Tank_Rack_Module_Solicitation_Questions_and_Answers_amd_0002.docx

Tank Rack Module Solicitation Questions and Answers Reference #: W56HVZ-18-R-0096

Question 1:

In lieu of this requirement, can we provide proof of certification of past frames that have we have fabricated and has received CSC Approval?

Response 1:

The Government has modified Section L.4.1.3.3 and Section M.4.1.2.3 for ISO Compatibility, which is incorporated in Amendment 0002, which addresses this question.

Question 2:

In the solicitation section L.4.2.7 DCMA/DCAA Information, are we providing DCMA and DCAA of a past project for reference?

Response 2:

You should provide the address, email, and telephone of the cognizant DCAA and DCMA based on your location. If you are unsure of the correct office, you can look it up on each organization website.

For the DCAA office, go to: https://www.dcaa.mil and click on locator.

For the DCMA office, go to: http://www.dcma.mil and click on the "Customer" tab and scroll down to "Contract Management Team". Create an EWAM account. Once you have established a username and password, you can search your cognizant DCMA office by entering your CAGE code under the Contract Management Team tab.

Question 3:

No clarification was made in the RFP that the 26000 pound maximum TRM loaded weight must be met with all fuels specified in ATPD paragraph 3.5.9. Please clarify.

Response 3:

Response in Q&A posted to FBO on 15 August 2018 was sufficient and no additional clarification is warranted.

Question 4:

No clarification was made in the RFP that 2 inch non-collapsible hoses are required for refueling vehicles per ATPD paragraph 3.5.6.1.10. Please clarify.

Response 4:

Language which specifically addresses the hose requirement per ATPD paragraph 3.5.6.1.10 is added to Section H and incorporated in Amendment 0002.

Question 5:

No clarification was made in the RFP that the hoses for refueling vehicles per ATPD paragraph 3.5.6.1.10 must be stored in a cabinet with padlock hasp. Please clarify.

Response 5:

Language which specifically addresses the hose storage requirement is added to Section H and incorporated in Amendment 0002.

Question 6:

No clarification was made in the RFP that the ATPD paragraph 3.5.7.5 requirement for static grounding reels may be amended to allow cables long enough to reach the length of dispensing hoses and allow grounding resistance up to 10 ohms. Please clarify.

Response 6:

Language which specifically addresses the length requirement for static grounding reels is added to Section H and incorporated in Amendment 0002.

Question 7:

No clarification was made in the RFP that the ATPD paragraph 3.5.6.1.11 filter separator 60 psi static test requirement can be satisfied by certification instead of requiring a test on every production unit.

Response 7:

Section 4.5.6.1.11 of ATPD-E explains testing criteria and certificate of conformance in support of 3.5.6.1.11.

Question 8:

No clarification was made in the RFP that ATPD paragraph 3.10.2c requirement for the TRM to be marked "USE 8 FOOT TINES ONLY" shall be eliminated. Please clarify.

Response 8:

ATPD paragraph 3.10.2c requirement for the TRM to be marked "USE 8 FOOT TINES ONLY" is no longer a requirement.

Question 9:

No clarification was made in the RFP whether Durasoil will be an approved (or required?) test fuel during production AI&T testing vs. the ATPD paragraph 3.5.9 fuels and water as-defined in ATPD paragraph 4.2.4. Please clarify.

Response 9:

Language which specifically addresses the fuel requirement for AI&T is added to Section E and incorporated in Amendment 0002.

Question 10:

No revision was made to the full FAT plan to include a requirement to successfully complete air drop testing for TRM systems that have not previously met those test requirements. Please clarify.

Response 10:

Air drop is not a threshold requirement. Please see ATPD-E section 3.6.1.4.3. LVAD is an objective but not a required threshold.

Question 11:

In regards to attachment 0021 Request for Waiver; it seems the language needs to be corrected to allow proposal of Option 2 with an existing system that has been produced in more than two years since RFP closing date. The current language has double negatives that make Option 2 read as the same requirement as Option 3.

Response 11:

Attachment 0021 is updated in Amendment 0002 to clarify Option 2.