Repsonse to Attachment_ 0004 Questions and Answers (1).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W909MY-24-R-0008
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document addressing inquiries about a draft IFB for Power Distribution Illumination Systems, Electrical (PDISE) under solicitation W909MY-24-R-0008. The Q&A covers technical and procedural aspects of the procurement, which will be a five-year, Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ contract set aside for small businesses.
Key clarifications include: only one electronic version of each volume is required for submission via DoD SAFE; the Table of Contents and Summary are excluded from page counts; provisioning materials like PPL, EDFP, and TMs are already developed; First Article Testing requires 6 months for fabrication and 6 months for testing; and while robust configuration management requirements are included, no major Engineering Change Proposals are anticipated for this build-to-print effort. The procurement covers M40 A/P Distribution System, M100 A/P and M200 A/P Electrical Feeder Systems, and M46 Electrical Utility Assembly for use at military bases worldwide. Technical Data Packages will be provided to vendors upon request through SAFE.apps.mil.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| B08 W909MY-25-B-0001 draft IFB V.2.pdf | ||
| B08-W909MY-25-B-0001 Draft IFB.pdf | ||
| Attachment 0002 Revised Price Model.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 0001 PDISE REBUY SOW FINAL V.1 02 AUG 2024 Updated Version.docx | DOCX document | |
| DRAFT IFB W909MY24R0008 PDISE SECTION L AND M.pdf | ||
| Attachment 0003_ Questions Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
Questions
| Item # | Page / Section Number | Description | Question /Recommendation | Government Response |
| Section L&M | ||||
| 1 | 6 - Section L | submission | Will a DoD SAFE link be provided for the submission? | The government will provide the Request a Drop off with DoD SAFE and instruction in the revised draft IFB. |
| 2 | 6 - Section L | submission | Are 2 electronic versions of each volume required? | Please see Section L of the updated IFB. Only one electronic version of each volume is required. |
| 3 | 6 - Section L | typo | Suggest changing submission title for Volume 1 to "Volume 1 - Technical Proposal" | Please see Section L of the updated IFB. |
| 4 | 6 - Section L | no volume III | There is no suggested title listed or format required for Volume III | Please see Section L of the updated IFB. |
| 5 | General | Will the table of contents and summary count against the page count requirement | The Table of Contents and Summary are excluded from the page count. The summary shall be a brief and limited to 5 pages. The summary shall only included information abstracted from the Volume's narrative. | |
| SOW | ||||
| 1 | SOW - Attachment 1 | Provisioning Requirements Statement | Required PPL, EDFP, TMs, MAC and RPSTL but there is no pricing line. Are these already developed and not required? | As the systems in question are fully matured, the development of provisioning material, including the Provisioning Parts List (PPL), Engineering Data For Provisioning (EDFP), Technical Manuals (TMs), Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC), and Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL), is not required at this stage. These documents and materials have already been developed during prior phases of the program, ensuring that they meet all necessary specifications and requirements. |
Attachment 1, which is included with this response, provides reference documentation to confirm the completion of these items. Since the systems are fully mature, no additional provisioning or material development is necessary, and these items are considered finalized.
| 2 | SOW 3.3 | FA | Where will the FA be delivered if testing is the responsibility of the contractor? | The location for the delivery and testing of the FA (First Article) units will be at the contractor’s discretion, based on their internal testing and quality assurance processes. The contractor is responsible for ensuring that the FA units meet all the operational and functional requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) and in compliance with the relevant standards such as MIL-DTL-53126. |
| 3 | SOW 3.5.1 | CIVR | Will the CIVR be completed before testing begins? | No, the CIVR (Configuration Item Verification Review) will not be conducted before testing. The CIVR will take place after all testing has been successfully completed and passed. The purpose of the CIVR is to confirm that the final product adheres to the technical specifications and requirements outlined in the Technical Data Package (TDP) and the Statement of Work (SOW). |
The CIVR process ensures that the product has been manufactured, assembled, and tested in accordance with the defined standards, and that all design and performance criteria are met. It acts as a final verification step, validating the alignment between the built product and the documentation provided in the TDP and SOW. This review will include a detailed inspection of the product's quality, compliance with regulatory standards, and confirmation that all necessary testing and validation activities have been completed per the contractual requirements.
| 4 | General | Please provide the most current TDP for all lines | The government will provide via SAFE.apps.mil. The TDP with the current drawings will be provided to vendors upon request. Request shall be sent to the KO, Ms. Jessica Hawkins and Ms. Kadi-jah Sheridan at jessica.l.hawkins27.civ@army.mil and kadi-jah.l.sheridan.civ@army.mil | |
| 1 | P8 / 3.3 | First Article | The first sentence states that fabrication and testing, among other activities, should be completed within 12 months. The third sentence specifies that the FAT units must be delivered no later than 180 days. Does this mean the Government intends for the FAT units to be built within 6 months (180 days) and then tested internally for an additional 6 months? This would result in the FAT phase being completed within 12 months. | Yes, that is correct. The FA (First Article) period is designed to span 12 months in total, with a timeline for fabrication, testing, and evaluation. The first 6 months of this 12-month period will be dedicated to the fabrication and production of the FA units. During this phase, the contractor will focus on completing the manufacturing, assembly, and integration of the FAT units in alignment with the technical specifications outlined in the TDP and SOW. |
The subsequent 6 months will be allocated for comprehensive testing and evaluation of the FAT units to ensure that the FAT units meet all performance criteria and are fully operational before delivery. The testing period allows for verification of the units’ compliance with contractual and operational requirements, and also provides the opportunity to address any issues or adjustments identified during the testing process.
In summary, the FAT phase will be completed within a 12-month period, with the first 6 months focused on fabrication and the remaining 6 months dedicated to testing and validation.
| 2 | P9 / 3.4 | TDP | We respectfully request access to the technical data package for all configuration items and accessories. | The government will provide via SAFE.apps.mil. The TDP with the current drawings will be provided to vendors upon request. Request shall be sent to the KO, Ms. Jessica Hawkins and Ms. Kadi-jah Sheridan at jessica.l.hawkins27.civ@army.mil and kadi-jah.l.sheridan.civ@army.mil |
| 3 | P13 / 3.9 | Configuration Management | Section 3.9 contains a fairly robust configuration management requirement for a build-to-print effort. Why is this the case? Does the government anticipate the need for the generation and submittal of ECPs during the execution of the contract because there are issues with the current baseline? If so, what are the areas of concern within the technical data that will / might require attention? | At this time, we do not anticipate any major changes that would necessitate the submission of ECPs. The current baseline design has been thoroughly validated, and the system has proven reliability. However, given the dynamic nature of hardware production and external factors, such as supply chain variability or part obsolescence, there could be minor adjustments or variations needed in the materials or components used. |
The robust configuration management (CM) requirements in Section 3.9 are in place to ensure that, even for a build-to-print effort, any necessary changes or adjustments can be efficiently managed throughout the contract lifecycle. While the design is fully matured, with over 30,000 units produced in the past, it is important to maintain a structured CM process to address any unforeseen issues that might arise during production or testing. This includes the ability to manage Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) if required.
Areas of concern that might trigger minor changes include:
Supply Chain Disruptions: Unexpected delays or shortages in components could require substitution or re-sourcing, potentially leading to variations in part specifications or suppliers.
Quality Variations: Even with established parts and materials, quality issues (e.g., deviations in batch production or manufacturing tolerances) may necessitate slight adjustments to ensure system integrity and compliance.
Component Obsolescence: If a component becomes obsolete or is no longer available, a suitable replacement might be needed, which could require minor design updates or configuration adjustments.
In all cases, any changes would be managed through the established CM process, with full documentation, review, and approval as necessary. The goal is to ensure that all modifications, however minor, are tracked and controlled to maintain the integrity of the product and compliance with the contractual requirements.
| TDP | ||||
| 1 | excel file M40 PDISE TDPL, Item No. 56 | TDP | Review of the TDP, we found a discrepancy in the M40 directory. In the excel file M40 PDISE TDPL, Item No. 56, Drawing Number 13229E6353, lists Revision M. However, in the PDF sub-directory of M40, the drawing file 13229E6353P001.pdf is Drawing No. 13229E6353, Revision P. Could you confirm the correct revision of Drawing No. 13229E6353 that we should be using? | Revision P is the correct revision of Drawing No. 13229E6353, and it should be used. Please proceed with using Revision P for this drawing as it is the most up to date. |
&"Arial,Bold"&14Integrated Commercial Intrustion Detection System - VI
W909MY-22-R-0007
Draft RFP Questions
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .