Q&As_(1).pdf

Q&A’s, ASF ISO Shelter Solicitation, W56HZV18R0057

1. Is the Government’s intent of paragraphs L.6.2.1(b) i and ii, and M.4.2 Factor 2: Past Performance, i and ii, to eliminate all competition except for the incumbent?

Answer: No. The government’s intent in evaluating Past Performance is not to eliminate all competition except for the incumbent. Per FAR 15.304(c):

(2) The quality of the product or service shall be addressed in every source selection through consideration of one or more non-cost evaluation factors such as past performance, compliance with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A)(i) and 3306(c)(1)(A).

(3) Past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

2. Please provide any QPL (or QPL number) for any materials that must be from a QPL. The QPD (qpldocs.dla.mil) has no reference to ASTM documents.

Answer: There is no QPL associated with this procurement

3. Section C.5.3.3 b states “The carrier used to transport the shelter during the test shall be defined by the contract”. Can this be defined in the RFP, as vehicle choice could affect testing costs?

Answer: No. The carrier used to transport the shelter during the test shall be determined by vehicle availability at the proposed test center at the time the testing is performed. Vehicle choice should have a minimal impact on testing costs.

4. Would the government be willing to supply indented bills of materials, in an editable format, with the RFP? This would save time when pricing the products and help level the playing field with the incumbent with respect to timing/effort responding to the RFP.

Answer: No, the government does not have bills of materials that is can provide as part of the RFP.

5. Would the government be willing to supply the current ILS data with RFP? We understand the Government owns this data, and providing it will allow bidders to price updates to the package versus a from-scratch price, thereby saving taxpayers’ money, and allowing the future contract holder to build on the legacy of these proven documents.

Answer: No. The ILS data is outdated. A from scratch price would be more reflective of the actual effort required.

6. Attachments 0017 and 0018 are missing from the Government FBO posting, please provide the following documents immediately:

a. Attachment 0017 ATTACHMENT 0017 PANEL SHIP SET ONE DRWG NO

11A7001033 23‐JUL‐2014 004 EMAIL

b. Attachment 0018 ATTACHMENT 0018PANEL SHIP SET TWO DRWG NO

11A7001032 24‐JUL‐2014 004 EMAIL

Answer: Attachments 0017 and 0018 are posted on FBO, but listed under a separate file package than the rest of the attachments. These two attachments have a higher classification level and are locked until the vendor is approved to view controlled documents and then, must log in to FBO after being approved to view the controlled documents.

7. Can the Government please provide a notional program start date offerors should use for bidding purposes?

Answer: The notional program start date would be synonymous with the contract award date, which is expected to be in September of this year (2018).

8. Ref M.6(d) There is a fragmented sentence in section M.6.d of the RFP. Can the Government please revise the paragraph? It is unclear what actions the Government would potentially take in adjusting an offeror's total price.

Answer: Language has been corrected.

9. Ref L.2.2.1 .Would the Government consider using the ARMDEC SAFE portal for electronic secure file transfer of proposal volumes vs shipment of CD/DVDs? The SAFE portal allows encrypted file transmission of up to 2GB and provides confirmation of transmission to both the Government, reducing administrative burden on the Government.

Answer: No. Please submit your proposal IAW section L.2.1 of the RFP.

10. Ref. L.7(b) Note that if a waiver is granted to the successful offeror, an accelerated delivery schedule will apply. See Section F.

M.5(b) the accelerated delivery schedule set forth in the Section F clause entitled TIME OF DELIVERY (FAR 52.211-8) herein.

This clause is not included in Section F of the model contract. Can the Government please provide the requirements for the delivery schedule and the accelerated delivery schedule?

Answer: Added F.1 to the RFP.

11. Ref: L.2.2.1.4. Would the Government consider allowing an 11"x17" page dimensions for schedule, drawings, and other large documents for which the size is more appropriate?

Answer: Revised L.2.2.1.4. 11"x17" is acceptable in lieu of no larger than 8.5"x14".

12. Section K-5 52.204-8 of the contract does not define a NAICS code. What NAICS code should be used? The predecessor contract used NAICS code 332311.

Answer: 52.204-8 has been updated to specify the NAICS code as 332311.

13. Ref. L.6.4.4(b)1 Would the Government accept a Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR) in lieu of submission of every SF294 completed in the last 12 months?

Answer: No, Section L.6.4.4(b) calls for ISR/SF294s only. Note that you only have to submit the latest semi-annual OR final ISR for each Federal contract.

14. Would the Government consider the integration of progress billing into the contract?

Answer: Clauses 52.232-13 and 52.232-16 have been added to allow for progress payments.

15. Section L.6 appears to require a level of detail that is required for other than firm-fixed-price full and open competition and then only in unusual circumstances and when such data is not available from sources other than the offeror (15.403-3). For example, Section L6.3.3 requires cost element details and L6.3.3.3 requires Material Cost including the provision of a complete BOM including unit cost which is not a requirement under a firm-fixed price full and open competition.

Priced BOM’s are typically unique to a contractor’s manufacturing process and cannot be tied directly to drawing parts list. Recognizing that price realism is an integral part of evaluation, it is suggested that a “total” material price for each end item be provided to assist in that analysis.

This solicitation is being issued as firm-fixed-price full and open competition, as such, we do not understand the requirement for this level of data in the original issuance.

Answer: The Government is not evaluating proposals submitted in response to this solicitation for price realism. In accordance with Section M.4.3, the Price Factor will be assessed based upon the Total Evaluated Price to the Government, and include an evaluation for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. Offerors must provide the data requested IAW L.6.3. The data requested in L.6.3 will be used by the Government to support its evaluation of price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing.