.

41. Because the awardee will be responsible for the costs of NEPA analyses, will the Government make available all past NEPA analyses along with any and all Environmental Assessment Studies/Reports, e.g., Phase I, II, etc.?

A: Phase I was completed, and can be provided, but currently there is no plan to do a Phase II analysis.

42. Will the current contractor be required to have an Environmental Assessment Study/Report, e.g., Phase I, II, etc., performed by a qualified third party to establish a baseline at the conclusion of its facility contract?

43. Can manufacturing plans be changed?

A: An Offeror’s Manufacturing Plan as provided in their proposal may change after contract award. If changes to their manufacturing process(es)/line(s)/equipment/sub‐ contractor/suppliers are made after FAT approval, another FAT may be required by the USG.

44. What historical records are available to view for maintenance and environmental?

A: Environmental Phase I report has been completed and will be provided. No historical records for maintenance will be provided.

45. Do Government leases need to be assumed?

46. Is there Government equipment in off‐site storage?

A: Yes, currently Government equipment is stored off‐site in a laid away status in a non‐ Government owned/leased warehouse. The USG intends to relocate any equipment from the Exeter warehouse to SCAAP prior to contract award.

47. Is the current product path in the facility layout?

48. Please clarify the pricing for CLIN 0200 and how it affects the Total Evaluated Price.

A: The On‐Site Government Staff Supply Support is a direct‐funded PWS. For informational purposes, the Government will provide an average annual cost in Section C. of the Final RFP.

49. Will there be an Act 2 closure document?

A: The Government does not intend on completing an Act 2 closure document nor will one be required for the new property management contract. It would be at the discretion of the incoming contractor to generate one.

50. Will there be a mediator for any transition issues?

A: The Government does not plan on having a mediator present during the transition, albeit the Government may mediate if necessary. There is a possibility that there will be no overlap between contracts.

51. Will phones and security cameras be provided, or computer systems?

A: The telephones (hardware and infrastructure) are owned by the Government and will be provided. Security cameras and computer systems are not owned by the Government and should be provided by the contractor.

52. The handout received for Industry Day #2 for the tours, why are only half of the processes listed

A: Only certain processes were provided for an overview of the facility capability; it was not intended to be a step‐by‐step process map.

53. Will the sample IP viewing be indicative of what is in the rest of the IP?

A: Yes, it should be anticipated that the rest of the IP has a similar level of detail as to what was viewed in the sample provided.

54. Will there be a gauge list included in the IP?

55. Period of performance for the production contract is stated to be 10 years, can this be extended to 15 years to match the facility contract?

A: The Government understands the concern to have the Production and Property Management contracts Period of Performances align. After careful consideration, it has been decided it is in the best interest of the Government and Industry to keep the Production Contract at 10‐Yrs and the Property Management at 15‐Yrs.

56. In the DRFP the Govt states that proposals must be valid for 12 months. How long after proposal submittal does the Govt intend to award the contract?

A: The Government is requesting that proposals remain valid for 1‐yr due to the nature of this effort and the time required to properly perform source selection. The Government anticipates awarding both the Production and Property Management contracts 1‐yr from proposal submission.

57. Explain the statement on Page 5 of the DRFP: "The total quantities for all 155mm M795 HE Projectile Metal Parts shall be summed for purposes of determining the applicable quantity range and respective unit prices under each delivery order”.

A: The Government intends on procuring M795 TNT/IM Metal Parts Requirements under a single DO when applicable. Therefore the total cumulative requirement would dictate which quantity range to use and the respective unit price will be ascertained accordingly from the appropriate CLIN within Section B.

For example, say in Year 1, the Government buys 75,000 M795 TNT configurations and 50,000 M795 IM configurations, the price/quantity range for each would be the 125,000 range and associated price in that range for each item.

58. In paragraph 3.3.3.1 (page 219) the DRFP indicates that BLAT testing will be conducted at the Picatinny Ballistic Test Center as a Contractor responsibility. Can the Government guarantee that the testing will be completed within 30 days of parts submittal and a test report will be published within 30 days?

