B08_W911SR20R0002_Questions and Answers_13 March 2020_PL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request for Proposal: M61 Canisters
- Solicitation number
- W911SR-20-R-0002
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for M61 canisters. The solicitation seeks proposals to procure M61 canisters for the Joint Service General Purpose Mask from contractors that have achieved a Manufacturing Readiness Level of 8. Proposers must demonstrate the ability to produce a maximum of 800,000 filters per year. The minimum order quantity is $100,000 and delivery orders will be competed among awardees. The response time for proposals was extended to April 16, 2020. The Joint Project Manager - Protection within the Department of the Army is the contracting agency.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
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
| Question # | Contract Section | Contract Page / Paragraph / Attachment | |||
| Reference | Question | Answer | |||
| 1 | B | B.1 Min and Max ordering quantities | In that the minimum stated guaranteed quantity to any awardee is to a value of $100,000, do we assume all requirements beyond $100,000 will then be competed fairly between the awardees as separate delivery orders? | The minimum guaranteed quantity for the IDIQ is $100,000. See FAR 16.504 (a)(1) through (4) for details on minimum guaranteed quantities on Indefinite-quantity type contracts. | |
| 2 | B | B.1 Min and Max ordering quantities | Is there a guaranteed delivery order of any size beyond $100,000 as part of the award? | No | |
| 3 | C | C.3.6.1, Page 13, First Article Testing | CCBC CBC was contacted with regards to providing a quotation to complete some components of FAT testing. CCBC CBC has indicated that the Sand test requirement normally performed within one of their labs will be down until at least May 2021 and therefore, a quotation for testing from that lab is not possible and the lab may not be functional to meet expected timelines. CCBC CBC is looking to find an alternate Government lab to complete this unique test capability but they may not be successful by the due date for this bid response. Can this unique test cost requirement be reviewed later and amended as necessary? | C.3.6.1.2 states that testing may be performed by CCDC CBC. The same subparagraph states that the contractor may conduct testing at their own facility or by a different independent Government laboratory. | |
| 4 | C | C.4, Page 15 - Travel | It is appreciated that the Government recognizes that travel associated with this contact is important. Please clarify how authorized and incurred travel costs are to be recovered? The text within this section suggests that recovery would be under an associated DO so travel costs would be recovered under WAWF? Is this correct? | Travel costs will be recovered at the Task Order level for CTR Task Orders only. H.14.2 and C.4 will be revised to change "DO" to "TO" in both sections. | |
| 5 | G | G.1.1, Page 24 - Planned Ordering Periods | This section indicates that the ordering periods will be established after approval of FAT. However, a Note at the end of this section states "Dates to be filled in at time of award". These statements appear to be in conflict with each other since at time of award a FAT order isn't likely awarded until funds become available and then FAT approval could be up to 18 months later. Also, any FAT waiver request would still need to be approved so a delay would occur under this scenario as well. Wouldn't these dates all be from date of contract award? | G.1.1 of the solicitation will be updated to clarify that dates will be filled in at time of award or after FAT approval. | |
| 6 | H | H.5.2 Delivery / task order completion | H.5.2 states that the government can select its contractor for each delivery order based upon what is determined to be in the governments best interest. Is it the intent of the government to split each delivery order between the contract holders as in previous contracts? | The Government will compete Delivery Orders and Task Orders among IDIQ holders as prescribed in H.5.2. Per H.5.2.1, the Contracting Officer may use price, schedule, past performance or any other factor to determine who is awarded orders based upon the Government's best interest. | |
| 7 | H | H.5.2 Delivery / task order completion | If it is the case in H.5.2 above, assuming each contractor can meet the delivery schedule and quality requirements etc. what percentage split does the government contemplate for splitting its requirements for each delivery order ? | See answer to question 6 (above) - Government will make award decisions on a case by case basis. | |
| 8 | H | H.5.2 Delivery / task order completion | H.5.2 states that the Contracting officer will select the contractor for each delivery order award as is determined to be in the Governments best interest in accordance with the ordering procedures detailed in the Delivery Order Request (DOR)? Can you please provide samples of the DOR? | No. The Government will not be providing a sample of a DOR at this time. | |
| 9 | H | H.5.1 & H.5.2, Page 30, Delivery/Task Order Competition | It is acknowledged that the Contracting Officer has broad discretion with respect to this process, however, can you provide a draft spare purchase DOR/TOR that would identify information that would be contained in such a document? Will the Government contracting define how DO quantities might be awarded within each DOR/TOR to contract awardees? Single order, multi-award via a split approach, etc.? | A draft TOR has been provided for Continuous Technology Refreshment, Volume III/Factor 3. Per B.1, the Government anticipates the award of Multiple IDIQ contracts. | |
| 10 | J | Attachment 2 - Cost Template | It appears that the Government is expecting escalation from Year 1 pricing to be identical in all future years since the cells are set to automatically calculate unit pricing in the future years based on an escalation figure entered into cell C8. It is highly unlikely that the same escalation will apply across each year at the same rate. Are bidders permitted to enter unit pricing independently from the escalation calculation established in this attachment? | L.3.4.1.1.2 revised by amendment to W911SR-20-R-0002 from: "An escalation percentage and a price per unit for each quantity range." to: "The price summary tab of the “Cost Proposal Template” uniformly applies escalation for M61 canister pairs. Offerors may deviate from this uniform escalation methodology (i.e. offerors may remove all embedded formulas and simply enter unit prices for all years without use of embedded formulas). " | |
| 11 | I | Contract Clauses, Page 39 | The Government has referenced clause 52.217-6 related to Option for Increased Quantity however, this clause requires the Contracting Office to insert a length of time into this clause. What is the length of time being considered? | In the case that 52.217-6 is used in a future delivery order, the period of time for which the KO has to notify a contractor of the Government's intent to exercise an option is typically 30 days. | |
| 12 | L, M | L.3.1.3.1, M.2.2.1.1, Volume I - Manufacturing | With MRL Level 8 only demonstrating LRIP capability, is this level compatible with the requirement to produce a maximum number of 800k filters per year? And if not, should the required MRL level be at least 9? | Yes, an MRL level of 8 is compatible with the requirement to produce a maximum number of 800k filters per year. | |
| 13 | L | L.3.1.3.1 | Regarding the requirement for MRL 8, is it possible to either tie it into achieving MRL 8 within the 18 months allocated for First Article Test? By making it a requirement, the solicitation effectively precludes other supplies from participating in the active bidding process unless they had produced the product in the past, regardless of technical and manufacturing capability to meet the timeline and performance criteria. | No. As was communicated to Industry in the draft solicitation (April 2019), the Government requires at least an MRL level of 8 prior to FAT. | |
| 14 | L | L.3.3.3.2 CTR | In addition to test data to demonstrate MRL capability, would it not make sense for the offeror to also submit sample filters for the government to carry out a full evaluation and confirm production readiness or stated MRL level. | This is not requirement of the W911SR-20-R-0002 solicitation. | |
| 15 | L | L.3.8.1.12 Section K | Section K is not included in the Solicitation. Do you require bidders to provide a completed copy of their Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors? If so, please provide the form/guidance. | No. Representations, Certification and other Statements shall be provided in the Administrative Volume. | |
| 16 | L | L.3.8.1.13 ORCA | ORCA is an obsolete system that has been replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM). Would you like offerors to provide validity of their SAM registration? If so, please provide guidance on that. | Yes. L.3.8.1.13 has been revised to remove the obsolete ORCA language. | |
| 17 | L | New: L.1.8.2 | Since a bidder's proposal is to be prepared in several separate volumes, may we also include a separate Executive Summary that will be considered, if not scored, by the review board? | An Executive Summary is not a requirement of this solicitation. However, if offerors wish to provide an executive summary to their administrative volume; they may. Please note, page limitations to this (and all other) volume(s) remain applicable. (Ref. L.2) | |
| 18 | L | pg. 85/L.3.3.3.1/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final | What is the TRL level and volume capacity is expected at the end of 18 months? | Volume capacities are not demonstrated requirements of the CTR Factor. The requirements for the CTR effort are limited to the elements described within L.3.3 and the requirements within the Sample CTR TOR. However, an MRL level of 6 is required at L.3.3.3.2. A TRL level of 6 would be required to reach an MRL level of 6. | |
| 19 | L | pg. 4/Item No 0004/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final | With relation to p.85/L.3.4.1.1.3/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final. We understand that the rates for years 3 and 5 will be inflated at 1.9% annually. Therefore, to go from year 1 to 3 the cost will be inflated twice and to go from year 3 to 5 will be inflated twice more. Correct? | Correct | |
| 20 | L | pg. 4/Item No 0004/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final | With relation to p.85/L.3.4.1.1.3/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final. We understand it that pg. 4/Item No. 0004/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final will be the sum of years 1, 3, and 5, correct? | It is the sum of years 1, 3, 5 and 7. | |
| 21 | L | pg. 6/Item No 1002/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final | With relation to p.85/L.3.4.1.1.3/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final. We understand that the cost for year 6 will be $0, correct? | Correct | |
| 22 | L | pg. 7/Item No 2002/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final | With relation to p.85/L.3.4.1.1.3/B08_Solicitation_W911SR-20-R-0002_beta.sam_final. We understand that the cost for year 7 will be the cost for year 5 after inflating twice, correct? | Correct | |
| 23 | L | W911SR20R0002 Solicitation page 84, paragraph L.3.2.3.1 | (Potential offeror's name removed) is ISO 9001:2015 registered by BSI (British Standards Institution). Paragraph L.3.2.3.1 requires that a Quality System Plan (QSP) be submitted. We consider our Quality System Plan to be our Quality Manual (GQM-1). Our Quality Manual describes our Quality System including a listing of all Quality Management System procedures. Will inclusion of a copy of our Quality Manual meet this requirement or is a program specific, M61 Program Quality Plan required? | An offeror's quality manual, any quality awards or certifications may be provided for evaluation in addition to (or as part of) a Quality System Plan (QSP). However, the Quality System Plan (QSP) shall be provided for evaluation in accordance with L.3.2.3.1. | |
| 24 | L | L.3.6.3, SAM profiles | FAR 52.204-7 governing the System for Award Management requires Offerors seeking a contract award to have a current profile in SAM, but not all subcontractors are SAM-registered. Does the Government intend that all subcontractors register with SAM to support an Offeror’s bid for the M61 contract? | See 52.219-28 (in Section I). | |
| 25 | M | W911SR20R0002 Solicitation page 98, paragraph M.2.2.2.1 | Paragraph M.2.2.2.1 states QSP evaluation using ANSI/ASQC Q9002. This specification is an obsolete specification last revised in 1994. We currently are ISO 9001:2015. Is this just an error and our QSP would be evaluated per the current ISO Standard ISO 9001:2015? | M.2.2.2.1 of the solicitation will be updated to specify that the QSP will be evaluated using ISO 9001:2015. | |
| 26 | Attach. 4 | pg. 2/3.1/B08_Attachment 4_Sample CTR TOR_13 January 2020 | States: "The contractor shall manufacture 120 pairs (120 individual) of canisters of a design of their choosing." Is it 120 pairs (240 individual) or 60 pairs (120 individual)? | Attachment 4 (Sample CTR TOR) revised, at page 2, from "120 pairs (120 individual)" to "120 pairs (240 individual)." | |
| 27 | General | General | The Government has currently set a response period of 30 days for this requirement but the Government is also requesting bidders provide good technical responses such that bids can be appropriately evaluated to result in a best value assessment. To that end and as per DFAR 205.203 (b), it is requested that this solicitation be open for 45 days? | The Government has issued an amendment 01 to W911SR-20-R-0002 which includes an extension to the proposal due date from 01 April 2020 to 16 April 2020, reference L.1.4. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .