Questions_and_Answers_as_of_30_Mar_16.docx

Questions and Answers for the Expeditionary Water Packaging System (EWPS) on Solicitation W56HZV-15-R-0225

Q1: The paragraph numbering in the body of the Attachment 1, ATDP does correspond with its Table of Contents or the references made throughout solicitation Sections A-M and it attachments.

A1: Attachment 0001 (ATPD 2418) was revised to correct the paragraph numbering. The revised version of ATPD 2418 dated 19 Jan 16 was incorporated by Amendment 0001.

Q2: In the past completed "practice" submittals prior to submitting our proposal. We would like to do the same for this solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website to ensure we have the right process and allow the right amount of time for the final submittal. Is this something you can arrange for us?

A2: The vendor can submit their proposals until the solicitation closes. Once the solicitation response date and time are met the vendor will no longer be able to submit their actions in FBO.

Q3: What are the bidding criteria (and their weight) to win this project?

A3: Contract award will be made using a Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable source selection process IAW FAR 15.101-2. Please see the requirements stated in Sections L & M of the solicitation.

Q4: Can a European company win this project (or only USA based companies) and are there any financial criteria (turn-over, ebida, number of employees)?

A4: As stated in block 10 of solicitation W56HZV-15-R-0225, this procurement is unrestricted. The end product is subject to trade agreements and a European company is eligible for award as long as manufacturing and production of the end product is done in accordance with DFARS 252.225-7021 Trade Agreements.

Q5: Can a USA based “new company” win this project?

A5: This procurement is unrestricted.

Q6: Will the government clarify the ordering periods on the expected contract?

A6: Narrative A002 to CLIN 0011 will be revised by solicitation amendment.

Q7: Will the government clarify the reference call outs on the Product Sample Plan, Attachment 6? References to Attachment 0001, PD Sections in the table on page 3 appear to be incorrect

A7: The PD section 3.3.3 lists that the EWPS consists of two ISO shelters and the components that ISO Shelter 1 will contain. PD section 3.3.4 lists power requirements. The references are correct. The PD section numbers will be corrected by solicitation amendment.

Q8: Reference the ATPD section 3.3.12. Cleaning - Surfaces inside the EWPS bottling room shall be capable of being fully cleaned and sanitized utilizing any of the solutions in 3.3.9.14.1 using contractor developed/Government approved procedures. Surfaces of the EWPS components in the bottling room shall be easily cleaned without requiring disassembly or the use of special tools or equipment. The EWPS shall be capable of being cleaned and sanitized as described herein without suffering damage or degradation. Should this be 3.3.9.13.1?

A8: Yes. This will be corrected by solicitation amendment.

Q9: Reference the ATPD section 4.4.1 Tie-down Provisions - The TWPS shall be tested in accordance with MIL-STD-209. Should this be EWPS?

A9: Yes. This will be corrected by solicitation amendment.

Q10: Section L.2.2.4.2 references TACOM Clause 52.219-4004 within Section L of the Solicitation, but we cannot locate this clause. Can you please direct us to where this clause is located?

A10: TACOM Clause 52.219-4004 will be added by solicitation amendment.

Q11: A 30-day extension to the solicitation is requested.

A11: Amendment 0002 will revise the closing date. Amendment 0002 should be posted NLT 26 Feb 16.

Q12: The resolution of Appendix A to ATPD 2418 is too low. Is it possible to post a version in higher resolution?

A12: A higher resolution copy of Appendix A to ATPD 2418 has been posted to FBO as a separate document.

Q13: ATPD 241: Attachment 0001, APPENDIX A, is not clear/readable. Would it be possible to obtain a better quality document?

A13: Yes, a better quality document has been posted to FBO as a separate document with better resolution.

Q14: Could the delivery date for the FAT-unit be extended?

A14: The number of days for delivery of the FAT unit on CLIN 0016 will be increased by 45 days from 180 days to 225 days as stated in Amendment 0002.

Q15: During FAT, should the personnel be 3 (PVT) +1 (OT) months in Proving Grounds for operation and testing? We understand with ‘operation’ that we should provide the operators during the running of the EWPS.

A15: The Government estimates 3 months for PVT and 1 month for OT with a refurbishment in-between, and taking place on weekdays, excluding Federal holidays, at 80 hours per 2 week period. However, the testing may extend or accelerate beyond these estimates as necessary to complete testing. The Contractor shall operate and maintain the EWPS during all test events.

Q16: Integrated Product Team (IPT) meetings shall be held bi-weekly: do you mean during the whole extend of the contract?

A16: Yes, IPT meetings shall be held bi-weekly or as mutually agreed upon between the Government and Contractor.

Q17: Minimum production rate of 900 (T) – 1200 (O): what is the meaning of (T) and (O)?

A17: (T) Threshold and (O) Objective

Q18: On GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY (GFP): The PD has priority above the solicitation: we understand from the PD that we need to supply the collapsible water storage tanks, but in the solicitation it is a government furnished item. Please clarify.

A18: The PD and the solicitation both state that the 3000 gallon collapsible water storage tanks are Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).

Q19: How do we need to store the 4x 3000 gallon collapsible water storage tank in shelter 2 (in a rack?)? If government furnished, o you have any dimensions and weight?

A19: The following dimensions and weight are in ATPD 2344: Net Weight: 139 lbs. and the dimensions are: 28in x 25in x 44in (L x W x H) (NOTE: The ATPD number has been corrected).

Q20. Reference Attachment 0001, ATPD 2418 dated 23 Feb 2016 which was posted on FBO on 29 Feb 16 with Amendment 0003. The ATPD paragraph numbers are all incorrect. The document starts and ends with para 1 throughout the document!

A20: Attachment 0001, ATPD 2418, dated 23 Feb 2016 (corrected paragraphs) was posted to FBO on 1 Mar 2016.

Q21: For requirements similar to and including 3.3.3.9 of the ATPD, we simply request that competitors be allowed to propose similar solutions with an explanation as to how these solutions do not affect the form, fit or function of the overall EWPS.

A21: Section 3.3.3.9 of the ATPD does not exist. The Government has revised the language in Section M to clarify that only the criteria listed in Attachment 0006 will be evaluated as part of the technical factor, which accounts for similar solutions to the form, fit, and function required by ATPD 2418. However, offerors should note that the First Article Test unit and all production deliveries must meet or exceed the requirements of ATPD 2418.

Q22. Proposers be allowed to demonstrate with similar on-hands COTS solution systems within the 14 to 90 day post solicitation submission stage and present how those example systems differ from the ATPD and how the ATPD will be met with the US Army specific solutions.

A22: The Government has reviewed the recommendations to revise moving the product sample evaluation timeframe for the Army's solicitation of the Expeditionary Water Packaging System. The Government has accepted some recommendations and revised the Product Sample Test Plan timeframe to address your concerns. However, none of your stated ATPD concerns seem to conflict with those sections outlined in Attachment 0006. Paragraph M.4.1 was revised on Amendment 0003 as follows:

M.4.1 The technical factor will consist of an evaluation of the Product Sample Test and resultant production bottles, which will be conducted on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Acceptability/Unacceptability of the Product Sample Test will be based solely on the minimum requirements identified in Attachment 0006. The Government will not evaluate other requirements ATPD 2418 beyond the minimum requirements identified in Attachment 0006. (The Contractor will be responsible for meeting all requirements of ATPD 2418 during performance.) The determination of Acceptable and Unacceptable for each requirement specified in Attachment 0006 will be based on the following definitions.

Q23. Paragraph M.4.13 determination for the sample system will not be totally representative of the requirement of the Attachment 006, but allow the offeror to show that there is a technical path to meet those in the deliverable units.

A23. We have rejected the recommendation to allow the offeror to show that there is a technical path to meet the requirements of Attachment 0006 due to the limited evaluation criteria. Each criteria in Attachment 0006 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

Q24. Can you please clarify in which time frame after closing date of the solicitation, the order would be placed.

A24: The First Article Test (FAT) ordering period of the contract is the date of award plus 270 days.

Q25: The payment conditions are not very clear to us, mainly what is the time-lapse between shipment (+WAWF input) and final payment.

A25: In accordance with paragraph b of Clause 52.209-4 "First Article Approval --Government Testing", Within 270 calendar days after the Government receives the first article, the Contracting Officer shall notify the Contractor, in writing, of the conditional approval, approval, or disapproval of the first article. After FAT approval has been given by PCO, CLIN 0016 for the FAT can be invoiced in WAWF.

Q26: CDRLs A001, A011, A012, A013, A014, A105, and A016 are outputs of Logistics Analyses and typically characterized by MIL-STD 1388 or GEIA-0007. Are these reports and lists also to be an output of a Logistics Management Information Database (LMI DB)?

A26: MIL-STD-1388 2B (cancelled in 2006) and replacement (MIL-PRF-49506) was cancelled in 2011. The current standard for Logistics Product Data (LPD) is GEIA-STD-0007 (Adopted by DoD in Oct 2008). Yes, The CDRLS listed are outputs of logistics analyses and should be an output of the Logistics Management Information database as well.

Q27: Some of the CDRLs referenced in 24 above are required by the SOW to be included in the Tech Manuals. If the requirement for the Tech Manuals is not specified in the SOW, does this predicate the need to produce the MIL-PRF 40051 Tech Manual? Will the Government provide the DTD and FOSI for this product requirement?

