B08_MSV_ QA Questions 1-43_Set #1.pdf

W91CRB-20-R-0001 Modular Scalable Vest 12-Feb-20

Question & Answers 1-43

No. Offeror Question Government Response

Solicitation W91CRB-20-R-0001 has included evaluation criteria for the base award, but there does not appear to be any planned evaluation criteria included for the Fair Opportunities. Please clarify how Fair Opportunities [will] be evaluated as this will directly impact the design submitted for this solicitation. Pending.

Section A on Page 2 of the solicitation under “Proposal

Submission/Award Constraints” states “Proposal submissions are limited to one (1) MSV design per company.” Since the Army has provided the patterns and PD for this solicitation, please clarify what is meant by “MSV design”.

Although the Army has provided the patterns for the MSV (only), the ballistics package is still the design of the vendor. Each prime vendor may only submit one design, however a vendor may be subcontractor to several primes.

3 Is a size tariff available for this solicitation?

Delivery order 0001 will be for CLINs 0001-0003 with specific instructions as far as what to submit. Subsequent Fair Opportunities (delivery orders) will provide a size tariff that could vary to allow PM SPE to meet the current requirements of the buying commands. As an EXAMPLE, the size tariff from the last order placed on the previous contract.

Size Percent

1. Extra Small Short XS-S 2%

2. Extra Small XS 9%

3. Small Short SM-S 3%

4. Small SM 33%

5. Small Long SM-L 3%

6. Medium MD 34%

7. Large LG 13%

Please reference page 88 of the conformed solicitation under the

Submission Instructions for Volume 2 Technical Subfactor 3 –

Manufacturing: There is a requirement for “Facility layout for minimum and maximum monthly production rates.” What are the required minimum and maximum monthly production rates for this opportunity?

"Minimum and maximum production rates" refers to the vendor's facility capabilities not the Government's requirements. The solicitation requests that each vendor provide their minimum and maximum capabilities along with a facility layout for evaluation by the Selection Board.

Section 3.4 of the RFP states that the contractor will ship in accordance with the “Peckham General Vendor Shipping Instruction

Rev 11, dated 29 March 2019.” Can this instruction be provided?

Peckham General Vendor Shipping Instruction Rev 12, dated 31 March 2019 will be posted to beta SAM as attachment J.10 to the Solicitation.

Section 3.4 of the RFP specifies that “The contractor must maintain records for each shipment that includes photo evidence of the condition of each box and MSV prior to shipment.” To clarify, is a photo required for every single vest? Are the photos required of a fully assembled kit or each individual part? Or is the photo evidence just required for each box? Reference updated Solicitation SoW Section 3.4

Is the contractor responsible for LAT costs? Or does the Government pay for ATC LATs? Reference updated Solicitation SoW Section 4.4.1

Can the Government provide a copy of the CDRLs associated with this program? CDRLs are not being used for this requirement.

Is the ISO 9001:2015 Crosswalk included in the 100 page limit for

Volume 6 Quality Assurance? Or is that considered “supporting documentation” that is not counted as part of the page limit?

The crosswalk itself is a single table and should be provided within the 100 page limit. The quality processes and procedures referenced in the crosswalk are supporting documentation and should be submitted in their entirety

10 What is the expected size distribution (sizes tariff) per CLIN? Reference response to Question #3.

The RFP states that “proposal submissions are limited to one MSV design per company. Awards are limited to one contract award per company.” Can you clarify if more than one proposal submission is allowed per company (with the understanding that each proposal can only contain one design)? Reference response to Question #2.

Based on the premise of the Mentor-Protégé Program and SBA guidelines (Title 13, Part 125.9) the Mentor-Protégé program advises that mentors and protégés cannot compete with one another. It further specifies that if a company has multiple protégés, those protégés cannot compete with one another.

a. Can the Government confirm that that only one protégé company per mentor is allowed to bid on this solicitation?

b. Can the Government confirm that the protégé relationship may only be used if the mentor does not bid directly on this solicitation?

c. If the answer to (b) above is “no” then can the Government confirm that either a Mentor or Protégé will be awarded a prime contract, but both shall not be awarded?

SBA rules Title 13, Part 125.9 does not directly address a conflict in competition between a Mentor and Protégé.

a. The contracting office does not dictate the number of protégés allowed to bid on a solicitation.

b. The contracting office will not dictate if the protégé bids on a solicitation.

c. The awardee will be selected based on the evaluation factors present in the solicitation and not SBA guidelines

In Section M, 2.2.4.3 of the RPF (Conformed SF33 Page 105, last bullet) states that the government will “Evaluate each offeror (prime contractor) and subcontractor individually and will develop a combined assessment of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort.” However, Section L, 2.1.9.4 indicates that the offeror “must submit a narrative containing their own past performance information…” The solicitation only allows for three reference contracts. In addition to the three past performance references for the prime, can up to three past performance references also be included for major subcontractors?

1. For the MSV requirement, the Government is not evaluating at the subcontractor level. Section M 2.2.4.3 (bullet 5) will be revised.

2. No, in accordance with Section L 2.1.9.4 first bullet, the past performance data is only related to the offeror's recent, relevant participation as a Prime or

Major subcontractor. We are not requesting data for your major subcontractors.

Section B of the SF33 in the pricing section has max quantities listed, and the contractor is required to complete the Unit Price, Max

Amount, and Max Net Amt sections. However, there are a few challenges, as follows:

a. CLIN 0004 is for MSV and MSV Spare Parts. Based on the pricing spreadsheet attachment (B08_J.4_MSV- MSV Spares_Price List_01-

08-2020) there are fifteen individual unit prices that the contractor needs to offer. The total volume of kits and spares (regardless of item) adds up to the 1,834,468 max quantity in Section B CLIN 0004.

However, Section B only allows the contractor to enter one unit price (not the 15 that the contractor must provide in the spreadsheet). Which unit price should the contractor enter for CLIN

0004 or can SLINs be broken out?

b. CLINs 0005, 0007, and 0009 are for Tech Insertion. Section B lists the max quantity for those CLINs as 10,000,000, 2,500,000, and

2,500,000 respectfully. However, the contractor must fill out unit price, max amount, and max net amount. From the pricing excel sheet, it appears that the Government is trying to normalize the value of those CLINs per contract at $10M and $2.5M. Is that correct?

a. The solicitation Sections L & M have been amended to remove the submission requirement for a completed Section B. Offerors are only required to submit FFP on the provided Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment J.4).

b. CLINs 0005, 0007, and 0009 are normalized.

Will the Government accept a different shade for the Soft Armor

Ballistic Insert Cover for PDMs only? (Under contract award, the shade will be the correct “grey”.)

Yes the Government will allow shade deviations for PDM samples as long as it is noted as a deviation in the proposal and stated that the correct shade samples will be provided under a contract award.

16 Please confirm that the point of contact for NCI is correct.

Reference updated Solicitation Section L 2.1.2 Use of Non-Government

Advisors. To note, the previous contact may have already processed NDAs with some vendors. If you already processed the NDA, a new one is not required.

Is it possible to receive more detail on what the packaging instructions to Peckham? Reference response to question #5.

Regarding Heat Seal Material for MSV, PD Section 3.1.7 references a verification paragraph of 4.1.7. Upon review of said paragraph, the weight of the ballistic panel cover appears to be incorrect; showing

2.25 oz/sq. yd. Please provide the correct verification metric and/or identify whether the information in the PD will be modified.

Reference PD Appendix B Table B-II for the correct specifications. PD

Paragraph 4.1.7 will be amended to correlate with Appendix B Table B-II.

Not

Used***************************************************

Is there a 6 lb. foam requirement? 3.1.9 states that shoulder foam for the front and back inner carrier is 2 lb., however, Appendix E lists

6 lb foam as Fabric F.

Yes, there is a 6# foam requirement and there is an amendment, to PD section

3.1.9, in process. Follow Appendix E, all tables, which connect the Fabric Type to the appropriate MSV pieces.

Can you verify that the MSV Concealable Carrier finished measurements are correct? When we make the size Medium back concealable carrier using the patterns provided, the sample comes out larger than the allowed tolerances listed in Table C-IV for both length and width.

The measurements in the requirement are correct.

Can you verify that the MSV Tactical Carrier finished measurements are correct? When we make the size medium back tactical carrier using the patterns provided, the sample comes out larger than the allowed tolerances listed in Table C-III for both length and width. Reference response to question #21.

Where do we fold the pull tab on MSV27_CC-CMRBND-EXT? The patterns do not show a fold location. Pending.

I am having trouble finding specific quantities on the hardware associated with the BODY ARMOR, TORSO AND EXTREMITY

PROTECTION MODULAR SCALABLE VEST, GENERATION II AND BODY

ARMOR, MULTIPLE THREAT / INTERCEPTOR IMPROVED OUTER

TACTICAL VEST, GENERATION V. Where can I find this information? Reference PD Sections 3.1.6 through 3.1.24.

What weave is the heat seal fabric (i.e. ripstop, plain, twill, not specified, etc.)

PD sections 3.1.7 and 4.1.7 are in the process of being updated as follows:

3.1.7 Cloth, Ballistic Panel Cover. The ballistic panel cover shall be a lightweight, polyurethane coated, nylon, that does not exceed 210 denier and shall be heat sealed around the ballistic filler with a minimum heat seal width of 0.20 inches. The ballistic cover shall conform to the physical requirements listed in Appendix B Table B-II, when tested as specified in 4.1.7. The shade of this material is as specified in 3.4.2. The pattern of this material is as specified in Appendix E.

4.1.7 Cloth, Ballistic Panel Cover. Contractor shall verify the ballistic panel cover is 5.5 (±1.0) ounce per square yard, nylon with a durable water repellent

(DWR) chemical finish through visual inspection and CoC-C. Ballistic panel cover shall be IAW requirements in paragraph 3.1.7.

With respect to the foam, is there any specified color required, or is the contractor at liberty to use any color? The foam is for internal use only; a specific shade is not required.

Referencing PD Paragraph 3.8.3, how many pages in the tech manual, and what are the dimensions of the Graphic Training Aid before folding?

The Tech Manual is 12 pages of text (normal paper two sided) plus front cover

(card stock) and back cover (card stock) for a total of 8 sheets. Dimensions of the Graphic Training Aid before folding is 16.5 inches tall by 22.75 inches wide

(printed on both sides).

Appendix E, table E-1, Identifier F is a foam ¼" 6#. 4.1.9 foam only states an EVA foam with a density of 2 +/-1 pounds per cubic foot.

Is table E-1 incorrect or does 4.1.9 need to be updated to include a

6# foam? Reference the answer to question #20.

There is a concern about the FO process and best value trade-off. In theory, someone can submit a solution that is .79 and get an outstanding rating. If they get a contract, they can then submit a second FAT at .88 because it’s cheaper and heavier. By doing this, they cheated the best value approach as they essentially pulled a bait and switch. Is this going to be allowed? If so, PEO will just have a LPTA contract. Pending.

30 Have you heard whether or not there will be a sample review?

Due to schedule and security constraints, the sample review will not be occurring; pictures are available. Pictures will be forwarded to those vendors who request and receive approval to access the PD/Patterns. The process for requesting access to the limited distribution documents (PD/Patterns) is posted as an attachment to Solicitation W91CRB-20-R-0001 on the https://beta.SAM.gov website. After receiving approval to access the documents, send an email to the Solicitation PoC and the pictures will be emailed to you.

In accordance with Section 2.2.4.1.1, Factor 1, Subfactor 1 – Areal

Density/Thickness defines a marginal areal density rating between

0.89 to 0.90 lbs/ft2. Can an Offeror still receive an “Acceptable” rating even if they are rated “Marginal” areal density rating? If so, an Offeror can still be eligible for an award even though the max areal density within the technical requirements is 0.88 lbs/ft2.

No, an offeror cannot receive an "Acceptable" rating even if they are rated

"Marginal" for areal density rating. Section M 2.2.4.1.1 is revised to address

"Marginal and Unacceptable" ratings.

