W909MY-16-R-H002_AMD_0002_Q A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- W909MY16RH002 DPGDS RECAPITALIZATION
- Solicitation number
- W909MY-16-R-H002
About this file
W909MY-16-R-H002 Question Answer Amendment 0002
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| W909MY-16-R-H002 / Army DPGDS Recapitalization Questions | |||||||
| Volume | Page | Section | RFP verbiage | Question | Unit Answering | Recommended Answer | |
| RFP | 88 | I-87 | Paragraph (b) (3) "Any supplies or parts thereof, corrected or furnished in replacement under this clause, shall also be subject to the terms of this | ||||
| clause to the same extent as supplies initially delivered. The warranty, with respect to supplies or parts thereof, shall be equal in duration to that in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause and shall run from the date of delivery of the corrected or replaced supplies." | Paragraph I-87(b)(3) is in conflict with Attach 1 SOW paragraph 3.13.3. I-87(b)(3) appears to mandate continuously re-setting three year warranty responsibility if parts fail within three years. Please confirm that the the Government intends that Contractor is responsible only to cover the balance of the three year extended warranty period remaining after the date of corrected or replacement supplies. | PM E2S2 | The Government confirms that the replacement parts will be covered by standard Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) warranty for the replacement part, or 'remaining portion' of the system warranty; whichever is greater. | ||||
| RFP | Various | Sched B | Section M.C.2.h.1) states "...For each CLIN that requires range quantity unit prices (MEP-PU-810C and their respective warranties, winterization | ||||
| kits and paint, and MEP-PU-810D and their respective warranties, winterization kits and paint),…) | Schedule B CLINs for winterization kits do not provide a range pricing table as expected based on the citation at left from Section M. Please provide a range pricing table to be used as the basis for establishing the unit price / prices of winterization kits. | PM E2S2 / Contracting | Winterization kits shall have the same range pricing as the Prime Power Units (PPUs). The solicitation will be updated. | ||||
| PD 6115-0132 | 17 | 3.5.9.1.7 | The maximum difference in the 3 line-to-neutral voltages shall not be more than 1% of rated line-to-neutral voltage. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process meets the Phase Balance requirement of section 3.5.9.1.7? | PM E2S2 | The SR4B Generator meets the Phase Balance Test IAW OEM Testing. It is not expected the Enduraseal Process will affect this requirement. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 17 | 3.5.9.1.7 | The maximum difference in the 3 line-to-neutral voltages shall not be more than 1% of rated line-to-neutral voltage. | If it is discovered during testing that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process does not meet the Phase Balance requirement of section 3.5.9.1.7 will a waiver be granted? | PM E2S2 | The Government will not grant a waiver for this requirement. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their solution to meet the requirements outlined in the Purchase Description (PD) and Statement of Work (SOW). | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 17 | 3.5.9.2 a. | With the PPU initially operating at rated frequency and rated voltage, and following any sudden change in load from no load to half load, the instantaneous voltage shall not drop to less than 80 percent of rated voltage and shall reach stable conditions within 3 seconds. No overshoot or undershoot of the final voltage may exceed the initial voltage transient in | ||||
| amplitude. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process operating with the existing voltage regulator meets the voltage transient requirement of section 3.5.9.2 (a) | PM E2S2 | The current voltage regulator is obsolete. The SR4B Generator was tested by the Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) and passed the requirements in section 3.5.9.2 (a). Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their proposal to meet the requirements outlined in the PD and SOW. It is not expected the Enduraseal Process will affect this requirement. | ||||
| PD 6115-0132 | 17 | 3.5.9.2 b. | The above requirements shall also apply when load is suddenly changed from half load to no load, except that the initial voltage transient shall involve a voltage rise not to exceed 130 percent of rated voltage. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process operating with the existing voltage excitation system meets the voltage transient requirement of section 3.5.9.2 (b)? | PM E2S2 | The SR4B Generator was tested by the Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) and passed the requirements in section 3.5.9.2 (b). Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their proposal to meet the requirements outlined in the PD and SOW. It is not expected the Enduraseal Process will affect this requirement. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 17 | 3.5.9.2 c. | With the PPU initially operating at no load, rated voltage, and rated frequency, the instantaneous voltage shall not drop to less than 60 percent of the no load rated voltage when a balanced 3-phase, 0.4 power factor or less, lagging static load having an impedance of 0.5 per unit is applied to the output terminals of the PPU. The generator shall recover to not less than 95 percent of rated voltage within 5 seconds and shall stabilize at or above this voltage. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process operating with the existing voltage excitation system meets the voltage transient requirement of section 3.5.9.2.c | PM E2S2 | The current voltage regulator is obsolete. The Government intends that this part be upgraded as part of the control system upgrade as outlined in the PD. The system met the requirements when orignally tested by the Government. It is not expected the Enduraseal Process will affect this requirement. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.9.3.1 | The deviation factor for the line-to-line and line-to-neutral voltage waveform for each voltage test point shall be less than 5 percent. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process meets the Deviation Factor requirements of section 3.5.9.3.1? | PM E2S2 | The SR4B Generator with EnduraSeal was tested by the manufacturer and met the requirements outlined in section 3.5.9.3. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their proposal to meet the requirements outlined in the PD and SOW. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.9.3.1 | The deviation factor for the line-to-line and line-to-neutral voltage waveform for each voltage test point shall be less than 5 percent. | If it is discovered during testing that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process does not meet the Deviation Factor requirements of section 3.5.9.3.1 will a waiver of the requirement be granted? | PM E2S2 | The Government will not grant a waiver. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their proposal to meet the requirements outlined in the PD and SOW. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.9.3.2 | From no load to full load, the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the sum of all the harmonic components in the output voltage waveform line-to-line, and also line-to-neutral, shall not exceed 5 percent of the RMS value of the rated voltage. The RMS value of any single component shall not exceed 3 percent of the RMS value of the rated output voltage under the above condition. In addition, there shall be no spikes or notches in the waveform | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process meets the Harmonic content requirements of section 3.5.9.3.2 | PM E2S2 | The SR4B Generator meets the Harmonics Test IAW ATC Testing. It is not expected the Enduraseal Process will affect this requirement. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their solution to meet the requirements outlined in the Purchase Description (PD) and Statement of Work (SOW). | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.9.3.2 | From no load to full load, the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the sum of all the harmonic components in the output voltage waveform line-to-line, and also line-to-neutral, shall not exceed 5 percent of the RMS value of the rated voltage. The RMS value of any single component shall not exceed 3 percent of the RMS value of the rated output voltage under the above condition. In addition, there shall be no spikes or notches in the waveform | If it is discovered during testing that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process does not meet the Harmonic Content requirements of section 3.5.9.3.2 will a waiver of the requirement be granted? | PM E2S2 | The Government will not grant a waiver. If offerors feel the SR4B does not meet their specifications they have the option to use a different generator for their proposed solution. The Enduraseal remains a requirement. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.9.4 | The generator and voltage excitation system, operating as a unit, shall | ||||
| withstand two consecutive single-phase line-to-line, or line-to-neutral, and symmetrical 3-phase short-circuits at 5-minute intervals at the set output load terminals when operating at rated load (see 6.4.22) and frequency without reduction in dielectric strength to a point where it does not meet the requirements in paragraph 3.5.9.1.5. The sustained short circuit current shall not be less than 300 percent of rated output current. 3-phase short circuits shall be held for a minimum of for 10 seconds and single-phase short circuits shall be for 5 seconds. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process operating with the existing voltage excitation system meets the Short Circuit requirements of section 3.5.9.4? | PM E2S2 | The SR4B Generator met the short cicuit requirements when tested. The system has not been retested with the Endurseal process. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their solution to meet the requirements outlined in the Purchase Description (PD) and Statement of Work (SOW). | ||||
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.10 | The generator set shall operate at 125 percent of rated speed for 15 minutes without damage (see 6.4.2). Rated speed of the sets shall be that required for the sets to produce rated frequency at rated load. Should the proposed design be mechanically incapable of obtaining the 125 percent overspeed condition, then the test shall be conducted at the maximum engine speed obtainable. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process meets the Overspeed requirements of section 3.5.10? | PM E2S2 | The SR4B Generator was not tested to this requirement when originally tested by the Government. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their propsal to meet the requirements outlined in the PD and SOW. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.10 | The generator set shall operate at 125 percent of rated speed for 15 minutes without damage (see 6.4.2). Rated speed of the sets shall be that required for the sets to produce rated frequency at rated load. Should the proposed design be mechanically incapable of obtaining the 125 percent overspeed condition, then the test shall be conducted at the maximum engine speed obtainable. | If it is discovered during testing that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process does not meet the Overspeed requirements of section 3.5.10 will a waiver of the requirement be granted? | PM E2S2 | The Government will not grant a waiver. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their propsal to meet the requirements outlined in the PD and SOW. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.11 | The generator set shall operate at a power factor of 0.4 lagging and experience no failures or damages. | Can the government confirm that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process meets the Low Power Factor requirements of section 3.5.11. | PM E2S2 | The SR4B Generator with Enduraseal has not been tested for this requirement by the Government. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their solution to meet the requirements outlined in the Purchase Description (PD) and Statement of Work (SOW). | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 18 | 3.5.11 | The generator set shall operate at a power factor of 0.4 lagging and experience no failures or damages. | If it is discovered during testing that the rewound SR4B generator with the Enduraseal process does not meet the Low Power Factor requirements of section 3.5.11 will a waiver of the requirement be granted? | PM E2S2 | The Government will not grant a waiver. Offerors shall determine which generator is best suited for their propsal to meet the requirements outlined in the PD and SOW. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 36 | 3.6.2.1 | The PPUs shall be equipped with service brakes that are effective in stopping the PPU at the towing speeds specified in paragraph 3.6.2.(see PD 6115-0132/1, PD 6115-0132/2) | Do the existing MEP-PU-810A/B units meet the service brake requirements of paragraph 3.6.2.1? | PM E2S2 | The current braking systems met this requirement when tested by ATC. But it is up to the offerors to evaulate their solution to determine if system modifications are required to meet the requirements as outlined in the PD. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 36 | 3.6.2.2 | The PPUs (C and D models) shall be equipped with parking brakes capable of holding in place a fully loaded PPU on a 15-degree (26.8 %) (T), 20 degrees (36.40 %) (O) slope indefinitely. | Do the existing MEP-PU-810A/B units meet the threshold (15 degree slope) parking brake requirements of paragraph 3.6.2.2? | PM E2S2 | The current braking systems met this requirement when tested by ATC. But it is up to the offerors to evaulate their solution to determine if system modifications are required to meet the requirements as outlined in the PD. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 36 | 3.6.2.2 | The PPUs (C and D models) shall be equipped with parking brakes capable of holding in place a fully loaded PPU on a 15-degree (26.8 %) (T), 20 degrees (36.40 %) (O) slope indefinitely. | Do the existing MEP-PU-810A/B units meet the objective (20 degree slope) parking brake requirements of paragraph 3.6.2.2? | PM E2S2 | The current braking systems met the 15 degree requirement when tested by ATC. It is up to each offeror to evaulate their proposed solution to determine if system modifications are necessary to meet the requirements outlined in the PD. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 39 | 3.7.5 | If the current hydraulic system is utilized for the offerors solution, all hydraulic fluids shall be drained and replaced and hydraulic fan motors inspected and serviced. The PPUs currently have Mobil DTE 10 Excel 100 or Excel 15 Hydraulic Oil in the PPU’s. All units shall be shipped with high temp Mobil DTE 10 Excel 100 unless specified. The hydraulic fluid shall conform to ISO 11158. | The neither of the required hydraulic fluids is suitable for operation at -46 °C (-50 °F), please specify what fluid is to be used for operation down to -46 °C (-50 °F). | PM E2S2 | Threshold is -25˚F, objective is -50˚F. It is up to the offerors to determine their approach to meet the requirements outlined the PD and SOW. There are manufacturers that produce Hydraulic Fluid that is rated to -50˚F. | |
| PD 6115-0132/1 | 5 | 3.6.1.1 | The service brakes of the PPU chassis (in transport configuration) and proper towing vehicle combination shall control, decelerate and stop the vehicle combination within 40 feet (ft.) [12.2 meters (m)] from a speed of 20 mph (32 km/h) on a dry, hard, level, smooth surface. Application of brakes on all wheels of the PPU chassis shall be concurrent. The PPU chassis brake system shall meet the applicable requirements of 49CFR393.52. | Do the existing MEP-PU-810A units meet the service brake requirements of this paragraph? | PM E2S2 | The current braking systems on the MEP-PU-810A Model PPU (when connected to the M915 Tractor) did not meet the 40 feet requirement when tested by ATC (tested at 64 feet). It is up to each Offeror to evaulate the MEP-PU-810A to determine what system modifications are required to meet the requirements outlined in the PD. | |
| PD 6115-0132/2 | 7 | 3.6.1.1 | The service brakes of the PPU chassis (in transport configuration) and proper towing vehicle combination shall control, decelerate and stop the vehicle combination within 40 feet (ft.) [12.2 meters (m)] from a speed of 20 mph (32 km/h) on a dry, hard, level, smooth surface. Application of brakes on all wheels of the PPU chassis shall be concurrent. The PPU chassis brake system shall meet the applicable requirements of 49CFR393.40 and 49CFR571.121 in effect on the date the PPU chassis is recapitalized. | Do the existing MEP-PU-810B units meet the service brake requirements of this paragraph? | PM E2S2 | The current braking system on the MEP-PU-810B Model PPU met this requirement when tested by ATC. It is up to each Offeror to evaulate their proposed solution to determine if system modifications are required to meet the requirements outlined in the PD. | |
| RFP | 109 | Section L | Small Business Participation Plan | The Small Business Partication Plan requires offerors to express small business participation in terms of percentage of total contract value. FAR 52.219-9(d)(1) specifies small business goals are to be expressed in terms of the percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars. Request the government correct the RFP requirement. | Contracting | There are two different requirements. The Small Business Participation Plan has percentages of the total contract value, as referenced in FAR 15.304 . The Subcontracting Plan has percentages of the total planned subcontracting dollars. The RFP will remain as is. Please note that FAR 52.219-9(d)(1) is referring to the offeror’s subcontracting plan and what it shall include. | |
| RFP | 109 | Section L | Small Business Participation Plan | The Small Business Partication Plan states that the goal for small business participation is 23%. The FY 16 DOD small business participation goal is 34.5%. Request the government correct the RFP requirement. | Contracting | The Government has updated the Small Business Participation Plan goal for this acquisition to 21.3% , per the Office of Small Business Programs Prime Contractor Goals found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/sbProgramGoals.shtml. | |
| RFP | 120 | Section M | The DOD has established small business goals as an assistance to assure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards. The goals are as follows: Small Business: 36% of the total contract value; | The FY 16 DOD small business participation goal is 34.5% of total planned subcontracting dollars. Request the government correct the RFP requirement. | Contracting | Small Business Participation Plan is the extent of proposed participation of such firms in terms of the total value of the acquisition. For this acquisition we are using 21.3% , per the Office of Small Business Programs Prime Contractor Goals found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/sbProgramGoals.shtml. | |
| Attach 1 SOW | 50 | 3 | Attach 1 SOW Para 3.13.12 Transportation Costs | ||||
| "When repair or replacement requires transportation of the nonconforming or defective items to the contractor’s facility, the transportation charges to the contractor’s facility and return shall be the responsibility of the contractor. The sites from which the contractor is responsible for transportation of nonconforming or defective items include all CONUS and OCONUS locations. The contractor shall bear all responsibility for the items while in transit." | Attachment 1 SOW paragraph 3.13.12 warranty transportation requirements conflicts with RFP Page 88 Section I-87 (b)(2) "When return, correction, or replacement is required, transportation charges and responsibility for the supplies while in transit shall be borne by the Contractor. However, the Contractors liability for the transportation charges shall not exceed an amount equal to the cost of transportation by the usual commercial method of shipment between the place of delivery specified in this contract and the Contractors plant, and return." Is the contractor responsible for shipping to/from OCONUS locations? If so, please identify locations. | PM E2S2 / Contracting | The awarded vendor will be responsible for transportation charges associated with nonconforming or defective items (both to the contractor facility and back to the user). Due to the ever changing nature of current operations it is impossible for the Government to forecast all possible locations. Offerors should plan at a minimum on Fort Leonard Wood, MO, Fort Bragg, NC, and Fort Belvoir, VA in terms of potential CONUS locations. Overseas (OCONUS) operations are mainly anticipated in the US Pacific Command (PACOM) and Central Command (CENTCOM) areas of responsibility (AOR); with potential mission growth in the European Command (EUCOM) AOR. | ||||
| Attach 1 SOW | 87 | 3.17.1 | The contractor shall be required to have a secret facility clearance with secret safeguarding cpapbility limited to two cubic feet. The contractor shall require access to FOUO information. In performing this contract, the contractor shall receive and store classified information only at the contractor facility. Administrative duties shall not require a clearance, however investigation for IT duties may be required. | Will installation and mechinical personnel require Secret Clearance or background investigations? | PM E2S2 | Installation and mechanical personel that will handle or come into contact with all classified referenced documents such as the specifications for High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) resistance will require a current SECRET clearance. | |
| General | N/A | Various | N/A | Who is the Government contact/sponsor for TAA requests? | PM E2S2 / Contracting | The Government point of contact (POC) for ITAR is Mr. Matthew Curis. (matthew.g.curis.civ@mail.mil); phone: (586)282-5862 |
| PD 6115-0132 | 51 | Table I | |||||
| Test Schedule | Table I Column 3 requires a Maintainability Demostration IAW section 4.7.17 of the PD for all Production Untis. This test is not normally required on production units, can you confirm that this test is required as part of Commissioning Inspection of production units IAW section 4.6 of the PD? | PM E2S2 | The Maintainability Demostration is part of First Article Test Phase (FAT), not the production phase. The Government will remove the 'X' in Column 3, Table I. | ||||
| PD 6115-0132 | 51 | Table I | |||||
| Test Schedule | Table I Column 3 requires a Solar Radiation test in IAW section 4.7.34; MIL-STD-810, TM 505.4, Procedure I of the PD for all Production Untis. This test is not normally required on production units, can you confirm that this test is required as part of Commissioning Inspection of production units IAW section 4.6 of the PD? | PM E2S2 | The Solar Radiation Demostration is part of the FAT Phase, not the production phase. The Government will remove the 'X' in Column 3, Table I. | ||||
| PD 6115-0132 | 51 | Table I | |||||
| Test Schedule | Table I Column 3 requires a Wet Stacking test IAW section 4.7.36 of the PD for all Production Untis. This test is not normally required on production units, can you confirm that this test is required as part of Commissioning Inspection of production units IAW section 4.6 of the PD? | PM E2S2 | The Wet Stacking is part of the FAT Phase, not the production phase. The Government will remove the 'X' in Column 3, Table I. | ||||
| SOW | 102 | Appendix D | First Article Phase Test Matrix | Column 5 - Contractor Tests to be performed on Units C3,D3 requires a paralleling test to be performed with a minimum of 4 PPUs, this will require 2 additional PPUs in addtion to units C3 & D3 to be used to perform this test. Which other PPUs are to be used? | PM E2S2 | Contractor Tests are to be performed on all six (6) FAT units. This ensures systems are fully prepared to enter into Government FAT. The Government will modify Table I to incorporate this change. | |
| PD 6115-0132 | 51 | Table I | |||||
| Test Schedule | Table I Column 3 requires a Short Circuit (Mechanical Strength) test IAW TM 625.1 for all Production Untis. This test is not normally required on production units, can you confirm that this test is required as part of Commissioning Inspection of production units IAW section 4.6 of the PD? | PM E2S2 | The Short Circuit (Mechanical Strength) is part of the FAT Phase, not the production phase. The Government will remove the 'X' in Column 3, Table I. | ||||
| PD 6115-0132 | 51 | Table I | |||||
| Test Schedule | Table I Column 3 requires a Size and Weight test IAW section 4.7.33 of the PD for all Production Untis. This test is not normally required on production units, can you confirm that this test is required as part of Commissioning Inspection of production units IAW section 4.6 of the PD? | PM E2S2 | The units will be weighed as part of the FAT test and are not required to be weighted during production.The Government will remove the 'X' in Column 3, Table I. | ||||
| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | This Opportunity could involve possible foreign manufacturers of material. Will you please identify the government point of contact for ITAR purposes? | PM E2S2 | The Government point of contact (POC) for ITAR is Mr. Matthew Curis. (matthew.g.curis.civ@mail.mil); phone: (586)282-5862 |
| RFP | 104 | Section L | Solicitation W909MY-16-R-H002, Section L., Paragraph 2a. Page 104 of 121 refers to “the page counts in Table 1”. Should this be Table 6? | PM E2S2/ Contracting | Yes, Table 6 is correct. Section L has been updated . |
| RFP | 104 | Section L | Solicitation W909MY-16-R-H002, Section L., Paragraph 2b. Page 104 of 121 refers to “ electronic proposal in six (6) separate files.” Should this read: electronic proposal in six (6) separate volumes with 14 separate files titled as stated in Table 7? | PM E2S2/ Contracting | Yes, the reference should read "six (6) separate volumes with Thirteen (13) separate files". |
| SOW | 23 | Para 3.8.2(b) | Section 3.8.2; it states “b. The TDP Level shall be produced IAW paragraph 4.2 of MIL-STD-31000.” Paragraph 4.2 of MIL-STD-31000 has three options, a) Conceptual level, b) development level and c) Production level. Its assumed to be c) Production level, please confirm. | PM E2S2 | Yes, production level drawings are required. See para 3.8.1, and box 1.A of Appendix C TDP Worksheet. |
| SOW | 97 | Appendix C | Appendix C of Attachment 0001 Box 2A specifies 2D DRAWINGS (not 3D MODELS AND 2D DRAWINGS); However, Box 7 has ASME Y14.41 checked. Paragraph 1.2 of Y14.41 states the following; “This Standard supports two methods of preparing a data set: model only, and model and drawing graphic sheet.”This is clearly in disagreement with the requirement for 2D DRAWINGS only, as specified in Box 2A. Please confirm that only 2D drawings are required for submittal. | PM E2S2 | Box 2A of Appendix C, (TDP Worksheet), is incorrect. The "x" should be moved from "Type 2D: 2D Drawings" to " Type 3D: 3D Models With Associated 2D Drawings." These changes have been incorporated into Appendix C. |
| SOW | 7 | Para 2.3 | Statement of Work Attachment one section 2.3 references PD 6115-0132, 21 July 2015; while the document provided is PD6115-0132, 16 May 2016. Please confirm 16 May 2016 is the correct revision. | PM E2S2 | 16 May 2016 is the correct date for PD 6115-0132. The SOW has been corrected to reflect this change. |
| RFP | 104 & 108 | Section L, Table 6 | RFP Section L, page 104, Table 6 and Page 108, Subsection c. indicates a requirement for Proposal Text for the Volume III Price Proposal; however, there is no assigned file name in Table 7 on page 104 for this proposal text. | Please provide desired file name for Price Proposal text. | Contracting | The Governmnet has revised the requirements in Section L, Table 6. Please see the revised RFP |
| RFP | 106 | Section L, Subsection B | RFP Section L, page 106, Subsection b. TDP within Volume III Price directs the offeror to propose DPGDS PPU Government Technical Data Package and submit it in Microsoft Excel 2007 format as further described in this subsection. There is no file name within Table 7 on page 104 specific to the TDP BOM. | Please provide desired file name for the TDP BOM or indicate which other named file this information should be included. | Contracting | The TDP information should be included in the TDP.xls file referenced in Section L, Table 7. Please see the revised RFP. |
| RFP | Price Model | The Volume III price model shows entries are expected in the Unit Cost cells where the Evaluation Weight is 120% (assumed to be the ceiling percentage), but the calculation of the Total for those rows pulls from the Unit Price cells. | Is the Government’s intention to calculate the Total from Unit Cost or Unit Price for evaluation? | Contracting | The Government has corrected the formula in cells K3, K4, K5, and K7 to pull from Unit Cost cells. | |
| SOW | Para 3.2.3.1 | The units projected for the first production phase delivery order have been determined to require minimal corrosion mitigation (SOW paragraph 3.2.3.1). | Have the six FAT units been determined to also require minimal corrosion mitigation? | PM E2S2 | Yes, the six (6) MEP-PU-810s that will be used for FAT will require minimal corrosion mitigation. | |
| SOW | Para 3.2.3.1 | Are offerors to calculate the FAT units and Ordering Period 1 units as requiring minimal corrosion mitigation and the remaining option period units requiring either moderate or substantial corrosion mitigation? | PM E2S2 | In regards to corrosion, Offerors shall calculate their pricing as outlined in the SOW (60% shall require minimal corrosion mitigation; 30% shall require moderate corrosion mitigation; and 10% shall require substantial corrosion control mitigation). | ||
| SOW | 155 | Appendix L | Item 86 on page 155 reads 360 DAW - SOW text/CDRLs read 390 DAW – please clarify | Please clarify | PM E2S2 | Item 86 (Third Drawing Submission Government Review) should be 390 DAW. The Government has corrected the solicitation accordingly. This item has been rearranged chronologically and is now item 88. |
| SOW | 156 | Appendix L | Item 122 on page 156 reads 510 DAW – SOW text/CDRLs read 540 DAW – please clarify | Please clarify | PM E2S2 | Item 122 (Government review of the second submittal of the Assemblies and Componets Data Listing) should be 540 DAW. The Government has corrected the solicitation accordingly. |
| SOW | In Section B, FOB Destination is specified for the production units and FAT units. However, in the SOW, it states “The Government shall be responsible for the shipping costs associated with the movements of the MEP810 units. Movement shall include the shipment to and from the factory to final destination determined by the government.” | Please clarify. | PM E2S2 | The shipping costs associated with the movement of the MEP-PU-810 PPUs shall be incurred by the Government. The Government will arrange shipment of units from the production facility once the DD250 is signed by representatives from DCMA. | ||
| SOW | CDRL A018 | Exhibit A, CDRL A018 states in the second paragraph of block 16 that the first submission of the LORA shall be 60 DAW. In the fourth paragraph of block 16 it states that the first submission of the LORA shall be 180 DAW which is in agreement with 3.14.1.3.1.1.a of the SOW. | Can the Government confirm that 180 DAW is the correct date for the first submission of the LORA? | PM E2S2 | The First Submission of the Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) is required at 180 DAW. The Government has corrected CDRL A018. | |
| SOW | CDRL A023 | Exhibit A, CDRL A023 states in the last paragraph of block 16 that the third and final submission of the RPSTL is due 960 DAW and that the Government will provide comments on this submission 945 DAW. In section 3.14.4.2.c of the SOW it states that the third and final submission of the RPSTL is due 930 DAW and that Government comments are due 945 DAW. | Please advise on the correct dates for the third and final submission of the RPSTL and when Government comments are due. | PM E2S2 | The third and final submission of the RPSTL is 960 DAW; and Government comments are due 975 DAW. The Government has corrected CDRL A023 and the SOW to reflect these changes. | |
| SOW | CDRL A035 | Exhibit A, CDRL A035, block 16, Item 4 states “First submittal shall be due 10 days after Government acceptance.” | Please advise as to which acceptance is being referenced. | PM E2S2 | Block 12: First submittal to the IUID data base shall be due 10 days after Government acceptance of the report. | |
| PD 6115 - 0132 | Attachment 0002/ Section 4.7.4.6 | In Attachment 0002, PD 6115-0132, Section 4.7.4.6 Procedure 6. – RE102, radiated emissions, electric field, 10 kHz to 18 GHz, it is required that we not exceed all emission levels in Figures RE102-1 through RE102-4. However, those are all vastly different application-specific limits. For example, RE102-1 shows the limits for surface ships for equipment either topside or below deck. RE102-2 is for submarines applications, and RE102-3 is for aircraft and space applications. RE102-4 is for ground applications, which is intended more for this type of application. Internal to RE102-4 there are two emissions thresholds, Navy Fixed and Air Force, or Navy Mobile and Army. | Would the Government consider revising the requirements to reflect the intended RE102 threshold for ground application? | PM E2S2 | Section 4 of the PD does not define requirements. It defines testing requirements. Performance requirements are stated in section 3, paragraph 3.11. The requirement we are talking about is the RE102 as defined in para 517 for ground equipment of MIL-STD 461. The graph has a frequency requirement of 2 MHz to 18 GHz for ground equipment and is depicted on the graph.Our testing requirement, PD paragraph 4.7.4.6, requires checking the spectrum from 10 kHz to 18 GHz. Of that spectrum only the 2 MHz to 18 GHz counts as the requirement. Therefore, requirement excursions below 2 MHz do not count as a failure. | |
| RFP | Section L.2 | Section L, 2. Proposal Files, Subsection a. states PLEASE NOTE: No price information shall be presented in Volumes I, II, IV or VI. Since Section B within the Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents includes CLIN pricing, may we assume the note is incorrect with regard to including price information in Volume VI? | Contracting | This is correct. The Government has updated the RFP to reflect that no price information shall be presented in Volumes I, II or IV. | ||
| RFP | Section L.2.c | Section L, 2.c (Volume II) c, requires submission of a Program Management Plan, a detailed Work Breakdown Structure and an Integrated Master Schedule. These documents could exceed the page limit for the entire Volume II. There is no CDRL requirement for a Program Management Pan. | Is the Government expecting an abbreviated presentation of these items within the Volume II narrative to meet the page limitations or complete documents to be included as attachments and excluded from page count? | Contracting/E2S2 | The Page count has increased for the Techincal Volume. The Government is seperating into two volumes (IIA and IIB) for a total combined 100 pages for the techincal submission. The Government has modified Section L accordingly. | |
| RFP | 106 | Regarding the FPIFT portion of the solicitation, page 106 provides for pricing of the First Article Phase with an incentive share ratio of 30 (Government) / 70 (Contractor) for underruns and 50/50 for overruns, up to the contract ceiling and a ceiling of 120% of the target cost. On page 4, Section B, it states that the fee payable under this contract shall be the target fee increased by 30 cents for every dollar that the total allowable cost is less than the target cost or decreased by 50 cents for every dollar that the total allowable cost exceeds the target cost. | May we assume the page 4 amount of ’30 cents’ is incorrect and should have been ’70 cents’? | Contracting | Correct, the RFP has been updated. | |
| RFP | CLINS 1008, 2008, 3008, 4008, 5008 & 6008 | Regarding training CLINS 1008, 2008,3008, 4008, 5008 and 6008 for the option years, would the Government please provide clarity on what training courses are required for each of the option years and how many iterations of each course are to be conducted each year? | PM E2S2 | Required training is outlined in SOW paragraph 3.14.9.2 (Training Course Requirements). Separate CLINs for the Instructor and Key Personnel Training (IKPT), Operator Course, and Field and Sustainment Maintenance Course have been added to Section B for Ordering Period 1 and Option Periods 1-5. | ||
| PD 6115 - 0132 | Attachment 002, para 3.5.29.1 | Attachment 0002, Requirement 3.5.29.1.a states Capacity of the tank shall remain at 120 gallons…the PPU shall be capable of operating for 2 hours at 100% of rated load on all primary fuels. While requirement 3.5.1.10 lists the fuel consumption to be a maximum of 30 gallons per hour per engine. | We have found that engines of this Tier rating, size and power requirement have higher consumption rates than 30 gallons/hour. Is it possible to revise the requirement 3.5.1.10 to be 35 gallons/hour and remove the requirement on the fuel tank to remain at 120 gallons? This will allow offerors to propose a wider breadth of options by proposing a higher consumption engine and larger fuel capacity, but maintain the JP-8 2-hour operational requirement. | PM E2S2 | The Government's requirement is to reduce fuel consumption on the battlefield. It is up to each Offeror to determine the best approach to meet this requirement. The threshold requirement for the recapitalization effort is 30 gallons/per engine at full load as outlined in paragraph 3.5.1.10 for an 800 kW PPU. The 120 Gal tank requirement will be removed from the PD. |
| PD 6115 - 0132 | Attachment 0002, section 3.5.1.10 | Will the Government raise the threshold fuel consumption listed in Attachment 0002, Section 3.5.1.10 to 35 gallons per hour? | PM E2S2 | No. The Governments goal is to reduce fuel consumption on the battlefield. |
| PD 6115 - 0132 | Attachment 0002, Section 3.5.29.1 | Will the Government remove the requirement in Attachment 0002, Section 3.5.29.1.a for the fuel tank to be 120 gallons? | PM E2S2 | To clarify, the requirement is a fuel tank with sufficient capacity to allow a PPU to operate for 2 hours at 100% of rated load, (on all primary fuels specified in paragraph 3.7.3) without refueling. |
| RFP | Price Model Attachment 008 | The CLIN descriptions and range quantities for several CLINs (1006, 1008, etc.) listed on Attachment 8 do not correlate to the CLIN descriptions and range quantities in Section B. | Please clarify. | Contracting | The Government has included the ranges to Winterization Kit CLINs |
| RFP | Price Model Attachment 008 | Attachment 8 is password protected and cannot be modified. There are several errors preventing appropriate calculations. For example, the "total" field of each CLIN (0001-0006) is a formula in Column K which multiplies columns C, G, and E. There is no way to enter a price in column E, which prevents the CLIN "total" from calculating. Please provide a corrected Attachment 8. Additionally, formatting is missing from the unit price column, which creates difficulty in review of number accuracy. Recommend formatting which is appropriate for each value type be included in the corrected Attachment 8. | Contracting | The Government unlocked the spreadsheet; added currency formating to Price Column; and fixed the formula(s) in cells K3, K4, K5, and K7 |
| RFP | 105-109 | Section L | Guidance on Past Performance Volume Structure Confusing. The general guidance for Volume content on Page 105 and the subsequent Volume specific guidance on pages 105-109 do not appear consistent. The guidance for Volume content as specified on Page 105 in in the Solicitation at Section L, paragraph 2.c (Content Requirements), states: "Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file." Yet the guidance for the Past Performance Volume at Section L, Volume IV of the Solicitation (page 108) states: "This volume shall be organized into the following Chapters: …..” It goes on to list the four Chapters and the contents required in each, but there is no mention of this Volume requiring a “Table of Contents”, "Brief Abstract" or “Narrative.” We would presume that the “Narrative” section is covered under the four Chapters. | Please confirm or clarify whether or not a “Table of Contents and “Brief Abstract” is required. If they are not required and we provide a “Table of Contents” and “Brief Abstract” is that acceptable? | Contracting | Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Narrative discussion of the Past Performance Volume would be the Chapter requirements outlined in the volume. |
| SOW | 4 & 115 | Para 1.b.3 and Price Model | Clarification of Evaluated Contract Price versus Price Model Spreadsheet. Paragraph 1.b.3 of the SOW requires pricing for delivery of complete Technical Data Package(s) for MEP Model 810C/D models in the CLIN 1004/A001. This pricing is to be reflected in Line A001 on Attachment 0008 – Price Model spreadsheet. The Price Model spreadsheet (Attachment 0008) includes Item A001 (Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists (TDP)) as part of the Total Price in the Price Model Excel worksheet. Based on this we would assume that the Evaluated Contract Price (ECP) includes CLIN A001. However, Section M.C.3.c of the Solicitation specifies: "The Evaluated Contract Price (ECP) will represent the sum total of all evaluated prices for Contract Line Item Numbers and Subline Item Numbers (0001-0003, 0005-0006, 1001-1008, 2001-2008, 3001-3008, 4001-4008, and 5001-5008, 6001-6008) in Attachment 0008 Price Model. ECP evaluation will consider the information submitted in response to Section L including the top-level spreadsheets." The pricing for A001 is thus omitted in this definition of the Evaluated Contract Price, but it is included in the Price Model Excel worksheet. | We believe this is a simple editorial oversight and that the A001 price should be included in the definition of the Evaluated Contract Price. If indeed it was the Government's intent not to price the CLIN A001 (TDP) in the Evaluated Contract Price then the calculations for the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) are confusing because the formula is "adjusting" for a price (A001) that isn't even in the Evaluated Contract Price. The consequence of this would be to have subtracted the TDP Price (A001) from the ECP essentially twice – once by omitting in the ECP and second in the TDP Adjustment. | Contracting | The Government will include A001 in the definition of evaluated contract price. This section has been amended to reflect this change. |
| RFP | 6 & 106 | Section B & Section L, VOL III | Clarification of Technical Data Package Terms and Consistency. There is potential confusion between the use of the term "Technical Data Package" as used in context of the required submission/pricing of the TDP in CLIN A001 of the Solicitation (which applies to the actual TDP being delivered as part of the proposal), and the use of the term "Technical Data Package Adjustment" as used in Section L, Volume III (Price). In the former, the CLIN requires a traditional TDP (IAW DFAR clauses) that represents a documented TDP (with rights included, and preferably expanded as much as possible) for use in production control and configuration management as well as the baseline TDP for potential future procurement efforts. However in the Solicitation at Section L Volume III b., the request for an optional proposal for a "TDP Adjustment" appears to have a different connotation. In this Section we believe that what the Government seeks is an analysis of the TDP data rights -- beyond those mandatory in Federal Regulations and beyond that offered in the TDP of CLIN A001. Assuming we are correct, we have the following additional questions: | For clarity, can you explain the use of the reference to "tab(s)." Does this mean that we may submit several alternative TDP data rights approaches, each with a separate Bill of Material (as defined in the Solicitation) and Listing of Assertions Summary? | Contracting | No, The offeror may submit one worksheet for each configuration with one TDP data rights approach. |
| Are Part 1 and Part 2 of the TDP Adjustment proposal to be included on the same Option Tab? Thus each Tab represents a different offer, and contains both Part 1 and 2. | Contracting | This is no longer applicable since the evaluation factor has been modified. Refer to section L of the solicitation | ||||
| The Part 2 must be signed and dated IAW the instructions in Section L. If Part 2 is in the Tab on the Excel spreadsheet with the BOM, should it be digitally signed, or printed/converted to PDF, signed and included in the Price Volume? | Contracting | The Excel spreadsheet can be digitially signed. Refer to section L of the solicitation | ||||
| Solicitation, Volume III, b, 4 (Incorporation of Proposed TDP Data Rights) states: "The Offeror selected for award will have its proposed TDP Option BOM incorporated into Section J of the Contract. If the TDP Option is exercised, then the Contractor shall deliver a TDP in accordance with the Statement of Work and Contract Data Requirements List A001." | Contracting | Answers begin on row 75 of this document. | ||||
| Does this mean that if the TDP Option is exercised the pricing of the CLIN A001 remains the same but that the expanded rights that might be different under the TDP Adjustment Option would be incorporated in the final Contract? Said alternatively, if the Option is selected only the rights would be adjusted, but no pricing of the CLIN A001. | Contracting | The proposed TDP CLIN 0004, SLIN A001 pricing and listed data rights will not be adjusted for award, the proposed price will only be adjusted for evaluation purposes. The Government is looking for one TDP with data rights sufficient to support competition that are greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled under applicable law, regulation, or contract. Please see revised sections L and M of the RFP. | ||||
| Solicitation, Volume III, b, 4 (Incorporation of Proposed TDP Data Rights): if only the expanded rights are changed, how does the Offeror account for any additional pricing associated with the expanded rights proposed in the TDP Adjustment? The TDP Option under the TDP Adjustment asks only for the BOM and Assertions. If the expanded rights require additional costs, how does the Offeror get reimbursed for these expanded rights coverage in the TDP if there is only one Pricing for the TDP (in CLIN A001). | Contracting | The expanded rights, if desired to provide to the Government, should be proposed at the time of proposal submission, and part of the Offeror's proposed cost for CLIN 0004, SLIN A001. There are no additional TDPs being requested; only one TDP should be proposed. | ||||
| RFP | 6 & 106 | Section B & Section L, VOL III | Please provide additional information or clarification on the relationship between CLIN Pricing in A001 and the additional Option TDP in the TDP Adjustment section. | Contracting | CLIN 0004, SLIN A001 is an optional CLIN the Government reserves the right to exercise. There is no optional TDP in addition to the requested TDP under CLIN 0004, SLIN A001. This is the same TDP that will be adjusted for evaluation purposes. Section L of the RFP has been revised. | |
| RFP | 106 | Section L, VOL II.b | Definition of Technical Data Package Option. In the Solicitation, Section L, Volume II, b, it states: "The Offeror shall identify a proposed option to deliver rights in technical data greater than the right to which the Government is already entitled…. The optional rights shall be sufficient to support future full and open competitive acquisition for the entire DPGDS." | Is the TDP provided as part of CLIN A001 considered to be the "option" with full and open competitive acquisition for the DPGDS? Or does the "option" mean to provide in Volume II b. an alternative TDP Option to that already priced in CLIN A001? Said alternatively, is the TDP in CLIN A001 already intended to be the TDP with the most expanded rights possible? Please explain, confirm or clarify. | Contracting | The TDP in CLIN 0004, SLIN A001 is intended to be the TDP with data rights sufficient to support competition that are greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled under applicable law, regulation, or contract. Section L of the RFP has been revised. |
| RFP | 106 | Section L, VOL II.b.3 | Declining to Propose. In the Solicitation, Section L, Volume III, b.3 it states: "Should the Offeror elect to decline to propose an option for the Government to acquire additional rights…, the Offeror shall submit this intent in writing in place of the TDP Proposal." | If the Offeror's CLIN A001 (as priced in the Price Model) is already a TDP that supports the Government's expanded rights we assume this is not a "declination to propose" since we have already provided the maximum rights possible. We would assume that the CLIN A001 price would then be used as the "highest proposed TDP price" (in accordance with Section M.C.3.g.1)) | Contracting | The word "highest" has been removed with regards to the "highest proposed TDP price." Per DFARS 227.7103-1, the Government cannot mandate Offerors propose a TDP for competitive rights in technical data greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled; as such, if Offerors decline to propose then CLIN A001 would not be priced. Please remember that the Government’s goal of acquiring data rights to support future full and open competitive acquisitions is not a condition of award, rather it will be considered in the source selection decision. |
| RFP | 116 | Section M.C.3.g.1 | TDP Options Pricing. In the Solicitation at Section M.C.3.g.1) it states: "Evaluated TDP Prices: The evaluated TDP included in the Evaluated Contract Price will equal will equal the highest proposed TDP price by the Offeror." | What is meant by the "highest proposed TDP price"? The TDP price is included in CLIN A001 in the Price Model. The instructions at Solicitation, Section L, Volume III, b. require a spreadsheet with a Bill of Materials (Part 1) and a Listing of Assertion of Restrictions (Part 2), but there is no requirement or request for pricing here, so the entire proposal has only one TDP price, which is included in CLIN A001. Please confirm or clarify. | Contracting | The word "highest" has been removed with regards to the "highest proposed TDP price." Please see the revised RFP. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .