MPF_RFP_W56HZV-18-R-0001_-_Questions_and_Answers_Batch_5_(Distro_A).pdf

# RFP Reference Question Response

1 Section I

Broken link in I‐189 DFARS 252‐211‐7005(b)

Recommendation: Provide an updated link to the SPI listings

Rationale: I‐189(b) states that Offerors are encouraged to propose SPI processes in lieu of military or Federal specifications and standards cited in the solicitation. This listing is unavailable via the website provided in the solicitation. This prevents

Offerors from viewing the previously accepted SPI processes, which prevents the determination if an SPI can be proposed.

DCMA no longer maintains a listing (and the link at 252.211‐7005 is no longer valid), due to the fact that there have been no requests for a single process initiatives for several years. DCMA has proposed a case to Defense Acquisition Regulations System (DARS) council to correct DFARS 252.211‐7005(b); however, the DARS case is still pending. DFARS clause 252.211‐7005 will be deleted in an upcoming RFP

Amendment.

2 Section E

Please explain how incorporating the new weld requirement is consistent with the Army’s MPF acquisition approach to leverage existing material solutions by introducing a welding standard that was released in August of 2017 versus allowing offerors to rely on previously‐developed weld procedures and practices. Understanding that the Army may disqualify a prospective offeror for taking exception to any attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or other solicitation terms, conditions, or documents in accordance with L.4.5.2, will the Army deem non‐responsive, as taking an impermissible exception, an offer which is expressly conditioned on the assumption that use of an alternate weld standard/code will be allowed during contract performance? Alternatively, would the Army consider making proposed compliance to the new weld standards merely a discriminator in the evaluation rather than a mandatory technical requirement?

The requirement for use of MIL‐STD‐3057 is consistent with new start programs. MIL‐STD‐3057 has been identified as the requirement since the original RFP release in Nov 17 which should provide adequate time for offerors to address. Any impact on previous designs should be minimal. The requirement will remain. Yes, L.4.5.2 applies.

MPF RFP W56HZV‐18‐R‐0001 ‐ Questions and Answers Batch 5 (Distro A)