B08_MSV_ QA Questions 44-63_Set#2.pdf

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

Questions & Answers 44-63 and 1, 23, 29, 30, and 31

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.

In accordance with Solicitation Page 2 “Contract Minimum”, Delivery Order 0001 (CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003) represents the contract minimum for all contract holders. After Delivery Order 0001, the Government intends to compete all additional orders through best value fair opportunities in accordance with FAR part 16.505 and in accordance with the Government’s need.

Specifically, the Government will evaluate all fair opportunities utilizing a best value award basis which allows for tradeoffs between the factors of Weight, Schedule and Cost. The Government intends to compete all fair opportunities allowing for a trade-off between one or all of these specific factors. The Government will determine the specific relative order of importance between the three factors for individual fair opportunities based on the needs/priorities of the Government given the economic and security climate at that time. The

Government will notify the contractors of the type of trade-off planned within the fair opportunity notice. To receive consideration for delivery order award, contractors must provide a proposal that meets or exceeds the

Government's requirements for schedule and performance, regardless of the tradeoff type.

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

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.

PM SPE will maintain best value trade-off for Fair Opportunities in addition to the initial award. This will allow the Government the maximum amount of latitude to award fair opportunities based on any one of three factors: Performance (weight), Schedule, or Cost. The Government will determine the basis for award of any fair opportunities for a best value trade-off based on the immediate need. In order to maintain best value for performance (or schedule), for example, the Government will assign a price offset to higher performing lower weight packages (or shortest delivery schedule) in order to reward vendors for submitting the best value proposal.

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. The Government will extend the Solicitation to 2:00 PM on 16 March, via

Amendment 03 to the Solicitation.

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. Reference the response to question 30.

On Page 95, under Subfactor 1 (ISO), the 2nd bullet point is inconsistent with

ISO9001:2015. The documented procedures referenced are numbered per the old

ISO9001:2008 standard. Per ISO9001:2015: *4.2.3

Control of Documents and 4.2.4 Control of Records are now both combined into Section

7.5, Documented Information

* 8.3 Control of Nonconforming Product is now Section 8.7, Control of Nonconforming

Outputs

* 8.5.1 Corrective Action and 8.5.2 Preventive Action is now Section 10.2, Nonconformity and Corrective Action

* 8.2.2 Internal Audit is now Section 9.2 Internal Audit

Are these the sections of the ISO specification that the Army intended to reference?

Pending.

The PD lists the requirements for the 2# foams only. It does not mention the 6# foam except in the patterns. What are the requirements for the 6# foam? Reference the response to question #20.

Under the ballistic testing portion of Section L, the solicitation references “TABLE XXII

Ballistic FAT Matrix” in the PD and includes “Table 4: Ballistic Testing Table”. Please clarify which test reports need to be included in the test documentation for this solicitation. Pending.

Our Hook & Loop supplier has identified some inconsistencies in the PD: Paragraph

3.1.11 – fasteners, hook and loop, high Profile.This is Type II Class 1 woven hook and loop so you will not have a warp knit loop or extruded hook in this paragraph.

Appendix B Table B-III: Thickness – incorrect on all (See A-A-55126C). Appendix B

Table B-IV: Thickness – incorrect on Class 1, 1 ½”width (See A-A-55126C). Please clarify the requirements for the hook and loop.

PD Appendix B Table B-III and Appendix B Table B-IV will be revised to reflect the requirements at A-A-55126C

Due to the delays in getting our previous questions answered, we respectfully request a

2 week extension. Reference response to question #39

RFP Section L 2.1.3 states “Absolutely no price information is to be included in any proposal volume except Volume 1: Offer, Volume 3: Price and Attachment J.4

MSV_Carrier/Spare Parts_Price Matrix.” In Volume 5 both the Small Business participation plan and a subcontracting plan developed in accordance with RFP requirements, FAR 19.704, and FAR 52.219-9 required offerors to include Pricing information.

1. Would the Government please deconflict this requirement?

2. Would the Government please confirm that Volume 5 can still be included on the same CD with non-price volumes.

Reference response to Question #39

RFP Section L 2.1.9.5 states “This factor evaluates the offeror's approach to maximizing opportunities for small businesses in the proposed effort, both in terms of the percentage of overall contract value” There seems to be something missing from the end of the sentence since it uses the word “both”. Would the Government please confirm that nothing is missing? Solicitation Section L part 2.1.9.5 updates the opening statement and the file naming convention.

RFP Section M 2.2.1.1.1 states “The Small Business Subcontracting plan must be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Plan proposal. Since the

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted separately, would the

Government please provide the file naming protocol? See updated Solicitation Section M 2.2.1.1.1 Award Eligibility

Regarding Purchase Description section 3.8.4 (Table XV. Spare Parts Kit), please advise if the Shoulder Strap to be included in said kit , requires the appropriate buckles attached to the shoulder straps? Or is this requirement asking only for the shoulder strap with no buckles?

Yes, the shoulder strap needs to include female adjustable buckle. Table XV in the PD will be updated to clarify that the shoulder strap includes a female adjustable buckle.

Can the Government please confirm that the Price Narrative consists of only a

Completed Section B and documentation verifying adequate financial resources in accordance with RFP Section L.2.1.9.3?

Reference the response to question #14. Additionally, Section L 2.1.9.3 is updated.

Can the Government please confirm that information describing the Offeror’s pricing methodology is not required in the Pricing Narrative in accordance with RFP Section

L.2.1.9.3? Reference the response to question #53.

Please verify that the Government wants Section B included in both Volume I (in accordance with RFP Section L.2.1.9.1) and Volume III (in accordance with RFP Section

L.2.1.9.3). Reference the response to question #53.

Can the Government please verify that a narrative is required for Factor 1, Subfactor 2

Design and Workmanship? Section L (RFP Section L.1.9.2 item 2) states that this is a requirement, however Section M.2.2.4.1.2 only addresses the evaluation of the MSV

PDMs. Pending

Referencing Table XV. Spare Parts Kit, please confirm whether the side plate pocket cover shall include the “correspondingly sized SABI?” By this, we are interpreting that the side plate pockets shall also have soft armor ballistic inserts in the spare parts kit. Is this a correct interpretation of the Government’s intent? Pending

Will the Government consider limiting offerors to one prime submission and one subcontractor submission? This will ensure fair competition and prevent one prime company from submitting dozens of proposals as a subcontractor. Pending

Will the government extend the due date to 30 calendar days after the Q&A is released? Reference the response to question #30.

What will the Governments award factors be for upcoming Fair Opportunities? Normal factors are price, delivery and technically acceptable. How will product weight be factored into the award decisions? Reference the response to question #1.

61 Can the government provide the estimated quantities by size? Reference the response to question #3.

I would like to request an extension of [the solicitation] based on the following: 1.

Unanswered question submitted on 1/23/2020 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

2. Additional time needed for testing of completed Vest kit.

Reference the response to question #20. Reference the response to question

#30.

This notice is to respectfully request a Closing Date Extension, there are still several questions and answers that will require more time to get incorporated not only on the

PDMs but also on Solicitation Package. We respectfully request an additional 30 days extention. Reference the response to question #30.