A27: DI-TMSS-80527C states that the manual may be supplemented with additional data to comply with the contract. Supplemental data shall be prepared in accordance with MIL-PRF-32216. The CDRLs referenced above shall be in the contractor’s format and that supplemental data shall be in the format specified by the contracting activity.

Q28: Reference paragraph C.4.4 for Initial Spare Parts Kit (ISPK), A014. The Contractor shall provide an ISPK for each EWPS. Does this mean the contractor will provide the recommendation, the Government will buy the recommendation, and the contractor will field? Or, is the expectation that the contractor will buy initial spares and be reimbursed?

A28: Per C.4.4 of the SOW an ISPK shall be provided with each EWPS. The cost of the ISPK items should be included in the price of each EWPS; there will be no other reimbursement for ISPK items.

Q29: CDRL A011 states: The contractor shall maintain the STTE for the life of the contract. Does this imply some residual involvement of the contractor for some level of Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)? (e.g., FRACAS, IUID, Spares, STTE, FRB, MRB, SSI, etc...). If so, is the Government interested in an LMI DB approach? What is the expectation for CLS in order to accurately estimate it?

A29: The contractor shall maintain the STTE list throughout the ordering periods and any deliveries under a resulting contract.

Q30: CDRL A010 (Tech Manuals) requires an evaluation for suitability. Is the expectation for this evaluation to comply with MIL-STD 1221? If so, should contractors bid a 1221 evaluation? Will there be an opportunity to estimate the technical manual effort separately should the COTS manuals fail a MIL-STD 1221 evaluation? Also, the MIL-PRF 40051 is cited in the specifications; does this have any bearing on the format of the deliverable?

A30: The evaluation for suitability of the Tech Manuals is not expected to be in compliance with MIL-STD 1221. MIL-PRF 40051 has no bearing on the format of the deliverable since commercial manuals are required.

Q31: CDRL A028 (Training) may not be supported by COTS documentation. In this case, will there be an opportunity to estimate the technical manual effort separately (post evaluation)? Is it correct to assume that Training task analysis will include:

a. Activities required taking receipt of a system,

b. Site survey and standing up a location (including unpacking),

c. Operational activities external to the Containers,

d. Operational activities within the containers,

e. Keeping Logs and Records,

f. Maintenance and troubleshooting,

g. Packaging and Shipping?

A31: As stated in C.10.5.1, the Contractor shall deliver EWPS training materials IAW CDRL A028 which maximize the use of existing training materials supplemented for this system configuration. Training materials shall contain equipment and component descriptions for the EWPS operation, setup and disassembly, inspection, testing, troubleshooting, calibration, and safety procedures. CDRLs on the EWPS RFP are not separately priced.

Q32: CDRL A010 and A028 may require Task Analysis if COTS documentation is insufficient. Will the requirement for task analysis be pursuant to a Level of Repair Analysis (LORA)? Could an S1000D model be used instead (faster methodology)? In this case, will there be an opportunity to estimate the task analysis effort separately (post evaluation)?

A32: CDRL A010 (Commercial Manuals) and CDRL A028 (Training Materials) may require task analysis which will be pursuant to a LORA. S1000D can be uses as long as it meets the standards of SAE-TA-STD-0017. SAE-AS-1390 establishes the general requirements and descriptions of specific activities for performance of LORA during the life cycle of products or equipment. There will be no opportunity to estimate the task analysis effort post evaluation.

Q33: CDRL A009 (FACAR) is often subject to FRB and MRB reviews. Will this be estimated FFP or as an LOE as Failures emerge? Same question for all of RAM, as Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability is largely information discovery and hard to quantify. At the same time, contractors could estimate a FFP on parts count and ensure our risks are covered. What does the Government prefer?

A33: As stated in the Section A narrative, the Government plans to award one five-year, firm fixed price requirements type contract for the EWPS as a result of this solicitation. CDRLs on the EWPS RFP are not separately priced.

Q34: CDRL A020 requires input to the National Registry. Should contractors include this in their estimate? Are there database requirements for creating and managing IUIDs during the production cycle (i.e., Bartender)?

A34: As stated in the Section A narrative, the Government plans to award one five-year, firm fixed price requirements type contract for the EWPS as a result of this solicitation. All cost considerations should be included in the proposed price. IUID data will be stored in the national registry. The IUID registry will be populated as new items are acquired. The IUID registry is maintained by the Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS), and is located at https://ww.bpn.gov/iuid/. The key pieces of data that will be populated within the IUID registry will provide information on the item, the supplier, the contract, and the delivery. The IUID marking method is to be created in accordance with MIL-STD-129, MIL-STD-130 and ISO/IEC 15434 and 15418. This will provide more insight on the database requirements (Human Readable Information, Machine- Readable Information) for creating IUIDs.

