Questions_ _Answers_RFQ_-_Food_Waste_Dehydrator_Acquisition_(W912DY-15-P-0118_).docx

1) What are the projected time-frames for the various fulfillment periods indicated below in the pricing worksheet:

See the answer provided below.

2) What period of time does this RFP cover for pricing?

A) Is this RFP for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2015 and ends Sept. 30, 2016?

The “base order” is for first year order which is planned in three phases. The estimated date of award for the base period is the estimated start date (14 Dec 15) to the ending date (13 Dec 16). The Option Period is for the second year and is expected to be performed in two phases. The Option may not be funded and is only for pricing future buys that may occur if there is funding. See the revised Pricing Spreadsheet Rev 02 for the projected quantities.

B) Or, is this RFP for more than the current fiscal year? If so, what period of time does it cover?

See the answer to Question 2A.

3) Is it possible that this award would go to more than one Contractor? Yes. If so, do the individual military bases decide which Contractor to use? No. Be advised, if the Government makes multiple awards or partial awards, the total award value will be apportioned amongst the awardees.

4) Will you consider equipment that has been CE/CSA certified? Any proposed certification must be an OSHA recognized national recognized testing laboratory. It is the offeror responsibility to confirm and prove compliance with the OSHA certification. As stated on the OSHA website CSA (Canadian Standards Association) is recognized but CE (Conformite Europeenne - which is French for European Conformity) is not on the list.

5) If not, will you allow a manufacturer sufficient time to obtain the ETL certification prior to shipment and delivery? No.

6) It appears you have added a new Testing and Acceptance section for 15 days.

A) Is this a one-time test only for each new model size installed by the Contractor per location? Yes.

Once a model passes the initial evaluation, that particular model version is considered compliant for any remaining orders. The initial order will be for no more than one or two dehydrators and the testing will be done on the first iteration of deliveries.

B) Or, is this on every unit installed by the Contractor at all locations? No, see the answer under 6A.

C) If for all units installed at all locations, are these costs potentially reimbursable or not? No.

Testing is not for all units at all locations. Any additional costs associated with the testing may be considered for an equitable adjustment under a modification.

7) I see you added a new line for contingency on the pricing worksheet.

A) Is that to cover the costs in 6) A), B) & C) above? This cost line has been removed from the pricing spreadsheet.

B) Or, to cover costs that may have been under estimated for installation, shipping, etc.? This cost line has been removed from the pricing spreadsheet.

C) Or, both of the above? This cost line has been removed from the pricing spreadsheet.

8) Need clarification on the new standard for power consumption per Model.

A) Should that read: Average Power Consumption vs. Power Consumption for both models? Technically this would be an average power consumption per cycle.

B) Should it read: <3.3 kWh & <8.8 kWh vs. <3.3 Kwh & <8.8 Kwh The units for power consumption (average power consumption per treatment cycle) are kilowatt-hours. Therefore, less than or equal to 3.3 kilowatt-hours and 8.8 kilowatt hours, for the small and large capacity models, respectively.

9) Need clarification on the standard for Exterior Material, which is currently Stainless Steel. Since the exterior material does not impact processing or performance but does increase costs / unit, will the military consider a Powder Coated Steel for less cost / unit? The Government requires exterior stainless steel models as the technical specifications indicate.

10) When will the responses be available to the above questions? The replies will be posted to FedBizOps which is the official time/date of the responses.

11) Can you please clarify what information you are seeking as a "Contingency" as listed on the Dehydrator Pricing Spreadsheet? This cost line has been removed from the pricing spreadsheet.

12) How many pages are allotted for Factor 2 - Past Performance? None. The Government will review the past performance record as stated in the RFQ and no content submission is required under this factor.

13) Pricing of installation and shipping costs for the Site Locations of "To Be Determined" for both the base and option periods presents a significant challenge because the locations are not know and thus shipping, airfare, per diem, etc. can't be accurately priced. This would cause bidders to bid an average cost per unit. However, it appears the Government will only pay actual costs due to the documentation required when invoices are submitted. Will the awarded contractor(s) be allowed to request an equitable adjustment if the average cost quoted is less than actual expenses? For the delivery location changes, the contractor will be allowed to submit an equitable adjustment for the travel costs differences under the installation costs and for adjustments in the shipping costs; however, no adjustments to the unit price will be allowed.

Or, will the Government establish an artificial plug number to "level the playing field" for all bidders and allow for actual costs when invoicing? The pricing spreadsheet now includes “Fort Hood” as the standard delivery location for proposal purposes.

14) Can the Government be more specific as to what costs they consider "Contingency"? This cost line has been removed from the pricing spreadsheet. Or, once again would the Government establish a percentage to level the playing field? This cost line has been removed from the pricing spreadsheet.