Within Technical Subfactor 3 – Manufacturing, the Government requests facility layout for minimum and maximum monthly production rates. Does the Government have a minimum monthly production requirement? Reference response to question #4.

Does the Government intend to award the first fair opportunity at the time of contract award?

No. Delivery Order 0001 will be issued to all contract holders at the time of basic contract award and consists of the deliverables found at CLINs 0001-

0003. Fair Opportunities will be held thereafter.

If the Government decided to modify technical requirements (ex.

Reduction in ballistic weight) over the course of the contract, will the Government pay for a new First Article Test? Additionally, will the Government allow for revised unit costing?

Yes, if the Government creates a technical change in the form fit function of the end unit requring a re-FAT of a vendors existing approved package, the

Government would pay for cost of the re-FAT for that vendor and allow the vendor to revise their unit cost.

Purchase Description Section 3.1.9 Foam: This section references only 2# foam at ¼” and 3/8”. However in table E-I there is also a 6# foam referenced. Table E-II thru Table E-XIII shows a location for all three types. Which section is correct? Please clarify the foam types required and their locations. Reference response to question #20

A proper sample is requested for viewing. Will a sample be provided or be made available? Reference response to question #30

Do the ballistic panel cover patterns need to be used “as is” or can we make adjustments to the supplied patterns. The ballistic panel cover patterns are only 3/8” larger than the respective ballistic panel pattern. The sonic heat seal wheel is ¼” wide. This leaves only 1/8” for the thickness of the ballistic panel which is not enough, and this is leaving no room for any manufacturing tolerance (which is necessary). Also, there is physically not enough room to properly close the open end once the ballistic panel is inserted. Therefore, will we be able to adjust the provided patterns or will new patterns be supplied? Reference response to question #21.

A 30 day extension is requested. Here are the reasons for our extension request.

1. We are not able to complete our PDM's until my question regarding the foam specification is answered.

2. We have requested to see or receive a sample of a proper MSV.

Since this is a new generation vest, we feel that this is a reasonable and appropriate request.

3. I asked about modifying the ballistic panel covers or having new patterns provided. Until this is answered, we are not able to complete the PDM's or costing.

4. The deadline for questions is 1 week prior to the proposal due date. As of right now, that is 17 Feb. If our (and other companies) questions aren't answered until 18 Feb, we will not have sufficient time to react and finish our proposals.

Pending.

The proposal instructions are very clear that the offeror must not include any pricing information in any section of their proposal except within Volume 1 (Offer) and Volume 3 (Price). However, the proposal instructions for Volume 4 – Small Business Participation require the offeror to include total combined dollar value by large and small businesses and for each subcategory of small business.

How should the offeror address this discrepancy in the RFP?

Solicitation Section L parts 2.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.9.1, 2.1.9.3, have all been updated for clarification.

It is our understanding that the MSV incorporates technology that is covered by First Spear's U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,974,379 and 9,565,922. Will the Government indemnify bidder's against any infringement and pay any required royalties directly?

No, the Government will not indemnify bidder's against infringement or pay for any required royalties directly. Please see contract clause 52.227-3

Alternate I.

In an effort to minimize any potential complications with a Monday morning delivery of samples and RFP responses, [we] would like to request the deadline for proposal submission be moved from 1000 on February 24 to 1600 on February 24. Pending.

The name and contact info listed in W91CRB20R0001 on page 27 of

53 in the addendum is incorrect. After following the directive of reaching out to NCI Information Systems to have an agreement drafted, we received the below information back. The person listed;

Amanda Hall, replied that she is not the correct contact. In addition, they still have not as of yet got back to us with any correct information. Reference the response to question #16.

We understand that all LAT testing costs will be borne by

Government. Regarding the end items and potential shootpacks to be submitted for each LAT, does the Government contemplate modifying contracts to essentially reimburse industry for the items used in any lot testing?

The Government will not have a separate CLIN or modify contracts after award to reimburse industry for vendor items used in LAT testing.