Solicitation QA_Final_211027.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Third Generation Forward Looking Infrared (3GEN FLIR) Dewar Cooler Bench (DCB) Solicitation Amendment 0003
- Solicitation number
- W909MY-22-R-0001
About this file
This document summarizes questions from industry regarding a solicitation for the Third Generation Forward Looking Infrared (3GEN FLIR) Dewar Cooler Bench (DCB) Low Rate Initial Production program. The solicitation seeks proposals for the production of DCB hardware lots and associated engineering services. Hardware options include Lots 1 through 8 to be awarded over a 48-month base period. Lot 1 or 2 will be awarded approximately 8 months after contract award, with deliveries starting around 18 months later. Lot 7 or 8 will be awarded approximately 8 months after contract award, with deliveries starting around 16 months later. The cost-reimbursable contract issued by the Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground will include firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract line item numbers. Proposals were due by November 22, 2021.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
DCB Solicitation Questions & Government Responses
| Reference | Comment | Government Response |
| Solicitation Notification on SAM.gov | Base award planned in Q3 USGFY 22, we take this to be the LLM award only (we are using June CY22 for planning purposes as this has previously been communicated in the Industry Day) | Correct. Contract award will include funding for LLM for either Lot 1 or Lot 2. Either Lot 1 or Lot 2 will be ordered ~8 months later. |
| Solicitation Section B, Page 5 | This clarifies that LLM is specifically tied to Lot 1 and Lot 2 only (this was also clearly conveyed in the Industry Day) | Correct. Funding for LLM applies to either Lot 1 or Lot 2. LLM ordered will be based on either lot 1 or lot 2. |
| Solicitation Section A, Page 2 | The Period of Performance paragraph indicates: |
o Lot 1/2 will be awarded ~8 months into the base period (we interpret that to mean after LLM award), and that deliveries will start after 13 months of procurement/build (FAI execution prior to start of deliveries is not mentioned in this section) o Lot 7/8 will also be awarded ~8 months into the base period, and that deliveries will start after 12 months of procurement/build o Per this section, it appears that despite Lot 7/8 not having accommodations for LLM they would start delivery roughly 1 month before Lot 1/2 deliveries Refer to the revised schedule per Amendment 0001.
o Correct, either Lot 1 or Lot 2 will be ordered ~8 months after contract award. Deliveries will start ~18 months after either Lot 1 or Lot 2 is ordered (June CY24). This includes ~4 months for FAT.
o Either Lot 7 or Lot 8 will be ordered ~8 months after contract award. Deliveries will start ~16 months after either Lot 7 or Lot 8 is ordered (Apr CY24).
o Correct, LLM applied to either Lot 1 or Lot 2 only. Deliveries will start ~16 months after either Lot 7 or Lot 8 is ordered (Apr CY24).
• Solicitation Section L, Page 76 – Volume I, Subfactor 1, paragraph a) o States Lot 1/2 awarded “approximately 1 2 months after contract award” The first question is there is a space between 1 and 2 in this sentence. Can the Government clarify whether this is intended as 1-2 months after LLM award? Or ½ months? Or 12 months?
Regardless of the clarification around the space between 1 and 2, this appears to be in conflict with PoP timing mentioned earlier in Section A, Page 2 (which indicates ~8 months) o States Lot 7/8 will be awarded ~8 months after contract award (which matches the PoP working in Section A, Page 2) o States Lot 8 deliveries span an 11 month period, which matches Table 8 in PWS; however, in the next sentence it states that this will be a 27 month effort (15 months for material receipt / build and “12 month delivery”)… We assume 11 months shown in PWS is correct.
o However, it also states that Lot 7/8 will start delivery after 15 months of procurement (versus the PoP language in Section A, Page 2 which says 12 months) o Either Lot 1 or Lot 2 will be ordered ~8 months after contract award. Section A page 2 of the solicitation is correct. Section L has been corrected per Amendment 0001.
o Either Lot 7 or Lot 8 will be ordered ~8 months after contract award. Deliveries will start ~16 months after either Lot 7 or Lot 8 is ordered (Apr CY24).
o Lot 7 and Lot 8 deliveries are 11 months in duration, not 12. The solicitation will be corrected.
Total effort for Lot 7 and Lot 8 is 26 months, which includes 16 months for material receipt/build and 11 months for delivery.
o Either Lot 7 or Lot 8 will be ordered ~8 months after contract award. Deliveries will start ~16 months after either Lot 7 or Lot 8 is ordered (Apr CY24).
PWS Section 3.1.7 Procurement Option tables o The cumulative row for the Lot 1/2 tables in the PWS calculate differently than those for Lots 3-8. Lots 1/2 calculate a rolling cumulative value month over month, while the others calculate cumulative within each month. We recommend a common approach be used for calculating cumulative across all Tables 1-8.
o Table 1 and 2 indicate their deliveries will start in June CY24 (which would nominally be 24 months after base award) o Table 7 and 8 indicate their deliveries will start in April CY24 (2 months before Lots 1/2 and 22 months after base award) o These don’t match either of the Solicitation Section L conflicts mentioned above o Cumulative rows have been updated per Amendment 0001 to reflect both Monthly total plus cumulative total.
o Correct, Lot 1/ Lot 2 award is ~8 months after contract award. Deliveries will start ~18 months after award of Lot 1/ Lot 2 (June CY24). This includes ~4 months for FAT.
o Lot 7/ Lot 8 award is ~8 months after contract award. Deliveries will start ~16 months after award of Lot 7/ Lot 8 (Apr CY24).
o The solicitation has been updated via Amendment 0001 accordingly.
General Question The above conflicts should be clarified but the question we are also trying to answer is whether it is really the intent for Lot 7/8 deliveries to precede Lot 1/2 deliveries despite not having the 8 month LLM procurement head start that Lot 1/2 would have?
o If the answer to this question is yes, could the Government confirm they expect the vendor is responsible for ordering long lead material Lot 7/8 at risk to support the schedule?
Yes, either Lot 7 or Lot 8 deliveries will start prior to either Lot 1 or Lot 2 deliveries. Lot 7/ Lot 8 award is ~8 months after contract award. Deliveries will start ~16 months after award of Lot 7/ Lot 8 (Apr CY24).
o There is no expectation that the vendor would procure long lead material for either Lot 7 or Lot 8 at risk. The total effort for either Lot 7 or Lot 8 is 26 months (includes 16 months for material receipt/build and 11 months for deliver) and start ~8 months after award and the solicitation has been via Amendment 0001 corrected to reflect this schedule. It is the Government's expectation that the vendor's proposal and manufacturing lead times will satisfy the various DCB options defined in the solicitation.
| Solicitation, Section A, Articles 5 and 6 | Our core assumption is that costs for testing, FAT/qualification, RCCAs for FAT/qual failures, associated CDRLs, design, development, engineering services and NRE are covered under the cost reimbursable CLIN. Please confirm. | Correct, all efforts funded under the Services section of the PWS, para 3.4, will be funded under CPFF Services CLIN 0004. |
| Section B. Period of Performance | The solicitation includes seemingly contradictory requirements for the PoP and delivery schedule for Lots 1, 2, 7 and 8. We respectfully request clarification of these two items and updates to the document to ensure consistency:1. When will Lot 7/8 be awarded?2. What is the total PoP associated with Lots 7 and 8?3. When are the first deliveries for Lots 1 ,2, 7 and 8 due to the Government?4. Is the Government's intent for Lots 7 and 8 deliveries to start before completion of FAT? | See updated schedule provided with Amendment 0001 that outlines the new timing of Lots 1-8. |
| Industry day slide package: "3GEN FLIR DCB LRIP Industry Day - Brief - 27 July 2021" | There are conflicts in the schedule. Please update the Excel calendar showing awards, deliveries and Long Lead funding in the same format as presented in the industry day briefing. | See updated schedule provided with Amendment 0001 that outlines the new timing of Lots 1-8. |
| 2. Proposal Files | The solicitation references unclassified specifications MIL-PRF-A3381783, MIL-PRF-A3381784, and MIL-PRF-A3381785. We respectfully request a detailed summary of changes compared to the EMD specifications MIL-PRF-A3347043, MIL-PRF-A3347044, and MIL-PRF-A3347045. | Changes to the 3GEN FLIR technical documents from EMD to LRIP have already been discussed as part of pre-LRIP RFP solicitation Request for Information (RFI) W909MY-21-R-C010 effort. Access to these documents is granted through the Corporate Management System (CMS) II under the 3GEN FLIR LRIP Reading Room. Refer to Section A, paragraph 9, Document Access, of the Solicitation for instructions on requests for access. |
| Section L - Small Business Participation Plan | Our company currently has a Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan that illustrates a company-wide commitment to small business utilization. Is it acceptable to use and submit that plan in lieu of the small business participation plan requirements outlined in the RFP? | No. A company's Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan will not meet the Solicitation and Contract requirements; a Small Business Participation Plan is required as part of all proposals. If the SBPP is not included, your proposal will be considered incomplete and will not be evaluated. |
| Section L - Past Performance | The large number of our contracts that fit the relevancy test will not allow us to comply with the 25 page limit for the Past Performance Volume. Is it acceptable to submit only the most relevant 20-30 contracts based on the criteria? Additionally, a large portion of the contracts are internal customers or inter-organizational transfers. Is it appropriate to list internal contracts as well? | The page limit to the Past Performance Volume is 25 pages. The Contractor can submit only relevant contracts based on the criteria. |
| Section M / A. Basis of Award (Section M) | The relative importance of the Past Performance rating is not explicitly identified. Is the Past Performance rating relative importance incorporated in, "All evaluation factors other than Cost / Price, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost / Price factor."? | Section M, Basis for Award (solicitation p. 83 of 89) has been revised in Amendment 0001 to read "The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Cost / Price factor, which is significantly more important than the Past Performance factor, which is significantly more important than the Small Business Participation factor." The sentence "All evaluation factors other than Cost / Price, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost / Price factor" is unchanged, and does incorporate the Technical, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation factors. |
| 2.0 Applicable Documents | Section 2.0 Applicable Documents references the 3GEN FLIR DCB specifications that were applicable for EMD (MIL-PRF-A3347043, MIL-PRF-A3347044, MIL-PRF-A3347045, MIL-PRF-A3347057). We believe the appropriate specifications for this LRIP proposal should be the following: MIL-PRF-A3381783, MIL-PRF-A3381784, MIL-PRF-A3381785, and MIL-PRF-A3381786 (which are referenced in the Solicitation). Please confirm and update the PWS. | The PWS has been updated via Amendment 0001 to reflect the following: |
2.1.1. Specifications:
• MIL-PRF-A3381785 Performance Specification for the 3GEN FLIR Dewar Cooler Bench (DCB)
• MIL-PRF-A3381786 Classified Performance Specification for the 3GEN FLIR DCB
2.1.1.3. Drawings:
• A3381783 3GEN FLIR Dewar Cooler Bench (DCB) Mechanical Drawing
2.1.1.4. Interface Control Documents:
• A3381784 3GEN FLIR DCB Interface Control Document
| 3.4.2.2 Re-qualification Testing | Per 3.4.2.2 Re-qualification Testing, criteria that could necessitate a re-qualification include "When a component (any part listed as a deliverable in the contract) has not been manufacturing within 12 months." A period of time >12 months will have passed between the end of EMD and the planned LRIP award. It is our understanding that only First Article Test (FAT) will be required at the beginning of the LRIP contract due to the break in production, and not a complete Qualification Verification as defined in the VCRM. Please confirm. | Yes, only a FAT is required and NOT a complete Qualification Verification. FAT is identified in the Verification Cross Reference Matrix (VCRM) in the DCB performance specification. The language in PWS paragraph 3.4.2.2 regarding a component not being delivered > 12 months is intended to address additional re-qualification testing against DCB performance specifications not addressed by the VCRM that may be required due to the extended production break of the said component. |
| VCRM | In the MIL-PRF-A3381785 VCRM, requirements 3.2.5.7.8 DCB Dwell Time and 3.4.2 Electronics and Electrical Interfaces are identified as requirements to be verified as part of First Article Test (FAT). If a company has previously completed software formal qualification test (FQT) is there a requirement to redo FQT as part of the LRIP? The requirement as currently written can be interpreted to require a redo. If the Government agrees that no redo is required, please confirm and/or update the requirement appropriately. | The FAT requirement for MIL-PRF-A3381785 VCRM for 3.2.5.7.8 DCB Dwell Time and 3.4.2 Electronics and Electrical Interfaces are Analysis (A). If the vendor has SW FQT activities from previous efforts for these two requirements that exceeds the Analysis requirement, then the FAT requirement has been satisfied. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .