B08 Solicitation W911QY-24-R-0007 Amendment 0004 27AUG.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 20

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Aug-2024

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W911QY24R0007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

24-Jul-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Amendment 0004

Update Section M, Q&A's for 2 additional questions in regard to Past performance questionnaires, # 92 and 93.

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

28-Aug-2024

CODE

W6QK ACC-APG NATICK DIVISION

1 GENERAL GREENE AVE

BLDG 1

NATICK MA 01760

W911QY 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911QY24R0007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

QUESTION PERIOD HAS CLOSED. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED UNLESS IT

PROVES TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 27AUG2024

W911QY-24-R-0007

QUESTION PERIOD HAS CLOSED. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED UNLESS IT

PROVES TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Prior QUESTION asked and answered is now Question and Answer # 61. New questions are 92 & 93.

QUESTION 1: Per Section L A.1.a each proposal is to be submitted via email to usarmy.apg.acc.mbx.acc-apg-natick-iecu-proposal-submission@army.mil Per Section L A.1.d., "Electronic mail (email) and faxed copies of proposals will not be accepted. Please clarify proper submission method.

ANSWER: See revised language Section L A.1.a as well as Solicitation Amendment 0001 posted on 7 August 2024.

QUESTION 2: Are small businesses who submit an offer to this solicitation required to submit a Small Business Plan?

ANSWER: Yes, unless the business does not plan on doing any small business subcontracting because they have in-house capabilities. A justification must be provided in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

QUESTION 3: Is Government expecting the contractor to enter anything in the table on page 21?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION 4: Page 73 of RFP W911QY24R0007, asks “The offeror will complete and submit Section F: FAR Clause 52.211-9 Desired and Required Time of Delivery with their proposal”, however the table on Pages 45 & 46 of Section F states N/A in every field. It will be difficult to complete these without knowing when the delivery orders will be issued. Can you provide direction on whether completion of Section F is required?

ANSWER: See updated Section L, A.2.c.iii Volume III (2) Master Schedule.

QUESTION 5: Item 0028 & 0029 on pages 16 & 17 are dependent on the customer provided scope per each order. Those items are “greyed out” on the Cost Price Workbook with the note “Priced separately on each order”. Is it required to put any value on page 16 & 17 for Item 0028 & 0029? We are concerned that omitting any price could result in a non-compliance being given to our offer for incomplete price data.

ANSWER: Offerors are not being asked to complete CLINs 0028 and 0029. Those CLINs will be priced on each order.

QUESTION 6: Page 75 of RFP W911QY24R0007 Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire states: The POCs will submit completed questionnaires directly to the Contracting Officer and Contracting specialist (KS) identified above no later than e proposal submission deadline specified in the solicitation; however, Attachment 0009 states:

… return via email ….no later than 15 days after receipt of request or August 15, 2024 whichever occurs first. Please clarify the response date so the POCs may adequate time to respond.

ANSWER: Response date changed to reflect closing date of solicitation.

QUESTION 7: Reference: Attachment 0001 - Performance Purchase Description: 3.1.k – Please clarify “suitable for sealing flush…” Do you mean the IECU shall have a smooth surface for sealing the airspace between the IECU and the wall? Or do you mean the IECU indoor face and/or IECU outdoor coil face shall be capable of mounting flush to the wall (i.e. no fans / air passages on the sides of the IECU)?

ANSWER: The requirement is for the front of the IECU (i.e., the face with the controls and conditioned air intake and discharge, as illustrated in the interface specification) to be suitable for interfacing flush to or penetrating a wall or duct with the addition of a foam gasket or similar. This means that the perimeter of the front face and the adjacent faces of the cabinet (sides, top and bottom) should be reasonably smooth to facilitate sealing. The rationale is that most current installations have the front of the IECU mounted flush to a wall opening or with minimal wall penetration (e.g., two inches from the exterior wall, with most of the IECU outdoors). This was not described in the PPD as “face mounting” because the interface specification does not include a mounting flange or bracket for this purpose.

QUESTION 8: Reference: Attachment 0001 - Performance Purchase Description: 4.3.3.3.2.2 & 4.3.10.1.2 &

4.3.16 – Which face is mounted flush (or within two inches) to the dividing wall, the indoor face or the outdoor face?

ANSWER: The intent is for the front (indoor) face of the IECU to be mounted flush to the exterior (outdoor) surface of the dividing wall. The entirety of the IECU except the front face will be exposed to the outdoor environment. The verifications in 4.3.3.3.2.2 and 4.3.10.1.2 allow minimal wall penetration of up to two inches, which will be measured from the exterior of the dividing wall.

QUESTION 9: SF33 page 1: Block 9 of the SF 33 released with the Final RFP is blank.

Should offerors fill out this version of the SF 33 with Block 9 empty or does the Government intend to issue a revised SF 33?

ANSWER: See Solicitation Amendment 0001 posted on 7 August 2024.

QUESTION 10: Section B and Section L.A.2.c(iv)(c), pages 3 and 74; In Section L.A.2.c(iv)(c), under Compliance, the Government states that offerors "ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in Attachment 0007 Cost/Price Workbook and any information proposed the SF33 and continuation sheets."

Is it the Government's intent that offerors complete and submit Section B with the proposal submission? If so, should Section B be included separately in Volume IV or as part of the Volume I submission under Section II – Solicitation Documents?

ANSWER: See Section L A. 1. d. and FAR 52.215-8 Order of Precedence-Uniform Contract Format.

QUESTION 11: Section J; page 61: The Government released Attachment 0005, Spare Part Pricing with the final solicitation; however, there is no other mention of Attachment 0005 outside of Section J.

Will the Government please clarify if offerors are required to complete and submit Attachment 0005 with proposal submission?

ANSWER: Attachment 0005 is now included in pricing template and will become permanent Attachment 0005 at time of award. See updated Attachment 0007.

QUESTION 12: Section L.A.1.a and L.A.1.d; p. 69; Regarding proposal submission instructions, Section L.A.1.a states "all proposals are due by 10:00 AM ET on August 26, 2024 via email to the USARMY ACC APG IECU Proposal Submission email address: usarmy.apg.acc.mbx.acc-apg-natick-iecu-proposal-submission@army.mil."

However, Section L.A.1.d contradicts this requirement, stating "Electronic mail (e-mail) and faxed copies of Proposals will not be accepted."

Will the Government please confirm that email is the only acceptable form of submission?

ANSWER: See answer to Question 1.

QUESTION 13: Section L.A.1.a; p. 69: "Government Enterprise Email can accept email sized up to 15 MB."

If an offeror's full submission (all six volumes) exceeds the 15 MB Government email size limit, is it acceptable to submit the proposal in multiple emails?

ANSWER: See update to Section L, A. 1. a.

QUESTION 14: Section L.A.1.a; p. 69: The Proposal Submission Requirements instruct that "Each volume will be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5)."

Since the Government has indicated that this is an electronic submission, please clarify the requirement to include copy numbers for each volume or is it sufficient to label each volume as "Original."

ANSWER: See update to Section L, A. 1. a.

QUESTION 15: Section L.A.1.b; p. 69: The font requirements for the proposal state, "A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Times New Roman font is required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 10-point and may be produced in landscape mode."

Will the Government confirm that tables and illustrations may use a font family such as Arial as long as the size is no less than 10-point?

ANSWER: See update to Section L. A. 1. b. as well as Amendment 0001 posted 7 August 2024.

QUESTION 16: Section L.A.2.c; p. 70: Under Content Requirement, the Government instructs offerors to include a Summary Section in each volume.

Is a Summary Section required for Volume I, or is the Executive Summary sufficient?

ANSWER: Section I: Executive Summary is sufficient.

QUESTION 17: Section L.A.2.c(i)(2); p. 71: Instructions for Section II – Solicitation Documents require that each offeror complete blank lines and provide signatures for the contract sections indicated without modification to the files and that an Adobe Acrobat file, “.pdf” be created to capture the signatures for submission in the administrative volume.

Is it the Government's intent that offerors provide completed and signed Contract Forms, Section G, Section H, and Section K as a separate standalone PDF included in the Volume I folder submission, or should those sections of the solicitation be included within the offeror's Volume I "narrative discussion."

ANSWER: Yes. Also see Answer to Question 29.

QUESTION 18: Section H.1; p. 52: H.1.2 says that the key personnel listed below are considered to be critical to the successful performance of this contract; however, H.1.2.1. Key Personnel List is left blank and Section C makes no other mention of Key Personnel.

1. Are offerors to define which positions are considered key personnel or will the Government identify which positions it considers key and critical to the performance of the contract?

2. Is it a requirement that offerors fill out Section H at proposal submission or would this be appropriate with the delivery order?

ANSWER: Yes, Section L.2.c(i)(2)c requires offerors to complete "Contractor's Organization and Key Personnel”. The offerors shall define their key positions and who will fill them.

QUESTION 19: Section L.A.2.c(iiI)(2); p. 73: "The offeror will complete and submit Section F: FAR Clause 52.211-9 Desired and Required Time of Delivery with their proposal. This clause identifies the Government’s desired and required delivery schedule." That FAR Clause in Section F Delivery is marked as "TBD AT

DELIVERY ORDER LEVEL."

Will the Government please clarify the requirement to complete Section F: FAR Clause 52.211-9 with proposal submission?

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 4.

QUESTION 20: L.A.1.d; p. 69: Section L.A.1.d: "Volumes I, II, III, V, and VI will be VOID of any proposal cost information." Volume VI, however, requires cost information (e.g. proposed TCV, and subcontracted dollars).

Request the Government clarify that certain cost information is allowed to be submitted with Volume VI.

ANSWER: See updated language in Section L.A.1.d.

QUESTION 21: Section L.A.2.c(vi) and Section M.C.6.i.2; pp. 77 and 87: In Section L, the Government states that "Prime contractors may not take credit for socio-economic status of subcontractors not registered to do business with the Government." However, Section M states, "Offerors that propose SB subcontractors must ensure that each subcontractor is either actively registered in www.SAM.gov or must attach a certified letter signed by the subcontractor that states its size status for each applicable socioeconomic category (HUB Zone companies must be certified by the Small Business Administration)." This appears to provide conflicting guidance.

If a proposed subcontractor is not registered to do business with the Government but does provide a size status self-certification letter to the prime, which is included with the proposal, is the prime then able to count those subcontracted dollars in its Small Business Participation Plan?

ANSWER: Only subcontractors with registrations in either SAM.gov or the SBA's DSBS as qualified under socio-economic programs are eligible for prime contractor credit in such programs. Otherwise, Prime contractors may rely on written representations of size of a small business but not the socio-economic status.

QUESTION 22: Section L.A.2.c(ii)(3) and L.A.2.c(iii)(1); pp. 72, 73: Section L.A.2.c(ii)(3) states "The offeror will describe its own and its subcontractor’s planned processes for welding, brazing, metal fabrication, refrigerant handling, controls, electrical assembly, mechanical assembly, integration, and any other processes required for IECU manufacturing." Similarly, Volume III requires "The strategy will show the facilities and equipment the offeror has on hand, intends to acquire, and/or intends to subcontract. All areas of the facilities will be depicted and labeled with their purposes."

Request that the Government clarify that these requirements apply only to first-tier subcontractors in formal teaming agreements with the prime offeror (as identified in Volume I, Section VI).

ANSWER: This is a technical question. The SB Participation plan requires them to identify proposed subcontractors and the NAICS and description of work to be formed. Any technical evaluation of processes is for technical team to answer.

QUESTION 23: Attachment 0006: Section L states that Attachment 0006 is meant to "demonstrate small business participation by detailing its proposed approach to meet the requirements under the Small Business Participation factor." However, Attachment 0006 does not appear to account for a small business prime contractor's participation in the SB category even though Section M states that the stated goal include a small business' own participation as a prime.

Are small business primes to include themselves in the appropriate SB categories in Attachment 0006 or will the Govenrment [sic] revise the attachment to provide a space for small business primes to be included in the calculation?

ANSWER: See updated Attachment 0006.

QUESTION 24: L.A.2.c(vi); pp. 76-77: The requirement to complete Attachment 0006 in Section L appears after the paragraph titled "FOR LARGE BUSINESS/OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS ‘APPARENT SUCCESSFUL OFFERORS’ ONLY." It is unclear if the Attachment 0006 Small Business Subcontracting Goals Worksheet is required of all offerors or only for large businesses as part of the Subcontracting Plans.

Will the Government please clarify the requirement to complete Attachment 0006?

ANSWER: All offerors (both SB and Other Than SB) must complete small business participation plan requirements including Attachment 0006. Only OTSB must provide a subcontracting plan.

QUESTION 25: PPD 3.5.1; p. 8: PPD Section 3.5.1 states the Refrigerant shall be ASHRAE listed A1 rating for Toxicity and Flammability yet lists that this may be "superseded by requirements cited in the solicitation (see 6.2.i)," which states regarding acquisition documents, "If required, specifications for the refrigerant(s), class or refrigerant(s), and/or multi-refrigerant capability." This requirement doesn't refer to the Toxicity and Flammability at all.

Will the Government provide exceptions for use of refrigerants not classified A1, and if so, what are the guidelines to propose these types of refrigerants?

ANSWER: There are no superseding requirements cited in the solicitation, so the requirement in 3.5.1 is in effect. The Government will not provide exceptions for use of refrigerants not classified A1. Note that the requirement for the refrigerant to be compliant with “current EPA regulations” in effect at the time the IECU is manufactured and delivered, so R410A (for example) is not a viable refrigerant for this solicitation.

See also Answers to Questions 30 and 61.

QUESTION 26: Section L.A.2.c(vi); pp. 76-78: The instructions for Volume VI include having to identify "each subcontractor and providing the subcontractor’s address, CAGE code or Unique Entity ID number, socioeconomic business status, principal supplies and services to be subcontracted, applicable NAICS, estimated dollars to be subcontracted, extent of commitment (teaming agreements) and business status verification." Sections L and M and Attachment 0006 make no mention or allowance for vendors or suppliers. The requirements for the Small Business Participation Plan appear to be intended for companies that will rely on subcontractors under formal teaming arrangements to execute the IECU program. This requirement could potentially disadvantage a small business prime capable of self-performing most or all of the SOW and that will only require the use of vendors to source materials and components.

For the Small Business Participation Plan, we respectfully recommend that the Government modify the instructions, evaluation criteria, and Attachment 0006 to allow small business prime offerors that are not proposing the use of subcontractors under formal teaming arrangements to include vendors/suppliers in its small business participation calculations.

ANSWER: See revised language Section L.A.2.c(vi).

QUESTION 27: L.A.1; Proposals are due 26 August:

We respectfully request that the proposal due date be extended by two weeks to allow us to fully address the comprehensive requirements outlined in the RFP.

ANSWER: See updated Section L.

QUESTION 28: Section M.C.6.a.1; p. 87: To achieve an acceptable rating on the Small Business Participation Plan, Section M requires that: "1. Propose dollars and percentages (TOTAL DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO EACH SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORY divided by TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE) for all business concerns, provide detailed explanation/documentation to support its proposed quantitative small business participation for each category, and explicitly agree to report achievements through CDRL submissions." This wording appears to indicate that only offerors who propose subcontracting dollars against ALL business concerns (i.e. those identified in Attachment 0006 such as OTSB, SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will be eligible to receive an acceptable rating. Further, there are no criteria in the Acceptable Rating that allows for an offeror to propose $0/0% against any concern as long as there is a justification.

Request that the Government please clarify if:

1. Offerors, including small business primes, are required to propose to ALL concerns identified in Attachment 0006 to be found acceptable.

2. Offerors can propose $0/0% for any business concern as long as the plan includes proper justification.

ANSWER: Yes, U.S federal contracts with small business subcontracting reporting requirements. Contracts that did not require small business subcontracting reporting requirements are excluded.

QUESTION 29: Section G; pp. 48-50: Instructions for Volume I, Section II state that offerors "Insert the required information in the spaces provided" in Section G. Section G of the solicitation states "TO BE IDENTIFIED AFTER

AWARD."

Please clarify the requirement to insert the required information in Section G. Should offerors simply include Section G "as is" as part of their Section II submission with Volume I?

ANSWER: See updated Section L.A.2.c.(i)(2).

QUESTION 30: PPD 3.5.1; p. 8: In the Performance Purchase Description Section 3.5.1 states, "The system shall be of the vapor-compression type...refrigerant... compliant with current EPA regulations," yet the Interface Standard for IECU's MIL-STD-1408D (April 2009) clearly states for all refrigerant types listed for every model is R-410A. In 2023, the EPA mandated that HFC Refrigerant Blends above 700 Global Warming Potential (700 GWP) would not be allowed for the manufacture, distribution, sale, installation, import, and export of products starting January 1st, 2025. R-410a has a GWP of 2,088, and must be discontinued per the new regulations. There appears to be a conflict between the PPD and the IS.

Will the Proposed IECU designs be required to comply with forthcoming EPA restrictions on refrigerant types based on a limit of 700 GWP?

ANSWER: Proposed IECU designs will be required to comply with forthcoming EPA restrictions. Although the interface standard was not updated, PPD 2.4, “Order of precedence,” specifies that the PPD takes precedence. The requirement in 3.5.1 for an ASHRAE listed A1 refrigerant and compliance with “current

EPA regulations” (at the time the IECU is manufactured and delivered) is in effect. See also related Questions 25 and 61.

QUESTION 31: Section L.A.2.c(vi); p. 78: Offerors are required to "Provide three (3) years of Small Business Past Performance information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing Small Businesses on past contracts."

Will the Government confirm that "past contracts" include only U.S. Government contracts?

ANSWER: Offerors, including small business primes, are required to propose to ALL concerns identified in Attachment 0006 to be found acceptable. All offerors will include all proposed subcontractors (including suppliers as appropriate). However, the government does not have insights into individual “make or buy” policies and whether each firm possesses in-house capabilities and will not direct the use of subcontractors accordingly. As such, for firms with such in house capabilities, offerors should adequately describe those capabilities and its impact on subcontracting opportunities. All offerors are required to provide proposed subcontractors (including suppliers), and other small business participation included in the aforementioned sections and for contractors with not proposed subcontracting an adequate justification including in-house capabilities aligned to their technical proposal.

QUESTION 32: Section K; p. 62: Section K incorporates by reference FAR 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices And Certification, "Offerors shall examine each part and provide the requested information in order to determine Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements applicable to any resultant contract."

Are Other Than Small Business Offerors required to include a response to 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices And Certification with their proposals? If so, should it be included in Volume I or Volume IV?

ANSWER: FAR 52.230-1 states “(a) Any contract in excess of the lower CAS threshold specified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 30.201-4(b) resulting from this solicitation will be subject to the requirements of the Cost Accounting Standards Board (48 CFR chapter 99), except for those contracts which are exempt as specified in 48 CFR 9903.201-1. 48 CFR 9903.201-1 describes CAS applicability: (b) The following categories of contracts and subcontracts are exempt from all CAS requirements (15) Firm-fixed-price contracts or subcontracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without submission of certified cost or pricing data. The majority of the subject solicitation is expected to be awarded as a FFP contract with adequate price competition, which would qualify as an exemption.

QUESTION 33: L.A.2.c(i)(1)(a); p. 71: Volume I, Section I requires a Master Index as part of the Executive Summary, which is limited to five pages. Because of the amount of proposal requirements in the six Volume submission, the Master Index is likely to exceed five pages.

Recommend the Government remove the page limit on Section I or exclude the Master Index from the Executive Summary page limit.

ANSWER: See updated L.A.2.c(i)(1)(a).

QUESTION 34: Section B; p. 3: The contract includes certain Cost Reimbursable CLINs.

Is an approved Accounting System a requirement of the contract?

ANSWER: No need for specific approved system as long as costs can be supported and traced to contract.

QUESTION 35: PPD and Section M; All: Section M defines Significant Strength as "an aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance."

Will the Government please clarify that if an offeror's proposed IECU solution exceeds PPD performance requirements, that offeror's solution will be viewed more favorably and scored higher than an offeror with a solution that simply meets the performance thresholds in the PPD?

ANSWER: Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

QUESTION 36: L.A.2.c(vi); pp. 76-78: The Section L outline numbering for Volume VI is incomplete. This will make it difficult to cross-reference Volume VI requirements accurately with the Master Index.

Request that the Government revise the outline for Volume VI and include paragraph references for each requirement.

ANSWER: The Master Index requires only identification of the locations of all major topics provided in each volume. Also see Answer to Question 33.

QUESTION 37: Section L.a.2.c(v) and Attachment 0008; pp. 74-75: In Section L.A.2.c(v) Volume V – Past Performance (Evaluation Factor IV), offerors are instructed to “submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 0008 Past Performance Information.”

In addition, in Sections L.A.2.c(v)(1) Experience and L.A.2.c(v)(2) Performance, offerors are instructed to provide past performance information, to include items listed in subparagraphs a through l and narrative performance descriptions.

Is it the Government’s intent to require a completed Attachment 0008 along with responses to requirements outlined under Experience and Performance? We are requesting clarification due to the duplicate nature of the requirements outlined in Attachment 0008 and those in L.A.2.c(v)(1) Experience and L.A.2.c(v)(2) Performance.

ANSWER: Attachment 0008 and Section L.a.2.c(v) can be combined within the Volume V to the extent that all information is included. No duplication is needed.

QUESTION 38: Attachment 0007: Unlike Attachment 0006, the Attachment 0007 Price Workbook does not include an Instructions tab.

Request that the Government revise Attachment 0007 to include an Instructions tab.

ANSWER: See updated Attachment 0007.

QUESTION 39: Attachment 0007; TEP; Cell C10-C13: In the Total Evaluated Price sheet, the formulas in cells C10-C13 pull unit pricing based on quantities from the Unit Production sheet and then multiply that unit price by the Government's BEQ for that IECU variant. There appear to be several errors in these formulas where the incorrect unit price is applied.

For example, cell C12 for 18K-3 Production appears to multiply the unit price by 385 units; however, the formula is pulling the unit price from the Unit Production sheet cells K7 and K11. Those cells are associated with unit pricing for quantities of 101-200 units.

Request that the Government correct the apparent error in the formulas or provide an explanation for the methodology if the formulas are correct.

ANSWER: The formulas are correct. The quantities used in TEP are over a 5-year period. Pricing used was per year/ordering period, assuming total quantities will not be ordered in single order because of funding/other issues. The TEP is not a commitment, it is an evaluation tool, and the formula used is the same for all offerors and therefore, comparable.

QUESTION 40: Attachment 0007; Cost CLINS: Section L.A.2.c(iv)(a) states: “Attachment 0007 Cost/Price Workbook must be completed in its entirety by the offerors.” This guidance suggests that all cells in Attachment 0007 highlighted in Yellow should be completed. This includes the Shipping and Travel CLINs in the Cost CLINs tabs.

The guidance in the solicitation Section B states, “Shipping costs are reimbursed based on actuals only and by approval of the COR or KO.” and “Contractor travel costs are reimbursed based on actuals only to be approved by the COR or KO.” Section B has the quantity as Undefined. Further for CLIN 0025 paragraph C.14.2 states “this CLIN applies to shipping Government-accepted IECU production units to their first destination. The Government expects to obligate funds the shipping CLIN, for a Not to Exceed dollar amount commensurate with the quantity of units ordered. The Government will request the required shipments from the contractor as needs arise.” For CLIN 0026 paragraph C.15.2 states “The travel CLIN shall reimburse the contractor only for direct travel costs. The Government expects to obligate funds against the travel CLIN for a Not to Exceed (NTE) dollar amount commensurate with the expected contractor travel.”

Because the Shipping and Travel CLINs (0025 & 0026) are Cost Reimbursable and have undefined requirements, should the offeror leave the Yellow highlighted cells in the Cost CLINs tab of Attachment 0007 blank?

ANSWER: See updated Attachment 0007.

QUESTION 41: Section L.A.2.c(ii)(2); p. 72: The Technical Volume requires that offerors "Explain for each IECU variant whether the design will be leveraged and/or modified from a previous design or if the design will be brand new. If a modified or leveraged design, what modifications are required to meet the PPD and IS. If a modified or leveraged design, the offeror may provide any evidence regarding the designs existing maturity. Some examples of maturity would be prior design verification results, prior production of the design, and samples of the associated design documentation. Samples will not count against the page limitation."

Between a "leveraged" design, a "modified" design, or a "brand new design," which offering is most desired by the Government?

ANSWER: The Government has no preference. L.A.2.c(ii)(2)a; has been revised and moved under L.A.2.c(ii)(1) “Design Concept”.

QUESTION 42: PPD 3.3.5.2 and MIL-STD-1408C; PPD Page 7, Interface Standard ALL: Per the PPD regarding the Inrush current- "The inrush current for the ECU, including startup and thermostatic cycle, shall not exceed the maximum current specified in the Interface Standard."

There is no stated requirement or restrictions for inrush current for any air conditioner specifications within the Interface Standard. Please define any inrush current restrictions or remove 3.3.5.2 entirely.

ANSWER: The maximum current specified in the Interface Standard also applies to inrush current (i.e., there are not separate requirements for inrush current).

QUESTION 43: Attachment+0008+Past+Performance, Solicitation Page 80 Section M. (B.); p. 80: Attachment 8 Section H requests: For each of the applicable subfactors under the Technical Capability factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor.

The subfactors for Technical Capability are not clear in the solicitation, page 80, section M., subsection B. Please provide clarification on what the subfactors are or where they can be referenced in the solicitation.

ANSWER: Attachment 0008 and Section M. A. has been updated. There were no such references in Solicitation Page 80 Section M. (B.)

QUESTION 44: Section L.A.2.c(v)(4) Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire and PPQ Cover Letter; RFP page 75 and PPQ Cover Letter: In the cover page of the document RFP Attachment 0009, points of contact for contract references are requested to complete enclosed PPQs and return them via email “no later than 15 days after receipt of request or August 15, 2024, whichever occurs first.”

We are requesting clarification of the deadline for POCs to submit their completed questionnaires to the CO for this effort.

ANSWER: See answer to Question 6.

QUESTION 45: Section L.A.2.b; p. 70: "The naming convention for each volume file will state the company name, followed by the proposal volume. Example "Company ABC: Volume II – Technical Capability.pdf." This naming convention does not match the Volume "File Name" column in L.A.1.c. Also, Microsoft does not permit the use of colons in filenames.

Please clarify the acceptable file names for each volume.

ANSWER: See updated Section L.A.1.c.

QUESTION 46: Section L.A.2.c(v); pp. 74-75: In Section L.A.2.c(v) Volume V – Past Performance (Evaluation Factor IV), offerors are instructed to “submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 0008 Past Performance Information.”

In addition, in Sections L.A.2.c(v)(1) Experience and L.A.2.c(v)(2) Performance, offerors are instructed to provide past performance information, to include items listed in subparagraphs a through l and narrative performance descriptions.

Is it the Government’s intent to require a completed Attachment 0008 along with responses to requirements outlined under Experience and Performance? We are requesting clarification due to the duplicate nature of the requirements outlined in Attachment 0008 and those in L.A.2.c(v)(1) Experience and L.A.2.c(v)(2) Performance.

ANSWER: Duplicate question. See Answer to Question 37.

QUESTION 47: B08+Soliciatation [sic] +W911QY24R0007+IECU; L.A.1.a; p. 69: "a. All questions are to be submitted prior to 10:00 a.m. ET August 7, 2024 and all proposals are due by 10:00 AM ET on August 26, 2024 via email to the USARMY ACC APG IECU Proposal Submission email address: usarmy.apg.acc.mbx.acc-apg-natick-iecu-proposal-submission@army.mil.

Government Enterprise Email can accept email sized up to 15 MB."

Given the number of volumes, and attachments, we anticipate a much large file size requirement than 15 MB. In addition, SAFE is provides offerors a safer method of delivery and ensured confirmation.

Would the Govt. provide SAFE code for submission of proposals?

ANSWER: DoDSAFE is no longer used by DoD for transmission of contract proposals. Also see Answer to Question 13.

QUESTION 48: B08+Soliciatation [sic] +W911QY24R0007+IECU; L.A.1.b; p. 69: "b. Each paragraph should be single spaced and will be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies.

Times New Roman font is required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 10-point and may be produced in landscape mode."

Our existing graphics/diagrams and specifications sheets are published in Arial Narrow font.

Would the Gov't accept graphics in Arial Narrow 8 pt or larger?

ANSWER: If there is any deviation from the requested font and size, the risk will be on the Offeror if the graphics are not able to be read.

QUESTION 49: B08+Soliciatation [sic] +W911QY24R0007+IECU; L.A.2.a - c; p. 70: "a. Format: ... A Table of Contents will not count against page limitations but will be included, and PDF files will use the following page setup

Each volume will contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used with an explanation for each.

Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. A Master Schedule may be included as a separate attachment to Volume III and will not count against the page limit for that Volume.

c. Content Requirement. .... Each file of the proposal will consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section will contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information will be clearly marked. The following will be included in the Narrative discussion: ..."

Would the Gov't. confirm that the 5 pages alloted [sic] for each Summary Section is excluded from page limits set for Volumes 1 and 2?

ANSWER: Volume I page limits have been changed. See updated Section L.A.1.c. Sixty (60) pages are allotted for Volumes II and III therefore no exclusions are being permitted as the Summary Section is to be a 'brief extract' of the file.

QUESTION 50: [blank] L.A.2.c.(v); p. 74: The data points requested in the Past Performance volume and in Attachment 8 are very similar.

Would the Govt please confirm that bidders should populate BOTH Attach 8 for each citation (including G-N) and Vol. V Narrative sections 1. Experience and 2 Performance, 3. Subcontractors; 4. PPQs; 5. Org Change History;

and 6. SubK Consent Letter?

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 37.

QUESTION 51: B08+Soliciatation [sic] +W911QY24R0007+IECU; L.A.2.c.(v); p. 74: "The offeror will submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment 0008 Past Performance Information….".

May we convert Attachment 0008 to word so that we can populate sections G through N?

ANSWER: Yes, but the content of the questions are to remain unchanged.

QUESTION 52: B08+Soliciatation [sic] +W911QY24R0007+IECU; Section B: Can the government clarify what is expected on the ‘Discount’ blanks for the Step-Ladder Pricing in Section B, as the price per unit for those ranges will be provided on the Unit Production worksheet of Attachment 0007?

ANSWER: The Government has provided the ranges in which they would like to see a discount provided.

Offerors should include the information based on their pricing. Also see Answer to Question 10.

QUESTION 53: B08+Soliciatation [sic] +W911QY24R0007+IECU; Gen.: Can the government provide the economic price adjustment methodology and indices that will be utilized for the FP-EPA portion of the resultant contract?

ANSWER: See updated Section H.

QUESTION 54: Attach. 0007: Gen.: Related to Question 7, can the government confirm that the base for the FP- EPA pricing will be the FY26 pricing for CLINs 0027 and 0030 through 0033 of Attachment 0007?

ANSWER: The base for FP-EPA will be the pricing for FY25 for CLINs 0027 and 0030 through 0033 on Attachment 0007.

QUESTION 55: Attach. 0007: Gen.: Can the government clarify whether the Base CLIN prices on Attachment 0007 are expected to be extended prices or prices for one each regardless of the quantity specified?

ANSWER: See updated Attachment 0007.

QUESTION 56: Attach. 0007: Gen.: Can the government confirm it is NOT expecting pricing at this time for CLIN 0025 Shipping or CLIN 0026 Contractor Travel on the Cost CLINs worksheet of Attachment 0007 or in Section B?

ANSWER: See updated Attachment 0007.

QUESTION 57: Attach. 0007: Gen.: Can bidders propose their own labor category mapping if the categories shown on Attachment 0007 do not reflect their labcat structure?

ANSWER: Attachment 0007 has been updated and includes a link to BLS labor categories. Please see instructions on “Labor Rates” tab in Attachment 0007.

QUESTION 58: PPD; Production Verification Testing: 4.1.1: Regarding Production Verification Units and testing.

Per the CLINS (0002, 0008, 0014, 0020) the Government may purchase anywhere between 1 and 8 of each IECU variant for PVT testing. From the PPD: “4.1.1 Production Verification Testing. The production verification units shall be subjected to the tests marked “X” in the PVT column of Table III.”

a) For any single IECU variant, is the intent for each ECU to undergo all PVT tests or for the tests to be split up between all PVT units?

b) For any single IECU variant, is the order of tests for each ECU at the discretion of the bidder?

ANSWER: The contractor may propose in the PVT plan regarding which PVT units will undergo each specific verification in table III. Unless otherwise specified in the PPD, not all verifications required by Section 4 of the PPD need to be accomplished on multiple PVT units of the same variant during PVT.

Sequencing of testing will also be identified in the test plan. Section C.9.3 and C.9.5 have been revised accordingly.

QUESTION 59: PPD; Reliability: 4.3.10.1: Regarding Production Verification Units and testing, “ Four ECUs shall be tested no less than 8,986 hours total…”

a) Is the intent for Four ECUs of each variant or 1 ECU of each variant (4 total ECUs)?

b) Does this paragraph indicate that the government will purchase a minimum of 4 IECUs of each variant for PVT testing?

ANSWER: Every verification applies to all variants separately. For the reliability verification, the intent is four IECUs of each variant. In order for this requirement to be met as written, the Government will have to purchase a minimum of four IECUs of each variant for PVT testing.

QUESTION 60: PPD; First Article Test Units: 4.1.2: Similarly for the First Article Test Units, for any single IECU variant, is the intent for each ECU to undergo all FAT tests or for the tests to be split up between all FAT units?

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 58.

QUESTION 61: Attachment 0001 PPD, 3.5.1; p. 8: PDD para 3.5.1 describes the desired refrigeration system.

Given the discussion in the DRFP of alternative refrigerants, will the government please confirm that the government is limiting this RFP to ASHRAE A1 type refrigerants, and that ANY currently listed ASHRAE listed A1 refrigerant, which is compliant with current EPA regulations (including R410A), is acceptable for this solicitation.

ANSWER: The requirement in the PPD intends for the refrigerant to be compliant with “current EPA regulations” in effect at the time the IECU is manufactured and delivered. Due to EPA prohibitions effective starting in 2025, R410A and other refrigerants with high Global Warming Potential are not viable refrigerants for this solicitation. Also see Answer to Questions 25 and 30.

QUESTION 62: Section H; p. 51: Special Contract Requirements – Fixed Price with EPA – Producer Price Index.

The Specified Producer Price Index listed at mid-page is undefined, i.e. the listing is provided as “XX”; as well as for the later mentioned ‘Backup Specified PPI’. This information is important for us to develop a pricing methodology. When will the government provide the selected PPI source?

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 53.

QUESTION 63: Proposal Submission, Section L.A.1.a; p. 69: (para L.A.1.a) states that the proposal must be submitted by email. This is in conflict with (para L.A.1.d line 3) which states that “Electronic mail (e-mail) and faxed copies of Proposals will not be accepted”. Please clarify.

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 1.

QUESTION 64: Volume III, Para (iii)(2) Master Schedule; p. 73: The requirement calls for delivery of the IMS in Gantt chart format but does not specify the platform. Does the Government prefer a printable .pdf or an MS Project file – or can both be submitted?

ANSWER: See updated Volume III, Para (iii)(2) Master Schedule requirements.

QUESTION 65: Volume IV Contract Price (para (iv)(a); p. 73: This para specifies the Offeror to complete Attachment 0007, which includes some spare parts (i.e. cable assemblies for the FY25 and FY26); however, the RFP also contains Attachment 0005 – Spare Parts Pricing, which includes cables with NSNs and Part No’s identified, without a CLIN reference). There are no instructions for what we are to do with Attachment 0005. Please provide instructions or clarify its purpose.

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 11.

QUESTION 66: Proposal Submission, Section L.A.1.a; p. 69: Under the Proposal Submission Requirements, states that each volume will be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5). Since this proposal is an email submission, will the Government remove the copy number requirement.

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 14.

QUESTION 67: Proposal Submission, Section L.A.1.c; p. 69: The Table in L.A.1.c provides the Volume title, page limit, and file name. For example, Volume II Technical Capability is shown as having a file name of ‘TECCAP’. However, Section L.A.2.b states that the naming convention for each volume file will state the company name, ANSWER: See Answer to Question 45.

QUESTION 68: Proposal Submission, Section L.A.2.c; p. 70: Will the Government clarify the page length for the Summary Section?

ANSWER: See Answers to Questions 16 and 49.

QUESTION 69: Proposal Submission, Section L.A.2.c.v.1 (Past Performance); p. 74: Will the Government clarify if they are asking for PPI forms as well as experience narratives? Section L.A.2.c.v.1 asks for information that is not included in the PPI forms, such as relevance to “contracts associated with environmental control systems, … or encompassing Integrated Product Support (IPS)/logistics functions, configuration management, system engineering, and production requirements as this contract requires.” The PPI form requires experience only to the subfactors under the Technical Capability factor in Section M (Design concept, Design and engineering approach, etc.).

ANSWER: See answer to Question 53.

QUESTION 70: Attachment 0008, Past Performance Information Final; Past Performance Information Final:

attachment+0008+Past+Performance+Information+Final was provided in a PDF, with Sections A through F in a fillable format. Would the Government clarify, is it their intent that offerors convert this form to Word for proposal submission, or will the Government provide a new Attachment that is fillable throughout all sections?

ANSWER: See answer to Question 51.

QUESTION 71: Proposal Submission, Section L.A.2.c.iii.2 (Management/Production); p. 73: "Section (iii) VOLUME III – Management/Production (Evaluation Factor II), 2. Master Schedule" requires the offeror to propose a delivery schedule and their compliance with section F of the solicitation document. Please provide a desired and required time of delivery (section F) to allow us to properly propose in accordance with the requirements.

ANSWER: See Answer to Question 4.

QUESTION 72: Proposal Submission, Section L.A.2.c.v.4 (Past Performance); p. 75: Section L states that the POCs will submit completed questionnaires directly to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist (KS) identified above no later than the proposal submission deadline specified in the solicitation. Attachment 0009 Past Performance Questionairre [sic] states in directions that questionarrie [sic] is to be complete and returned via email to the Contracting Officer no later than 15 days after receipt of request or August 15, 2024 whichever occurs first.

Please confirm the questionnaire [sic] is not due until proposal submission date?

ANSWER: See answer to Question 6.

QUESTION 73: C.23; p. 34: Is the intent of the warranty to address issues for brand new systems that have been in storage? Would there be circumstances where the system has been integrated into a moving shelter or vehicle that void the 2 year warranty based on use.

ANSWER: See updated Section C.23.

QUESTION 74: Exhbit [sic] A CDRLs; CDRL A043 and A025: Will the SPIs developed for the previous system be appliacable [sic] to the new systems based on complexity and the form/fit/function? Can the current Packing Data and SPIs and packaging data be provided by the government?

ANSWER: All new Packaging Data needs to be developed under CDRL A025 and A043 of this effort. The Government will not provide any previous data.

QUESTION 75: GENERAL: Can the same 8 units developed for the PVT be used for FAT to expedite timeline?

ANSWER: No. Separate FAT units shall be built and furnished for FAT.

QUESTION 76: GENERAL: Would a tiered schedule of PVT and FAT by unit type be considered by the government?

The intent of the question is to better understand the expectations for IECU Variants in terms of scheduling? Will a cascade approach be considered for producing each the IECU variant?