A: No, ballistic testing will be completed within 45 days to the best of the Picatinny Ballistic Test Center’s ability, as stated in the Draft RFP. A ballistic test report will not be provided; a PCO letter will be sent providing Government approval of successful ballistic first article/lot acceptance tests.

59. If the Government intends to provide GFM (SALP), can GFM be provided in sufficient quantity and 3 months prior to Delivery Order schedule in order to allow timely delivery of completed production?

A: It is the Government’s intent to provide, when feasible, GFM at least 3 months prior to the contractual delivery schedule.

60. Page 225, para C.6.3, please confirm that the Production Line Startup Readiness Review will be repeated for “each” First Article Test.

A: Yes, the Production Line Startup Readiness Review will be repeated for each/every First Article Test performed under this contract.

61. How will the “rental equivalent evaluation factor" discussed in paragraph c on Page 41 be applied to the Total Evaluated Price during proposal evaluation described in Section M.3?

A: The Rental Factor will be added to the Offerors Total Evaluated Price based on the calculated value of the Government‐owned facility/equipment being utilized in support of this acquisition.

The Government will provide a rental equivalent price list for each major piece of equipment in the facility.

Draft Solicitation W52P1J‐15‐R‐0023 Questions and Clarifications:

62. Page 2 of 5 lists two possible contract types i.e. Firm Fixed Price and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). Page 5 of 55 states that if a CPFF Task Order is issued that a contractor may have to attain an approved accounting system. From a responsibility/responsiveness standpoint, shouldn’t the Government require that an Offeror have an approved accounting system prior to the award of the Base contract instead of waiting until a point in the future? Not being able to obtain this approval at the future could jeopardize the performance of the SCAAP Property Management contract.

A: The Property Management contract will consist primarily of FFP orders. The Government will not require that Offerors obtain an approved accounting system at this time. However, this will need to be addressed in the event that a CPFF or other Task Order type is required.

63. Page 3 of 55 states that an Offeror’s proposal must remain valid for 365 days after the closing date of the final RFP. Why does the Government need a one year proposal validity for a Best Value Subjective Tradeoff methodology award decision where cost or pricing data will not be required and the Government plans on awarding the two contracts without discussions with Offerors? A one year validity period will require the Offeror to account for this time period in addition to the fifteen years of Firm Fixed Pricing already required which will drive up the cost of this service to the US Government.

awarding 1‐yr from proposal submission. Even though the Government plans on awarding without discussion, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary.

64. Page 4 of 55, states that the length of the Property Management contract will be fifteen years (Base‐Five Years, Option 1‐Five Years, Option 2‐Five Years). Questions were raised in the initial Industry Day that it would be difficult to provide pricing for a fifteen year period. The Government’s response was that this question/concern would be addressed in the draft RFP. Why did the Government decide to leave the Property Management requirement at a fifteen year length?

A: The Government understands the concern to have the Production and Property Management contracts Period of Performances align. After careful consideration, it has been decided it is in the best interest of the Government and Industry to keep the Property Management at 15‐Yrs since the Government has determined that a longer term contract for the Property Management provides stability to both the operating contractor and the Government. The Production contract Period of Performance will remain at 10‐Yrs.

65. Page 53 of 55 of the draft Solicitation refers to the weighted evaluated price for each FY ordering period are calculated by multiplying the proposed unit prices for each range by their respective weight. The weight associated with each range represents the likelihood that an order would be placed within that range. Where in the draft RFP are the weights delineated?

A: The weights will be provided within the respective price matrix in the Final RFP.

66. What assurances can the US Government provide that the Incumbent contractor will work with the winning Contractor to transition the facility? The SCAAP PWS 8 Transition Plan states that the “Government will request the Incumbent to act in good faith during this transition period.” Will the USG negotiate a SOW with the Incumbent that requires the Incumbent to provide a certain level of effort during the transition period?

