QAs_(3)_for_ISO_Shelter.pdf

Q&A’s 03, ASF ISO Shelter Solicitation, W56HZV18R0057 07 June 2018

1. Question: The provisioning SOWs for the One-side and Two-side expandable shelters (Attachment 0004 and 0005) identify LORA and MTA as CDRL A009, A010, and B009, B010, respectively. Attachment 20 does not call out LORA or MTA deliverables for the One-side and Two-side expandable shelters, nor are there corresponding CDRLs provided in the RFP. Can the Government please confirm if LORA or MTA are required for the One-side and Two-side expandable shelter configurations?

Answer: The Government is not looking for updated LORA and MTAs for the One-Sided and Two-Sided expandable shelters. The Government is looking to procure a LORA and MTA for the MERWS in accordance with CDRL C009 and C010.

2. Question: There are 12 CDRLs in Section B of the RFP that state “NSP”, yet these CDRLs are listed in Attachment 0020 with a price to be filled in. Can the Government please confirm that these items should be separately priced and provided in Attachment 0020, in accordance with the instructions of Section L.6.3.2?

Answer: Attachment 0020 “Price Attachment” has been updated to reflect Section B.

3. Please indicate if section K-7 will be considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

Answer: Per part (c) of the clause 52.207-4, Economic Purchase Quantity-Supplies -- The information requested in this provision is being solicited to avoid acquisitions in disadvantageous quantities and to assist the Government in developing a data base for future acquisitions of these items. However, the Government reserves the right to amend or cancel the solicitation and resolicit with respect to any individual item in the event quotations received and the Governments requirements indicate that different quantities should be acquired.

4. In reference to section M.4.2 please define similar in regards to the shelter configuration. This is a very broad term, the bidders definition of similar and the contractors definition of similar maybe very different.

Answer: Relevant Past Performance will consider the extent to which the submitted contract efforts are comparable in scope and magnitude of effort and complexity to the statement of work requirements as defined in L.6.2.1 (b) and M.4.2.

5. Please indicate which volume the First Article Waiver Worksheet and associated attachments should reside in the submission.

Answer: First Article Waiver Worksheet and associated attachments may be submitted with the proposal separately or included in the administrative volume and listed in the table of contents.

6. Will responses to questions be posted on-line once all are compiled and answered

Answer: Questions along with the Government’s responses will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website.

7. Question: According to the SOW for the Shelter, Tactical, Expandable, One-sided 60-AMP Model and 100-amp model, section 3.1.1 Repair Parts and Special Tools (RPSTL) states that “The RPSTL text, illustrations, and indexes shall be in accordance with this SOW and conform, as applicable, to MIL-STD-40051-2C, format requirements”. In section 3.4 Illustrations, it states “All technical manual submissions shall be fully illustrated IAW this SOW and MIL-STD 40051-2B”. Which MIL- STD are the illustrations required to be in for the Technical Manual?

Answer: All technical manual submissions shall be fully illustrated IAW the SOW found in Section C of the Solicitation and MIL-STD-40051-2C. Attachments 0001, 0002, and 0007 have been updated.

8. Question: The Government’s response to question 8 states the language has been corrected but the text in section M.6.d of the RFP AMD 0001 is unchanged from the original RFP.

Answer: The language in M.6 (d) has been corrected in Amendment 0003.

9. Question: The Government’s small business participation goals have increased significantly from the original RFP’s goals of 33 % Small Business (SB), 5 % Small Disadvantaged Business (SB), 5 % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB), 3 % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB), 3 % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) and 3 % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) To 56 % Small Business (SB), 8.4 % Small Disadvantaged Business (SB), 8.4 % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB), 5.04 % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB), 5.04 % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB), 5.04 % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) There was no indication in any Q&As as to what caused this change to the evaluation criteria this late in the acquisition process. Can the Government please provide rational for the change?

The offeror recommends the Government revert back to the goals identified in the original RFP.

An increase to 56% of the total contract value for small business participation is an unrealistic amount of participation for any “Other Than Small Business Offeror” to achieve.

Answer: Small Business goals are developed by the Office of Small Business Programs and were based on historical Small Business performance on similar actions. The original RFP had the incorrect goals (DoD goals). Amendment 0001 identifies the appropriate goals for this solicitation. Please comply with the requirements of M.4.4.1.

10. Please confirm that there is not a requirement for pricing MEWRS CSC testing only as the double and single sided options include this clin in the base period?

Answer: There is no “MERWS CSC Testing Only” CLIN.

11. Should section L.6.1.2 Qualification Test Panels section of the technical volume should this be shipped with the panels via a CD or should this only be submitted with the other volumes? Or is a hard copy acceptable in with the samples?

Answer: A CD and hardcopy shall be shipped with the test panels.

12. Please confirm Production Test Inspection Plan MERWS should not be priced separately

Answer: Production Test Inspection Plan MERWS should be priced separately.

13. Reference CLIN A001 - Since a LORA and MTA are not required submittals for the single and double sided configuration, will the legacy MAC be accepted as is, with only a standard update, or how does the government foresee the MAC to be developed without either the LORA or

MTA?

Answer: Utilize the legacy MAC as a source document in lieu of the LORA and MTA.

Updates to the MAC are as prescribed in the provisioning SOWS and the CLIN A001 & CLIN B001. Attachments 0004 and 0005 have been updated.

14. To ensure Full and Open Competition, we request the Government consider also accepting as relevant past performance shelters meeting ASTM E2377-10 Standard Specification for Shelter, Electrical Equipment, Lightweight; which is based on similar construction and production processes including etching, priming, bonding; and demonstrates capability to fabricate large metallic-faced, structural non-metallic honeycomb core sandwich panels and ultimately the manufacture of rigid wall shelters.

Answer: Relevancy will be determined during the evaluation phase. Offerors are encouraged to submit what they determine to be relevant past performance.

15. We request the Government recalculate and extend the First Article Test Report delivery dates to a Fair and Reasonable timeline utilizing their “estimates based on prior experience” as documented in the GAO and J&A documents.

Answer: The Contractor shall submit the first article test report within 330 days after contract award. Clause 52.209-3 has been updated to reflect the changes in Amendment 0003.

16. We recommend M.5(c), be amended to strike this price evaluation preferential treatment of the incumbent and the price delta for waiver of First Article not be considered in the award evaluation criteria to ensure Fair Competition.

Answer: The Government may determine that a First Article Waiver, which, if approved, represents a value to the government which must be taken into consideration. The offeror is reminded that the basis of award for this procurement is not solely based on price.

Per M.1.2 Importance of Price. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal (1) is otherwise eligible for award under M.1.1.3, and (2) represents the best value to the Government. This may not be the Offeror with the lowest evaluated Price Factor.

However, the closer the Offeror's evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the Price Factor, the more important the Price Factor becomes in the decision.

Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the two evaluation Factors stated herein, price may be controlling when:

(a) Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-price factors;

or

(b) The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

Per M.4 Of the evaluation factors, “Technical is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Price, which is significantly more important than Small Business Participation. As required to be defined by FAR 15.304(e), the non-cost/price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.”