W911QY20R0037 Draft RFP Questions and Answers 07-10.pdf

W911QY20R0037 Draft RFP Questions and Answers

1. Can the Army confirm that No Integrated Product Support (IPS) / Logistics Management Information (LMI) is required for the Field Sanitation Center (FSC)?

A: Yes, the Government confirms that there is no requirement for Integrated Product Support (IPS) / Logistics Management Information (LMI) for the Field Sanitation Center

(FSC).

2. IPS is priced for each system in CLINS 0015, 0018, & 0021 AND broken out into the

IPS sub-components in CLIN 0025-0083, what is the difference between these deliverables?

A: CLIN 0015, 0018, and 0021 will be for the hourly work completing the CDRLs.

CLINs 0025-0083 will be for the completion of the IPS report.

3. There is no CLIN for ETKS LORA (CDRL C007). It appears that there is a need for a

Kitchen -10 TM, but no -10 TMs are required for the Latrine or Shower.

A: Correct, -10 TMs are not required for the Shower or Latrine.

4. C.3 Contract Requirements state:

“C.3.3.1.3 Environmental control and ventilation maintaining internal temperatures of 60-90 degrees F with exterior temps of 33-120 degrees F”

(Should be C.3.4.1.4) “C.3.2.1.4 Environmental control and ventilation maintaining internal temperatures of 60-90 degrees F with exterior temps of 33-120 degrees F”

“C.3.5.1.8 Environmental control and ventilation maintaining internal temperatures of 60-90 degrees F with exterior temps of 33-120 degrees F”

“C.3.6.1.8 Environmental control and ventilation maintaining internal temperatures of 60-90 degrees F with exterior temps of 33-120 degrees F”

But, C.7 ETS Environment states:

“C.7.1 The systems shall be capable of maintaining internal temperatures of

60Fto 90F in ambient external temperatures ranging from -15F to 120F”

Which ambient temperature condition is required?

A: The ambient temperature condition should be -15F to 120F. The SOW has been updated accordingly.

REF SOW: Sections C.3.3.1.3; C.3.4.1.4; C.3.5.1.8; C.3.6.1.8; C.7.1

5. C.3.5.1.1 & C.3.6.1.1 “Meet Requirements and conditions of the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) at http://www.nsf.org” is broad and vague. Are there specific requirements/standards that need to be met?

A: All individual appliances must meet NSF requirements and be certified as such.

REF SOW: Sec. C.3.5.1.1 & C.3.6.1.1

6. C.11.2. Indicates “The contractor(s) shall produce and test a Shower, Latrine, and Kitchen”, is First Article Testing not required for the FSC?

A: FSC First Article is required and the SOW has been updated accordingly.

REF SOW: Sec. C.11.2

7. C.22 indicates the Technical Proposal shall be incorporated into the contract; please affirm in the SOW that the Tech Prop will NOT be releasable under FOIA per Section L if proper restrictions are incorporated.

A: Section C.22 will not be updated. Offerors shall follow the requirements as set forth in Section L of the solicitation.

8. As listed in this section J the following CDRLs are missing from the attached documents:

CDRL D001: First Article Test Plan CDRL D002: First Article Test Report CDRL D003: Monthly Status Report CDRL D004: Engineering Change Proposals CDRL D005: Quality Management Plan

A: The CDRLs will be uploaded as an attachment to the Draft RFP.

9. Additionally, “D” CDRLs are assigned to the FSC system in attachment 0016 Statement of Work (SOW) for Development and Production of Integrated Product Support (IPS) Deliverables. This list of CDRLs (D001-D020) have been provided, but are not line items in Section B.

A: There is no IPS requirement for FSC on this contract. A corrected SOW and CDRLS for the FSC will be uploaded as an attachment.

10. Section C.2.4 of the Solicitation states the requirement for updated logistical support documentation and associated CDRLs. Will the Government supply the current versions of the Technical Manuals, Logistics Management Information, Maintenance Task Analysis, Level of Repair Analysis, Maintenance Allocation Chart, Provisioning Parts List, Engineering Data for Provisioning, National Maintenance Work Requirements, Repair Parts and Special Tool List, etc. in an editable format for the selected contractor to update? Providing the past/current version of these documents would save time and effort and result in a cost savings to the Government.

A: No, the requirements have changed.

11. Please specify if the ETS will be delivered CONUS or OCONUS.

A: ETS systems will delivered CONUS.

12. Section 13.14 of the Statement of Work for Development and Production of the IPS

Deliverables (Attachment 0028) requires a CAC and card reader. Please explain what the process/requirements will be for the successful bidder to obtain the CAC and card reader.

A: Offerors can get additional information at the following website:

https://www.cac.mil/Common-Access-Card/Getting-Your-CAC/

13. Will the Government supply a Basic Issue Items (BII) list and a Components of the End

Item (COEII) List?

A: COEII is part of TDP and Pack Plans. A Basic Issue Items (BII) list will be developed in conjunction with the Government during Logistics Development.

14. Section L.10.2.4 refers to a “Product Support Managers Guide Book”. Please provide this Guide Book as an attachment or provide a link to where it can be located for reference.

A: Product Support Managers Guidebook will be added to the Draft RFP Attachments.

15. In the data package for the Sanitation Center, it calls out the following: Sink, Fuel Fired -

Part number G1029-11452-AM 3 each.

What is the heat source or burner for these sinks? The heat source isn’t called out in any of the parts listings.

A: The Complete Sink Assembly is manufactured by NOVATIO ENGINEERING, INC.

Cage Code is 370S4. The parts listing will be updated to include the cage code. A burner is included in Sink.

16. Babington manufactures and custom designs a number of fuel fired sinks utilizing our joint service Airtronic burner; the cleanest and safest fuel burner in the world.

- Is an alternate sink and burner assembly acceptable?

A: The Sink called out for this FSC was developed and tested specifically for this purpose. No Alternates will be acceptable.

17. In the ET Kitchen, the BOM specifies an electric 3-compartment sink. That unit was manufactured by TriTech USA which went out of business last year.

A: The TRI TECH sink is not called out in this TDP. The offeror will need to bulid this pursuant to the TDP.

18. Does the Army own that design and are drawings available?

A: Yes, the TDP includes drawings to build the sink.

19. Will a Babington design be acceptable as an alternative?

A: No Alternatives will be acceptable.

20. Section L.10.3.7 of the Solicitation requests that offers provide a Quality Manual with their proposal. It also states that ISO 9001 is considered a strength. ISO 9001:2015 no longer requires certified companies to have quality manuals. If a manual was to be submitted with the proposal, it would certainly exceed the page limitation of that section.

We suggest that the requirement for submittal of a Quality Manual with the proposal be removed or adjusted.

A: ISO 9001/9002 will be required. The offeror shall provide a Quality Manual. The Quality Manual shall be attached and is limited to 50 pages total. This in addition to Factor III’s 30 page limit.

REF: Table listed in Sec. L.9.5.1. and Sec. L.10.3.7

21. Section L.10.2.3 requests that a draft Test Plan be submitted with the proposal. Is this Test Plan included in the 10 page limit for that proposal section?

A: Yes, the test plan will be included in the page limit. The limit will be adjusted to 35 pages.

REF: Table listed in Sec. L.9.5.1. and Sec. L.10.2.3

22. According to paragraph C.13.4 "First Article Test Plan. The Contractor shall submit a

First Article Test Plan in accordance with CDRL D001." In this case, CDRL D001 does not refer to the First Article Test Plan. Are we to assume that the test plan is to be submitted in accordance with DI-NDTI-80566A which has been the case in the past, or has the test plan submittal been removed from the requirements?

A: CDRL D001 Is First Article Test Plan. The Government has added CDRLs D001- 0005 to the Draft RFP attachments.

23. According to paragraph C.11.4 "Rain Test: The system(s) shall be able to withstand exposure to rain and snow during operation and storage. The system(s) shall be capable of operation during rainfall varying from 0 to 2" per hour with sustained winds of 45 mph and gusts to 65 mph. There shall be no degradation in operational performance as a result of this exposure." Is this requirement the responsibility of the contractor, or is it inherent to the already proven design criteria?

If it is the responsibility of the contractor to perform this test, is there a specific spec this test is to be performed in accordance with? For example, MIL-STD-810G has been used in the past.

A: This requirement is inherent to the already proven design.

24. CLIN 0069 references CDRL C0006 and CLIN0070 references CDRL C008. CDRL007 does not have a CLIN for pricing for the ETS Kitchen LORA.

A: The Government will add a CLIN for the ETS Kitchen LORA.

25. SOW C.3.2 indicates that the ETS Systems are to be produced in accordance with their respective Drawing Packages and that each ETS is housed in an 8’ x 8’ x 6’6” Convention for Safe Container (CSC) and International Standard for Organization (ISO) certified TRICON container which is modified to include two expandable wing section on opposing sides. In addition to the two expandable wing sections, there are numerous other openings and cutouts made to the base containers that will significantly impact their structural strength. Have the base containers with these cutouts been tested and certified to the requirements of C.4.3 and C.5.2 of the SOW? In particular, have they been tested to the stacking and transverse racking requirements? If so, what was the configuration of the 3 coupled containers? Can we get copies of the test reports?

A: The base containers with these cutouts have been tested and certified by the manufacturer at the time. Whoever builds the containers under this contract will be responsible for the obtaining the CSC and 9 high stack certification for their own production units. The configuration was completed in the past by the individual manufacturers and the copies of the test reports are not required.

26. SOW C.4.1 states that the ETS Systems are designed to meet the performance requirements and constraints listed below. Have ETS Systems been constructed using these drawings, and have those units been tested to verify compliance with the performance requirements and constraints?

A: Yes, ETS Systems have been constructed using these drawings, and have those units been tested to verify compliance with the performance requirements and constraints.

27. Who built the prototype units and are they available for viewing?

A: The ETS FSC was designed and prototyped by the Government. The remaining ETS Systems were built by BERG Manufacturing. They will not be available for viewing due to Covid 19 Restrictions.

28. Is the 3D solid model available for each of the configurations?

A: No the 3D solid model is not available for each of the configurations.

29. Are drawings 9-2-7150 ETS Field Sanitation Shelter and 9-2-1123 ETS FSC Equipment Locations and Installations available? Are there additional drawings for the FSC and are they available?

A: 9-2-1123 is within the supplied TDP. The 9-2-7150 ETS Field Sanitation Shelter drawing will be provided with the Draft RFP Attachments.

30. Is there a family tree available for the FSC shelter?

A: The family tree for the FSC Shelter will be provided with the Draft RFP Attachments.

31. What is the tare weight of the 9-2-6649 container?

A: Typically 2870lbs is the tare weight of the 9-2-6649 container.

32. SOW C.11.2 - We assume that the FSC should be included in the list of products to be built and tested. Correct?

A: Yes, the FSC should have been included in the SOW. The SOW has been updated to include this.

REF: SOW C.11.2

33. SOW C.19.1 states that PM FSS will be responsible for shipping each completed container to its first destination. Section E lists inspection and acceptance of all products at destination. Is this correct or should inspection and acceptance be at origin?

A: Based upon individual Government requirements at the order level shipping may be either origin or destination. Delivery orders will be updated accordingly.

34. Item 13 in drawing number “9-2-6709” calls out drawing “9-2-6725” “CONTAINER

WEIGHT AND LIFT MARKINGS” but no drawing exists.

A. Drawing “9-2-6725” “CONTAINER WEIGHT AND LIFT MARKINGS” will be added to the Latrine File Draft RFP Attachments.

35. Drawing “9-2-1141” of the Sanitation system, title block states it is “SHEET 6 0F __”.

There are no other sheets with this corresponding drawing number, nor does it state the actual quantity of sheets included in this package.

A: This drawing will be provided with the Draft RFP Attachments. There will be 6 sheets for this drawing, and the remaining 5 will be added.

36. Drawing “9-2-1145” of the Sanitation system is missing a sheet. The drawing says

“SHEET 1 OF 2” but the second page is not included in the package.

A: Drawing Sheet 2 will be provided with the Draft RFP Attachments.

37. L.10.2.1 Manufacturing Process requires the proposal to include the offeror’s planned corrosion prevention and control plan. Given the page limitations, will the Government allow the corrosion prevention and control plan to be provided as an attachment outside the page limit?

A. The page limitation will be increased to 25 pages.

38. L.10.2.3 Test Strategy requires the proposal to include the offeror’s draft in-house test plan for each corresponding performance requirements or functional tests/sub-tests.

Given the page limitations, will the Government allow the draft test plan to be provided as an attachment outside the page limit?

A: The page limit will be updated to 35 pages.

39. Drawing 9-2-7150, ETS Field Sanitation Shelter is not available in the drawing package.

Drawing 9-2-1141 (Electrical Installation?) is missing page 1. The drawing tree for the FSC is also missing. Could these be attached to pre-solicitation information?

A: The Government will add this drawing to the Draft RFP attachments.

40. Drawing 9-2-7150, ETS Field Sanitation Shelter is not available in the drawing package.

Drawing 9-2-1141 (Electrical Installation?) is missing page 1. The drawing tree for the FSC is also missing. Could these be attached to pre-solicitation information?

A: The Government will add this drawing to the Draft RFP attachments.

41. L.10.3.2 Can the government please clarify Para L.10.3.2? This section talks about the offeror’s ‘Program Management and Key Personnel’; and the associated section M2.2.c refers to ‘Area 3 Program Management and Key Personnel’. Section L.10.3.2 doesn’t clearly break out ‘program management’ from ‘key personnel’, and most of the requirement refers to personnel and resources. It would appear that the government would want the program management approach AND the key personnel that will be executing that approach, but that’s not how the paragraph is organized now; it mostly refers to human resources and the people who will ensure the SOW is performed.

A: Additional language has been added to address this.

REF: L.10.3.2.1 The proposal shall describe the offerors Program Management processes and practices and goals for meeting the requirements of this SOW, keeping the program on schedule and within budget, resource allocation, and managing risk.

42. The solicitation references attachment 0016: ETS Integrated Product Support SOW. Has this attachment been added to the solicitation package?

A: The Government will add this attachment to the Draft RFP attachments.

43. Is ISO certification or ISO compliance required?

Page 64, Section C.16.1. states "ISO 9001/9002 certification will be mandatory."

Page 110, Section L.10.3.7 states "ISO 9001/9002 will be considered a strength." The offeror shall provide a Quality Manual and a representative Quality/Production Traveler from a similar program.

A: Additional language has been added to the Section L to state that ISO 9001/9002 certification will be required.

REF: Question 20 above

44. There is a growing trend toward 10-year IDIQ contracts (five-year base with a 5-year extension); will the Army consider awarding a similar 10-year contact for the ETS?

A: A 10 year IDIQ contract was considered for this requirement. However, the Government has been determined this will be a 5 year IDIQ.

45. We suggest the Government schedule an Industry Day to demo the Expandable Tricon Systems and provide bidders the opportunity to view the shelters.

A: Unfortunately scheduling an Industry Day is not feasible at this time.

46. In Section L Volumes II and III preclude naming the Offeror or showing any markings that might reveal the Offeror’s identity. We request that the Army remove this restriction because it presents a substantial disadvantage to any potentially new small business Offeror for the following reasons:

a. While the notion of a truly ‘blind’ evaluation is understandable, the historical industrial base supporting PM Force Sustainment Systems (PM FSS) is fairly small and very well known to PM FSS and CCDC-Soldier Center because many potential Offerors are long-term historical suppliers to Force Provider and the PM Force Sustainment Community Offerors frequently cite recent work on prior contracts when describing their experience producing similar ore related systems;

for any Offer able to cite a specific PM FSS contact – for example, citing the Containerized Kitchen, it will be obvious to evaluators which Offeror produced those current products during what timeframe, thus nullifying the notion of any real obscuration of identity for any historical Offerors.

b. PM FSS, CDDC-Soldier Center, and CASCOM personnel have likely visited each historical supplier’s facilities multiple times and thus would recognize the key personnel, facilities, locations, processes, and equipment set-up even if names were obscured.

c. This will result in a significant disadvantage for a potential new small business participant who is not a historical supplier because a comfort level may already exist with the historical industrial base that will present bias against new Offerors.

d. Furthermore, to prove certain aspects of Section L requirements (e.g. Quality

Systems) we would be showing certifications (e.g. ISO Certifications, etc. To b ecompliant, we would have to modify these certifications to obscure company names – which defeats the rationale for proving compliance – a certificate with no name shown offers no proof.

e. Lastly, to avoid violating this requirement, we would have to scrutinize every photograph and image to remove even a minor image showing a location or company name (e.g. a logo on the side of a paint booth); this leads to an unreasonable risk of accidental disclosure

A: The Government appreciates these concerns. However, the Government plans to proceed with a blind evaluation.

47. There is a discrepancy between the table on page 107 and the structure of Vol III Experience/Management/Facilities in items; Section L.10.3 should be revised to match the Table Structure and also Section M. Ta

Table Structure Section L.10.3 Vol III Exp/Mgmt/Facilities

1 – Experience Building/Modifying/Integrating ISO Containers

L.10.3.1 Experience integrating expandable ISO Containers ii – Facilities and Equipment L.10.3.2 Human Resources / Program Management and Key Personnel iii – Program Management and Key Personnel

L.10.3.3 Facilities and Equipment iv - Contract Master Schedule L.10.3.4 Contract Master Schedule v – Configuration Management / CDRLs L.10.3.5 Configuration Management / CDRLs vi – Warranty L.10.3.6 Warranty vii – Quality Management System L.10.3.7 Quality Management System ble

A: The solicitation will be updated to correct this issue.

48. L.10.4.1 identifies Attachment 0019 as Past Performance Information whereas L.10.4.3 identifies Attachment 0019 as Past Performance Questionnaire#14 The table on pp 107 (far right column) indicates CD/DVD ROM File Name – it should just read ‘File Name’ as no CDs/DVDs are being submitted.

A: The solicitation will be updated to correct this issue.

49. In Sec. M please clarify how you will be calculating Total Evaluated Price for the Stepladder Pricing.

Will a single average step ladder price be established covering ALL five years and both colors and that one number be multiplied by the evaluation quantity?

OR

Will an average be calculated for each year and each color, and each of those averages be multiplied by the evaluation quantity, and those results be added to achieve the TEP?

OR

Some other averaging approach?

A: The Government will provide a spreadsheet detailing the TEP calculation.

50. L.10.4 Volume Past Performance references Attachment 0019 Performance Information.

Has this attachment been provided in the pre-solicitation package?

A: The Government will add this attachment to the Draft RFP posting.

51. Page 106 references the five volumes and the naming of the volumes. The table on page 107 provides the names for each volume and each section of the technical volume.

Should the technical volume be submitted in separate files or consolidated into one file?

A: The submission shall consist of Nine (9) separate files named and listed in the table located after Sec. L 9.5.1.

52. Reference p. 106 4.d. - If the file name is prefaced with three letters representing the company name, the company identity will be given away on the volumes that should not have the offeror's name. Will letters be assigned by the contracting officer to prevent identification from the file names?

A: The Government will ensure contractor identities are not revealed during the evaluation.

53. Drawing number “9-2-1123” calls out the following drawings: “9-2-5118-1” and “9-2- 1121-54”. Both of these drawings are missing.

54. The incomplete assembly drawing, (as mentioned in previous email), “9-2-1141” calls out the following drawings that are missing:

* “9-2-4189”

* “9-2-4726”

* “9-2-4730”

* “9-2-4725”

* “9-2-4731”

* “9-2-6759”

55. Please provide drawing “9-2-7150” ETS FIELD SANITTION SHELFTER, and its corresponding drawings, for container details.

56. P. 117, Section M.3.7.3. shows two definitions for relevancy for the evaluation of the proposal. Which will be utilized for evaluation?

Relevant is defined as those contracts associated with ISO containers and mobile shelters or other products similar to the effort required by this contract.

Relevant contracts are defined as those encompassing similar scope in the cost;

complexity; system engineering; production; and integrated logistics support requirements as this contract requires.

A: The Government will update this definition to be “Relevant contracts are defined as those encompassing similar scope in the cost; complexity; system engineering;

production; and integrated logistics support requirements as this contract requires.”

57. Drawing 9-2-1145 is missing sheet 2.

A: Drawing Sheet 2 will be provided with the Draft RFP Attachments.

REF: Question 36 Above

58. The shower, latrine, and kitchen are missing the electrical schematic.

A: There are no schematics. The details are in the assembly and installation drawings.