Attachment 0012 Questions and Answers.pdf

Number Section Page #

Question Answer

1 M Section M, #1 (a): Will the government consider accepting ISO 9001 certification in lieu of AS9100 certification?

No, AS9100 has been determined to be the minimum certification the Government will accept for this requirement.

2 Will the government accept an “in process” AS9100 certification in combination with an existing ISO 9001 certification?

An Offeror needs to have a current AS9100 or higher certification unless the Offeror's current AS9100 certification is up for renewal and in that case, the Offeror must provide evidence of the renewal process or extending the certification at the time of proposal submission.

3 Due to structure of the MAC IDIQ and realistic potential of awardees working with many aviation parts manufacturers, would the government consider requiring the AS9100 cert at the delivery order level rather than at the master contract level?

No, the determination was made that the Quality Management System of the Contract Awardees will be evaluated at the IDIQ level and therefore is required at time of award and not at the delivery order level.

4 What is the anticipated combined ceiling for these contracts, if awarded?

For planning purposes, the ceiling for this 3PL effort is estimated at approximately $43M. This will all depend on if all option periods are exercised and how many parts are required to be procured during the life of the IDIQ

5 Offerors currently certified to ISO 9001:2015 and AS9110C. These certifications represent certification above and beyond the requirements identified within AS9100D. Indeed, a detailed analysis of all three standards reveals that AS9100D contains all requirements of ISO 9001:2015 (all relevant to contract performance) and then adds specific requirements for aerospace product manufacturers which are only relevant, in part, to contract performance.

AS9110C, like AS9100D, contains all requirements of ISO 9001:2015.

Additionally, it contains all contract-relevant requirements of AS9100D and adds more restrictive quality requirements to ensure delivery of conforming parts and services to the customer.

Offeror believes its certifications to AS9110C and ISO 9001:2015 far surpass the minimum requirements, and are more relevant to contract performance, than that of AS9100D; particularly with its addition of conformance documentation requirements, quality personnel roles and in the detection/avoidance of both counterfeit and suspected unapproved parts

The minimum Qualification is AS9100. An Offeror with a higher Certification such as ISO 9001:2015 and AS9110C exceed the minimum requirement of AS9100 and would be in compliance with the entry gate criteria.

Solicitation W58RGZ-21-R-0100 Questions & Answers

6 Does the Government agree with the methodology that certifications to AS9110C and ISO 9001:2015 far surpass the minimum requirements, and are more relevant to contract performance, than that of AS9100D;

particularly with its addition of conformance documentation requirements, quality personnel roles and in the detection/avoidance of both counterfeit and suspected unapproved parts and will pass the entry gate criteria defined in Section M?

The minimum Qualification is AS9100. An Offeror with a higher Certification such as ISO 9001:2015 and AS9110C exceed the minimum requirement of AS9100 and would be in compliance with the entry gate criteria.

7 Please clarify how the CLIN Pricing and Catalog Materials will be Evaluated. Attachment 0003 Catalog Materials contains 98 out of 159 which are marked as Must Price Items. Attachment 0002 CLIN pricing contains 114 out of 184 items which are marked as Must Price Items.

Section M, Factor 3 Evaluation Factors States that 98 or 62% of the items must be priced. Please clarify which of the spreadsheets should be used to identify the Must Price Items.

The total number of parts identified in Attachment 0002 and Attachment 0003 are the same. The difference in number of lines to be priced as identified in Attachment 0002 is based on the requirement to price for multiple condition codes.

Therefore the same part may be listed three times because the Government is requesting the part be priced using three condition codes.

8 Please clarify how offers will be evaluated if an offeror prices additional items that are not on the MUST PRICE ITEMS list. Will offerors be rated more favorably if they can provide a higher volume of items, or will be they rated less favorably as this could increase the Total Evaluated Price?

If offerors do not price the "must price" items they will be deemed non responsive. If an offeror prices all items then they have an opportunity to have more parts added to their parts catalog as opposed to an offeror who decides to only price the "must price" items. The total evaluated price is calculated using only the "must price" items, therefore there is no advantage/disadvantage when determining the total evaluated price

9 Some OEMs are unwilling to provide quotes to a Small Business unless/until we demonstrate that we are proposing on a “legitimate” DLA requirement. Could your office develop a similar PCOL letter for RFP W58RGZ-21-R-0100 and make it available to all potential Small Business offerors by posting it on beta.sam.gov?

The concern is noted, however, this requirement is being solicited as a FAR Part 12 commercial contract. Since this is a FAR Part 12 requirement, a determination has been made that all of these parts are available commercially and therefore, any company should be able to procure these parts since they are readily available within the commercial market place.

10 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS SEPARATED INTO 5 VOLUMES:

I: SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS, AND

CERTIFICATIONS/ REPRESENTATIONS

II: ENTRY GATE CRITERIA

III: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT

IV: PAST PERFORMANCE

V: PRICING

VOLUME IV: PAST PERFORMANCE IS DUE 30 CALENDAR DAYS

FROM RFP ISSUANCE.

VOLUMES I, II, III AND V: ARE DUE 45 CALENDAR DAYS FROM

RFP ISSUANCE.

FUNDS WILL BE OBLIGATED/CITED UPON ISSUANCE OF EACH

DELIVERY ORDER. There is a discrepancy between the SF1449 and its Continuation Sheet. Will the Government please confirm that all 5 Volumes are due on 1 June?

The RFP is being amended to align the dates to reflect 45 days

11 Section L page 1: Proposals shall be submitted in 4 separate volumes as set forth below: Are we to assume this is a typo and read "5" separate volumes.

This is an error. An amendment is being issued to reflect the correct number of proposal volumes.

12 SOW Section 3.7 Vendor Qualification: May we use vendor/resellers that can produce a Certificate of Conformance(CoC) for New Surplus parts which have been purchased through an authorized OEM or DoD Seller?

Yes. Offerors should refer to PWS paragraph 3.3.4.2

13 Section H-2: For many OEM's catalog pricing is provided for the calendar year . If the start of the contract falls into the next year will contractors be able to include escalation to their price?

Offerors are to propose based on their accounting practices.

If escalation is a factor, offerors should account for it in their pricing.

14 Section H-2: Should award exceed 90 days, 120 days, 180 days may offerors submit escalation thresholds?

Offerors should provide pricing that is valid for award up to 180 days in accordance with Section L, paragraph 1.

15 Attachme nt 0007

Please clarify what is required in the "Number" line. It flowed over from the line above, it is Contract Number.

Have corrected it to be on the same line and will be in Amendment 01

16 Section L, 6, c

Section L states that pricing "N" items is at the discretion of the Offeror.

Please clarify how pricing on the "N" items will effect an Offeror's pricing evaluation and Total Evaluated Price.

If offerors do not price the "must price" items they will be deemed non responsive. If an offeror prices all items then they have an opportunity to have more parts added to their parts catalog as opposed to an offeror who decides to only price the "must price" items. The total evaluated price is calculated using only the "must price" items, therefore there is no advantage/disadvantage when determining the total evaluated price

17 L We request their be no font size standard for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets. Please confirm if this is acceptable.

The Government does not concur with this requested change. The Font size listed in Section L remains unchanged.

18 L Please clarify if List of figures, acronyms, and Table of Contents are required for each Volume and they are excluded from the page count.

The only volume that requires a table of contents is the pricing volume and there are no page limits. If these are included in Volume III or IV it would count against the page limit.

19 M A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph C of this section. Please clarify if the detailed approach is described in Paragraph D (vs Paragraph C).

This is an error, it should reference paragraph D, not paragraph C

20 M (a) Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan, utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D of this document. There does not appear to be an Appendix D, please clarify.

This was an error, and the RFP has been amended to reflect the correct attachment number.

21 Section L Section L states: Proposals shall be submitted in 4 separate volumes as set forth below:.. Please clarify you mean 5 separate volumes.

This is an error. An amendment is being issued to reflect the correct number of proposal volumes.

22 Section L For Volumes I, III, and IV, Section L states: * Searchable electronic copies in MS Office/PDF format shall be submitted in accordance with this section. Please clarify which format you require files to be submitted - in MS Word or PDF.

For these volumes, offerors may submit in either MS Word or PDF format.

23 Section L.5, a

In Section L.5, Section a General, there are a number of instructions that appear to require an Offeror response that do not appear in Section b, entitled Format and Specific Content. Please confirm if a response is required for the Technical Experience and Organizational Structure items listed in Section a.

Section L5 paragraph a provides context to the type of information that should be included in the volume.

Paragraph b identifies the format the information needs to be provided and the specific content that needs to be included.

24 Statement of Work Section

3.11

Section 3.11 states, "The Contractor shall provide a common manufacturer/supplier warranty against materials and workmanship defects beginning at the date of acceptance." What length of warranty is required?

The warranty should be based on the standard warranty timeline for that manufacture/ part. The Government is not looking to procure additional warranties

25 Statement of Work Section

3.7

Vendor Qualification: What documentation is acceptable to provide “Proof of OEM current approval”?

A letter or certificate from the OEM stating certification to Manufacture the purchased part. The letter or certification should specifically identify the Part Number and any limitations the manufacturer may have.

26 Statement of Work Section 3.3.3.1

Vendor Qualification: Items of new surplus or overhauled condition are most often available from legitimate and vetted part distribution companies that may not be expressly approved by the OEM. In addition, some OEMs do not have approved vendor networks or sell direct. Is an item with authentic OEM, CoC, and airworthiness documentation procured from a vetted part distribution company that does not hold status as an OEM approved/qualified vendor acceptable?

Yes. Offerors should refer to PWS paragraph 3.3.4.2.

27 SOW 3.2 Will the EDI system be classified as a DoD Information system or a Non-DoD information system?

28 SOW 3.2.1 Who is the Security Control Assessor, SCA, for the EDI system IAW 8510.01?

SOW paragraph 3.2.1 has been revised to reflect the following: The Contractor(s) shall provide the USG, in the awarded Base Delivery Order, an approved Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). The EDI shall provide order

29 SOW 3.2.1 Who is the Authorizing Official, AO, for the EDI system IAW 8510.01?

30 SOW 3.2 Based on the timeline required to receive an Authority to Operate, ATO, will the Offeror’s EDI system require a valid ATO upon contract award?

31 SOW 3.2.1 SOW 3.2.1, states, “The Contractor shall control information stored in the EDI as unclassified nonpublic DoD information.”, is this IAW DoDI 8582.01?

32 Section L.1

General

Note * below Table 1 states that "* Searchable electronic copies in MS Office/PDF shall be submitted in accordance with this section." Does this indicate offerors are requested to submit one document (either in MS Office or PDF as appropriate) or two (one copy in each format) for each volume?

Offerors should only provide one copy of the documents, but at its discretion can submit using MS Word/ PDF or a combination thereof.

33 Section L.1.(d)

Please confirm whether the legend required at the top and bottom of each page includes the line not in bold, "Also, see FAR 52.215-1(e) for restrictions on disclosures and use of data."

Only the language in bold should be in the header/footer.

34 Section L.5.a

Paragraph 4 of the Volume III: Technical/Management a. General section (beginning with "The Offeror's experience) describes an offeror's required experience, asking for specifics such as project size/complexity and line items/dollar value of USG property. This seems to indicate a narrative for specific projects such as would be required in a Past Performance narrative. Additionally, this paragraph does not seem to relate to the b. Format and Specific Content requirements. There is also not a section dedicated to the Specific Content for a Volume IV Past Performance Narrative later in Section L.

Please confirm whether the Paragraph 4 content is intended to be included in Volume III or in Volume IV as part of the narrative.

The paragraph 4 narrative is to be included with Volume III.

Paragraph 4 provides the context for which the Offeror must respond as it relates to the specific content listed in paragraph 5b. Volume IV does not prohibit the inclusion of this information, therefore, Offerors can include if deemed appropriate.

35 Section L.5.a

If the Paragraph 4 content is intended to be included in Volume III, please confirm how many contract examples we are required to include in this volume and if the contract experience examples are intended to be the same as the 4 examples included in Volume IV Past Performance.

Offerors should provide as many examples as necessary to demonstrate adequate experience to this factor. The contract examples provided in volumes III and IV should be determined by the Offeror based on relevancy to this requirement. An Offeror can use the same contracts in both volumes but is not required to.

36 Section M.D.3.(b)

Please confirm if specific Key Suppliers and/or Subcontractors need to be listed for Past Performance contracts even if they are not key suppliers/subcontractors being utilized for the 3PL contract.

Offerors should provide the details of any previous contracts with regard to the past performance evaluation as they deem relevant to this requirement.

37 Section M.D.3.(c)

The Section M Factor 2 Past Performance paragraph (c) states that "Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP." Other sections clearly indicate that information for only 4 contracts is required. Please confirm that the USG only wants information for 4 contracts.

The RFP is being amended to clarify the USG is requesting no more than 4 management, asset tracking, and USG-approved source management of awards in support of 3PL requirements with a cumulative error rate of 5% or less. The Contractor shall protect the EDI system and the unclassified nonpublic DoD information stored on the EDI system IAW NIST SP 800-171 and DoDI 8582.01.

38 ATTACHM

ENT 0006

Is there a PPQ due date we should provide to the PPQ POCs to submit the PPQs to the USG? There is not one indicated on the PPQ itself.

Use the RFP due date of June 1, 2021.

39 What is the estimated dollar threshold for the RFP? For planning purposes, the ceiling for this 3PL effort is estimated at approximately $43M. This will all depend on if all option periods are exercised and how many parts are required to be procured during the life of the IDIQ

40 SF 1449 No Time zone was specificed in the SF 1449. Would the Government please confirm that the proposal resonses are due 1 June 2021 at 5PM

EST

Proposals are due at 4 PM local CST which is 5 PM EST

41 L 5 There are two section 5s (Vol III and Vol IV). For compliance mapping, would the Government please adjust the numeration?

This is an error. An amendment is being issued to reflect the correct numbering sequence in section L.

42 L 5.f Would the Government please confirm that we may submit upto 4 citations (w/PPQs and PPRTs), and may submit fewer than 4?

A maximum of four contracts can be provided, however, an Offeror is not required to submit 4

Does the entire scope of this work include the warehousing inventory and transfer over the road of these listed products?

Yes, In accordance with SOW paragraph 3.6, Offerors are required to package and store during pre-shipment consolidation. Additionally the RFP identifies acceptance at destination

44 Can you provide potential offerors with access to the required technical data/drawings?

The Government does not have technical data/ drawings for these parts.

Sheet1