Q35: CDRL A017 (Packaging) requires GEIA-STD-0007. Will the Government provide samples of the Data Elements required for the packaging analysis to enable contractors to estimate accurately?

A35: The data elements required for Packaging and the format required for submittal is called out in Attachment 0004, Logistics Management Information Packaging Data Products, and Attachment 0005, Incoming Transaction Format.

Q36: C.12.1.1.2. Special group: Items classified as Special group items often require sketches, figures, or narrative instructions to describe packaging requirements. Since we cannot identify these "Special Group Items" today, will there be an opportunity to estimate Special Group Items separately (post evaluation)?

A36: No.

Q37: Please confirm if DFARS Clause 252.246-7007 Contractor Counterfeit Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance System will apply?

A37: No, DFARS Clause 252.246-7007 is not applicable to a firm fixed price commercial contract.

Q38: Due to the additional information required above, will the government grant an additional three (3) week extension to the solicitation?

A38: Considering the answers to the questions above, no further extension is deemed necessary at this time.

Q39: It appears that the updated Attachment 0006 and see page 3 is in error, can you please confirm that the ATPD paragraphs (e.g. "Attachment 0001, PD Section 3.3.3") mentioned in Attachment 0006 are correct."

A39: The references provided on page 3 of Attachment 0006 are correct.

Q40: To ensure costs are accurately presented, will the government clarify when the Certificate(s) of Conformance (CoC) are required? Exhibit A, CDRL A024, states "The contractor shall prepare and deliver 30 days prior to First Article Testing, Certificate(s) of Conformance." however, ATDP 2218, Section 4.1.3 states "CoCs shall be provided for each EWPS production unit".

A40: C.15.4 and CDRL A023 require a CoC for each production unit.

Q41: Will the government allow Progress Payments under the resultant contract? If yes, will the solicitation be modified to add FAR 52.232-13 - Notice of Progress Payments and FAR 52.232-16 - Progress Payments?

A41: Progress Payments are not an allowed type of Government financing on a commercial action. The Government will consider commercial interim payment terms that are customary to the commercial market using the procedures in FAR 32.204. Contractors are allowed to submit suggestions for financing terms no later than 1:00pm, Warren, MI time, on Monday, 21 March 2016. If determined to be in the best interest of the Government, commercial finance terms will be incorporated by RFP Amendment so that the extension made to 11 April 2016, through Amendment 0006, is sufficient for an offeror to consider in its proposal. If finance terms are not included, this response will be updated appropriately. For example, because of the test period for the First Article Test (FAT), a customary commercial practice may be a payment of 60% of FAT Unit evaluated price paid upon delivery to APG

Q42: ATPD 3.3.3. ISO shelter: “A vestibule, such as an expandable shelter, may be attached to the outside of the ISO shelter to provide this area.” Our question: Does the offeror needs to foresee this vestibule or any other tent?

A42: IAW ATPD 3.3.3, "the system shall provide an area for the operator to sanitize their hands and don foot covers and gloves prior to entering the bottling room, load caps and preforms through the access panels into the hoppers, and palletize bottles." The use of a vestibule for this stated purpose is allowed, but not required, and is determined by the offeror.

Q43: FAT in Aberdeen: Our question: Does the government provides the preforms and caps? Our question: Does the offeror needs to palletize and/or to scrap the filled and capped bottles? Who is supplying the equipment to handle this?

A43: The contractor shall provide preforms and caps for testing. The Government amended C.10.3.2 (a) to clarify this requirement in Amendment 0007. Contractor personnel are responsible for the bottles produced during testing. The Government will provide pallets and dispose of the produced bottles.

Q44: Labeling of the bottle:

“1.1. Scope, page 9: The EWPS shall be capable of blow-molding polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic preforms followed by the filling, capping, and labeling of the one-liter PET bottles.

3.1 Description, page 15: … Bottles are then filled with water and capped. Bottles leaving the filler/capper are then marked (imprinted without a label) before exiting the EWPS shelter on a conveyor.”

Our question: We understand that ‘labeling’ means applying an imprinted code on the bottle itself, such as a laser imprint. Is this correct? If not, please send us the definition of labeling for the EWPS.

A44: Applying a label by imprinting with a laser is an acceptable method of imprinting without use of a label.

Q45: Q&A document: “Q24. Can you please clarify in which time frame after closing date of the solicitation, the order would be placed. A24: The First Article Test (FAT) ordering period of the contract is the date of award plus 270 days.” Our question: The answer did not meet entirely our question: we would like to understand when the award/the contract will be signed by the government? With this date, we can calculate the ordering periods.

A45: In accordance with FAR 52.212-1(c), as amended by paragraph 11 of narrative A0001, the Government has 180 days to accept an offer. Award may be made sooner than 180 days without notice to offerors. However, if award is made after the 180 days offerors will be given notice and an opportunity to change pricing."