A: The Government will not be intervening with the transition. It will be up to the incumbent and non‐incumbent to transition facility/production operations. The Government requires the incumbent to act in good faith with the new operating contractor to facilitate a smooth transition.

67. SCAAP PWS 8 – Transition Plan: “Is this a scope to be costed for the end of the solicited contract or for the start of the solicited contract?”

A: The majority of the Transition PWS pertains to contract the start‐up, but also contains a portion that about the end of the contract.

68. Page 4 of 55: Executive Summary – Property Management;

Performance Work Statements (PWSs) – Specifically 3. Environmental, 5. Safety, 6.

Occupational Health/Industrial Hygiene and 7. Utilities and Energy; If the operating contractor has internationally recognized and registered management systems for these

PWSs, it only adds non‐valued added cost to the contractor’s products if additional effort or documentation is required to separately address these systems.

Could the documentation from the registered management systems be submitted to answer these requirements, otherwise answering this information in a different way or format will only add cost to the products and no value?

A: The Government will entertain any waiver submission received, however, it will be subject to Government review and concurrence. If a specific format is being required in the SOW, a waiver deviating from the required format is less likely to be approved.

69. Installation Security/Antiterrorism – The responsibility for the costs required to meet the Army regulations and Federal wage laws should be the borne by the Government. Other active commercial ammunition metal parts manufacturing facilities are not required to have this extensive security presence which is added to the costs of their products. The current private security contract to meet the Army Regulation and the Federal Wage Laws costs approximately $1M and is anticipated to increase to $1.3M in 2017.

Is there any plan to address this cost element that gets added to the product?

A: The Government has looked in to reducing the security requirements at SCAAP, and to date has not received any relief on this requirement. In accordance with the 24 May 2004 Department of Army Memo regarding the financial policy for programming and budgeting for contract security guards at GOCO installations and subsequent expansion to all costs to manage GOCO property, the cost of this property management effort in accordance with the indirectly funded PWSs (such as physical security) is not to be charged directly. This cost is to be allocated as overhead across production requirements of the facility.

70. Page 9 of 55: Section C Major Maintenance – Annual Contractor Investment

If a contractor’s facility investment is required, when will the Government determine the technical calculation for the dollar amount to be invested annually?

A: It will be addressed in the Final RFP.

71. Page 9 of 55: Section C Major Maintenance – Annual Contractor Investment

Does Attachment 11 to the current Facility Use Contract referencing the Pre‐Existing

Conditions of the facility and equipment still remain the responsibility of the Government?

A: All equipment within the facility will be provided to the new contractor as is. At the end of the contract the contractor is required to return the facility and equipment in the same state minus normal wear and tear. Major modernization repairs or replacements may be funded by the Government through PBS.

72. Page 36 of 55: Section L Factor 1: M795 Artillery Metal Parts Technical

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan – M795 Artillery Metal Parts;

c. Phrases such as “If Government Furnished (Owned) Property, including equipment, is to be transferred to a different location, it shall be annotated in the plant layout.”; “explain which facilities are not current used or leased”; “plan for obtaining the necessary facilities.”

e. “the Offerer’s facility(ies).”

Does this mean that contracted products do not have to be solely manufactured on the SCAAP facility?

A: Correct, products do not need to be manufactured in the SCAAP facility. It is up to the Offeror to determine place of performance.

c. Include the plan for the storage of incoming material, nonconforming product awaiting disposition, and all manufactured item awaiting Ballistic Lot Acceptance Testing acceptance from the Government prior to shipment of the entire lot to the final destination.

Does this mean that all finished product has to be stored on the facility until notification from the PCO that Ballistic Lot Acceptance Testing has been successfully completed? Will the Government provide assistance with the logistics and costs involved in storing this material at a secure facility?

A: All finished product must remain in the facility until ballistic first article / lot acceptance approval has been received. All costs associated with storage of product pending acceptance, shall be borne by the contractor.

