20220729_JLTV-FoV_RFP_QAs.pdf

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Solicitation W56HZV-20-R-0072, Questions & Answers

ID Subject/RFP Reference

Question Government Response

Section L 4.3.2 (c) Attachment 0177

" The Government responded to Question 145 by referencing paragraph L.4.3.2(c), indicating the following (highlight added):

“When filling in the Workbook, the offeror shall include the dollars for prime contractor participation and subcontractor participation that are a part of the “Total Contract Amount”. The “Total Contract Amount” for the purposes of this Factor is defined as: The proposed amounts for all of the Basic CLINs and all of the Option CLINs. (See Cross Reference in Attachment 170- Pricing Matrix, Tab “Contract Cost Price Summary, Cell “N56”.)

Attachment 0175 - VATEP Adjustment Calculator shall not be utilized to complete Attachment 0177 - SB Participation Factor

WB.

L.4.5.4 provides examples of the ""dollars for the Factor Submittal."" L.4.5.4 requires offerors to follow those same instructions in developing the Small Business Subcontracting Plan dollars (L.4.3.2), to ensure consistency with the Small Business Participation Factor.""

The highlighted sentence requires the use of Cell N56 within Att..."

There are no VATEP calculations or adjustments included in Attachment 0170. All VATEP calculations shall be completed in Attachment 0175 - VATEP workbook. All references to VATEP should be titled "Contract Cost/Price Proposed Values and Affordability Values." To minimize confusion, the Government changed all references to "VATEP" to "Contract Cost/Price Proposed Values" under Attachment 0170. The Government issued a soliciation amendment to formally update Attachment 0170 on 22 July 2022.

L.4.1.3.3. (b) and (e)

"The JLTV RFP at Section L.4.1.3.3(b) provides the Government will find substantiating data “for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration may be considered less credible.” Section L.4.1.3.3(e) also states “If test data is provided at the vehicle level, the offeror shall provide details on the platform used for test. If the vehicle tested is not a JLTV, the contractor shall provide an assessment of the as-tested platform, the similarities to the JLTV, and why the surrogate platform is applicable.”

By JLTV, does the Government mean either the JLTV A1 or A2?

Will the Government find it less credible or find a higher risk associated with substantiating data for an A1 versus an A2?"

The RFP does not differentiate between the "generations" of JLTV (e.g. A0, A1, or A2) with respect to the evaluation of substantiating data, nor does it require providing substantiating data from the latest generation (JLTV A2) in order to be evaluated with lower risk.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Solicitation W56HZV-20-R-0072, Questions & Answers

H.3.10

"The Government’s answer to Q152 related to Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) has minimal impact on ability of the offerors to submit a compliant proposal. With the 10% maximum adjustment, an offeror starting at the Government’s target price still would be unable to submit a compliant proposal if the offeror assumes 4% YoY inflation or greater. This would prevent the offeror from submitting a proposal, thus reducing the competition the government seeks.

The Government’s reference to a possibility that the contract Economic Price Adjustment structure could change in some way in the future does nothing to mitigate the problem, because offerors must propose to the contract and Economic Price Adjustment structure in the Request for Proposal as it exists now.

With the current 10% maximum economic price adjustment for inflation, an offeror has additional inflationary risk which must be considered in their offer thus increasing its offered price. If the maximum economic price adjustment is increased, the contractor therefore does not need to account for the additional inflation risk resulting in an overall lower price to the Government.

If the offeror does not need to include the additional inflationary risk the Government receives a lower price. If significant inflation does occur, the government will pay a higher price only in the year of the higher inflation with no benefit to the offeror. There is no negative impact to the to the Government should the inflation not occur, it actually benefits the government with the lower offered price. By minimizing the inflation variable, the Government will receive a better price reflecting true price rather than price plus inflationary risk factor.

During this time of volatile and uncertain inflation, other Government programs have recently employed more robust Economic Price Adjustments. For example, they did not include a 10% maximum adjustment. In these cases, the Government received lower prices that accurately reflected costs, rather than prices that were dominated by inflation assumptions. This allowed true competition and allowed the government to get more capability for the dollar.

Furthermore, providing just a 10 % upward adjustment versus no limit of a downward adjustment is not consistent with DOD guidance on EPA clause which states will not be one-sided but will be fair to both parties … and will allow for both upward and downward revision of the contract price with a specified ceiling and floor of the same magnitude.

Given the additional detail described above, will the Government substantially increase the 10% maximum upward adjustment to allow offerors to compete and allow the Government to receive more capability for the dollar? "

Given persistent volatility in certain indices, based on the most current data available, the Government has updated Section H from 10% to 20% for this special provision.