73. Page 37 of 55: Section L Factor 2: 120mm Mortar Cartridge Shell Bodies Technical

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plans – 120mm Mortar Cartridge Shell Bodies

Phrases such as “If Government Furnished (Owned) Property, including equipment, is to be transferred to a different location, it shall be annotated in the plant layout.”; “explain which facilities are not current used or leased”; “plan for obtaining the necessary facilities.”

e. “the Offerer’s facility(ies).”

Does this mean that contracted products do not have to be solely manufactured on the SCAAP facility?

A: Correct, products do not need to be manufactured in the SCAAP facility. It is up to the Offeror to determine place of performance.

74. Page 41 of 55

c. …“Offerors shall refer to Local Clause 52.245‐4003…”, but the clause is not listed in the

RFP.

A: All clauses will be finalized in the Final RFP.

Draft RFP W15QKN‐17‐R‐0018 Questions and Clarifications:

75. Page 3 of 291 states that an Offeror’s proposal must remain valid for 365 days after the closing date of the final RFP. Why does the Government need a one year proposal validity for a Best Value Subjective Tradeoff methodology award decision where cost or pricing data will not be required and the Government plans on awarding the two contracts without discussions with Offerors?

awarding 1‐yr from proposal submission. Even though the Government plans on awarding without discussion, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary.

76. Page 5 of 291 states that the contract will be awarded in FY 18 which means sometime between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018. Can the Government provide a more precise award date prediction so that the Offeror can obtain more fidelity in its pricing which is already difficult given the ten year pricing requirement?

A: As provided in the Industry Day Briefing, slide 51, the Government expects to award both contracts in Jun/Jul 2018.

77. Page 5 of 291 states, “Total quantities for all 155mm M795 HE Projectile Metal Parts shall be summed for purposes of determining the applicable quantity range and respective unit prices under each delivery order.” Does this refer to awards in a given Fiscal Year? How will this work in practice i.e. can the Government make a delivery order award with one day left in the ordering period and the ultimate prices paid to the contractor for that entire ordering period will be recalculated to reflect the pricing of this last order?

A: The Government intends on procuring M795 TNT/IM Metal Part Requirements under a single DO, when applicable. Therefore the combined requirement would dictate which quantity range to use and the respective unit price will be ascertained accordingly from the appropriate CLIN within Section B.

78. Reference is made to Clause H‐2, Paragraph (d) on page 254 of 291. How will this increase calculation be applied as this paragraph delineates a range for years 2 through 10 at 10 % and years 6 through 10 at 17%? Is this an error and the first range should state years 2 through 5?

A: Yes, this is an error. It should read “…years 2 through 5 at 10% and years 6 through 10 at 17%”.

79. Recommend that clause I‐83 DFARS 252.225‐7006 Acquisition of the American Flag

(Page 263 of 291) be removed as it is not applicable to a production contract.

A: DFARS 252.225‐7006 will be removed accordingly.

80. Recommend that the Government add the Progress Payment clause (FAR 52.232‐16) to the resultant solicitation to compliment the progress payment allowability in clauses I‐104 and I‐105.

A: Progress Payment requests can come in after award at which time a determination will be made. The clause can be incorporated into the contract at that time.

81. Will the Government be providing guaranteed minimum quantities? This was a question/concern in the first Industry Day and the Government’s response at that time was that it was your intention to meet minimum guaranteed quantities with the first production delivery order and that this would be addressed in the draft RFP.

The draft RFP contains information on the maximum contract value but is void of information on minimum guaranteed quantities.

A: Unlike an IDIQ contract, a requirements contract does not mandate a minimum award quantity be defined. Requirements will be awarded as needs arise.

82. Page 210 of 291: C.3.3.7 Operator qualification: Level II Inspectors shall be used for setup and calibration.

It has been the accepted practice over many previous contracts to have Level I UT inspectors calibrate the equipment, release product, change membranes, and make minor parameter changes for the M795, 120 HE, FRP, Illum and Smoke rounds. If the Government is requiring that only Level II inspectors can perform these functions, how will the additional costs associated with the additional training required for Level II inspectors be addressed?

A: All costs associated with fulfilling the requirements of the solicitation shall be included in the proposal submitted.

83. Page 211 of 291: C.3.3.14.2 Chemical Analysis: The contractor shall have a sample of the raw material analyzed for chemical content at a certified independent lab when a new mill heat of steel is used.

For the HE and FRP mortar body production rate identified, this would occur weekly. How will the additional costs of having to increase raw material inventory levels to provide time for this independent testing and/or the costs of expediting this testing be addressed?

A: The Large Caliber Metal Parts SOW will be updated for clarification purposes as follows: "The contractor shall have a sample of the raw material analyzed for chemical content at a certified independent lab when a new heat of steel from the steel supplier is used." All costs associated with meeting the requirements of the solicitation shall be included in the proposal submitted.

84. Page 212 of 291: C.3.3.15 Retention of Metallurgical Test Samples: The contractor shall retain all test samples and remnants for all metallurgical evaluations for a period of not less than 12 months.

There are significant costs associated with the cataloging, bonded storage and retention of mechanical test samples. How does saving broken tensile bars help anything? You can’t test them again? How will these costs be addressed?

A: Bonded storage is not required for this effort. All costs associated with meeting the requirements of the solicitation shall be included in the proposal submitted.

85. Page 216 of 291: 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts, C.2.1 Mandatory Documents – ECP XXXXX UT Wall Variation Inspection;

The costs associated with meeting the requirements of this document cannot be estimated.

When will this document be available for review?

A: Any and all ECPs will be provided with the Final RFP and addressed in the SOW accordingly or incorporated fully into the TDP.

86. Page 219 of 291: C.3.3.2.5 Ballistic First Article Test (BFAT) and C.3.3.3.1 Ballistic Lot Acceptance Test (BLAT) – ensure samples arrive at the Test Center a minimum of 45 days prior to the delivery date on contract.

Is it acceptable to ship ahead against the contract delivery schedule in order to provide the ballistic test samples before the 45 day delivery requirement?

A: Yes, only the Test samples are allowed to be shipped to the test center 45‐days prior to the contractual delivery schedule. Otherwise, accelerated deliveries of the production lots will not be allowed.

87. Page 220 of 291: C.3.3.7.2 Hydrostatic Inspection Rejection Test Standard

This has never been a requirement for this operation since the original machine design and installation in 1977. Are there standard drawings available for review?

A: There is no specific drawing for the hydrostatic standards. The requirement for the standards found in the SOW states " The rejection standard shall demonstrate a rejection is triggered when required pressure and/or time is not reached." The standard shall meet the SOW requirement such that PSI and/or time is not able to be achieved, triggering a rejection.

88. Will the current production contracts at SCAAP be completed by time of award? If not, how will this be handled?

A: The Government plans to have all current production completed before the awardee of the new property management/production takes over the facility.

89. The USG intends to award the Property Management and then the Production Contract, will the production contract have a base amount of products on it in this initial award? Will early deliveries be acceptable?

A: The Large Caliber Metal Parts base contract will not include a requirement for production.

Production requirements will be awarded via individual Delivery Orders upon funding availability from the USG. Accelerated production deliveries will not be allowed.

90. Can the USG please provide the calculations/formulas that will be used for use of Gov’t owned equipment?

A: The Rental Factor will be added to the Offerors Total Evaluated Price based on the calculated value of the Government‐owned facility/equipment being utilized in support of this acquisition.

The Government will provide a rental equivalent price list for each major piece of equipment in the facility.

91. When the USG provides the facility equipment lists, will those lists also have the associated acquisition costs, installation date, active/inactive status, whether the equipment is laid way or not, last product produced, etc. included?

A: Class I, II, and III Real Property and Facility drawings will be included with the release of the RFP. For each piece of equipment, a condition code is assigned: operable, inoperable, laid away, etc. Acquisition costs and installation date for most items are included. When last product produced is not included.

92. If the new Contractor has DCS opportunities, how will that be handled during the execution of the Contracts with respect to use of Gov’t owned equipment and potential relocating of equipment?

A: IAW the ARMS PWS, the contractor may submit a Request for Use of Facility (RUF). The Government and contractor will negotiate the terms at that time including a percentage of the revenue to be used to restore Government equipment/facilities. Relocation of Government‐ owned equipment will be considered.

93. Will the USG entertain having an EPA clause for energy in years 4 & 5 of the initial ordering periods?

provide specific methodology(ies) and a solution(s) on how to allocate utility costs to specific

94. How can the USG assist bidders in assessing the annual facility utility (electrical, water, etc) costs? Will the bidders be given authorization to approach the utility companies for information?

A: The USG does not have any agreements with utility companies. Offerors providing bids are encouraged to contact utility companies directly for this information.

95. Have all equipment upgrades been thoroughly documented (i.e., drawings, schematics, etc) for Contractor use in the future?

A: Yes, for equipment upgrades performed under the PBS program.

96. Will bidders be given facility/plant layout drawings to assist in responding to the

RFP?

97. How many batch furnaces and what type are there in the forge shop? What is the capacity per hour, pounds per hour and are there 120mm and 155mm trays available for production use? Have all furnaces been proven out?

A: Refer to the equipment list that will be provided with the Final RFP. The Government will not be providing specific equipment specifications. All furnaces have been proven out.

98. There was a Pangborn Machine behind the furnaces, is that for ID shot blast? For both 120mm and 155mm? What is capacity per hour?

A: Refer to the equipment list that will be provided with the Final RFP. The Government will not be providing specific equipment specifications.

99. Have both yard cranes been upgraded, and are they operational, and if so what has been done to them?

A: Only one yard crane is operational. The other is inoperable and may be used for spare parts, if needed.

100. In the production shop in B bay, there is a newer overhead crane (painted red) that was left in location after it was used for nosing press maintenance, is that Gov’t owned? If not, who would pay for the removal if requested by the owner?

A: Refer to the equipment list that will be provided with the Final RFP. Any contractor‐owned equipment shall be addressed by the current operating contractor.

101. Who owns the product inventory in the storage area in the subway and how will disposition be handled and by who?

A: Any contractor‐owned product inventory shall be addressed by the current operating contractor. If it is Government‐owned product, the Government will work with the awardee accordingly on providing disposition of the material after contract award.

102. Would a copy of the current PWS’s being used at the facility be available for bidder review?

A: The current Property Management contract listing the current PWS’s is available on www.fpds.gov.

103. Are all drawings updated to current product revisions?

A: Yes, the most up‐to‐date TDPs will be provided with the final RFP, inclusive of any/all ECPs.

104. Can bidders obtain facility access for independent contractor services to be able to assess the overall facility environment for pricing of the PWS’s?

A: The Government will consider granting facility access for independent contractor services via a formal request, however, it is not guaranteed the request will be granted.

105. What existing environmental permits are in place for operations at SCAAP? Are copies of these available? Will these permits be transferred to the next operator?

A: The following is a list of existing Environmental Permits in place for SCAAP: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) required for storm water and non‐contact cooling water;

Air Emissions; Sewer System. Yes the permits are transferrable to the next operator and can be addressed during the transition period. It is expected it will take a couple months for complete transfer of permits.

106. Has the Government conducted a baseline environmental assessment of the SCAAP facility? Are the results of this assessment available to prospective bidders?

How will the Government limit liability of the future SCAAP operator from prior environmental contamination?

A: Phase I was completed, and can be provided, but currently there is no plan to do a Phase II analysis. The contractor may conduct a Phase II as a baseline at its discretion to limit their liability from prior environmental contamination.