B08_MSV_ QA Set#3_02-21-2020.pdf

W91CRB-20-R-0001 Modular Scalable Vest Question & Answer Set #3 (includes 64-67, 23, 29, 31, 44, 46, 57, and 58) 21-Feb-20

No. Offeror Question Government Response

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

Drawing MSV 2.7 CONCEAL CUMMERBUND, attachment J.11, is being provided as a manufacturing guide, for reference only.

Drawings are not to scale. Offerors must be approved to receive limited access documents and submit an email request to the

POC to receive this document.

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.

Previous Answer Amended to Include: The Government may permit an awardee to add another FAT Approved ballistic package to their contract for use in future fair opportunity competitions as long as the vendor bears the full responsibility for sample and testing costs. It is not uncommon for primes to

FAT multiple ballistic packages for the purpose of providing a variety of trade-off scenarios. All vendors are cautioned that the Government intends to maintain best value trade-off for

Fair Opportunities as well as the initial award.

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. Previous Answer

Amended: Section M 2.2.4.1.1. is revised a second time to clarify

"Marginal and Unacceptable" ratings.

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?

Solicitation Section L - 2.1.9.6 Quality Assurance Subfactor 1 (ISO) Bullet

2 is updated to provide the correct ISO 9001:2015 procedure references.

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.

Solicitation Section L - 2.1.9.2 (2. Test Documentation Bullet 2 Ballistic

Testing) language is revised.

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.

The narrative for Factor 1 Subfactor 2 Design and Workmanship is required. Solicitation Sections L (2.1.9.2 - Technical Narrative, Technical

Subfactor 2) & M (2.2.4.1.2 Factor 1 Subfactor 2) will be updated to state, the narrative will be used for informational purposes only.

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?

Yes, the side plate pocket cover shall include the correspondingly sized

SABI.

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.

The Government is only limiting offerors to one Prime proposal submission.

We understand that the PD only mandates size of the instruction label for the inner side of the outer carriers. Referencing PD Paragraph 3.8.1 (b), we also understand that the size of the component labels are left to the contractor discretion. If we sew the size of the label depicted on the patterns, for the side plate carrier, it appears as if there will be stitching run across the label. If we minimize the size of the label, this affect appears to be mitigated. Is it required to submit a deviation if we are using/proposing smaller labels than what appear on the patterns?

Regarding components, the PD provides the not-to-exceed (or maximum) label size. The label should be scaled based on the amount of information required on each label and should be above the stitch line. Therefore, a deviation is not required if you utilize a smaller label than what appears on the patterns.

Referencing the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet, TAB 1, please clarify the following: Unit of measure; i.e. each, set, etc., for the following items:

Side Plate Carrier Left/Right

Side Plate Pocket Left/Right (6 x 6)

Side Plate Pocket Left/Right (6 x 8)

Side Plate Pocket Left/Right (7 x 8)

Concealable Cummerbund Left/Right

Shoulder Strap

Front/Back Ballistic Insert

Side Plate Pocket Ballistic Insert Unit of measure in Tab 1 for "unit price" is for each individual item.

Attachment J.4 Tab 1 has been updated to provide clarification.

The Side SABI maximum allowable weight in Table C-1 of the PD appears to be incorrect.

Per our calculations, it appears the heat seal cover was not taken into consideration.

Can the side SABI weights be checked for accuracy and the table updated with the correct maximum allowable weights?

Table C-1 weights will be measured for Government reference only and the PD will be updated to reflect the change.

Per the Government’s answers to other questions and the update to SOW Section 4.4.1, “the Government will pay for LAT.” Does this apply to both ATC test costs AND materials? Or does the Contractor’s price need to account for MSV materials utilized during LAT? (i.e. Will the Government pay for the LAT materials (MSVs) needed for testing? Or will the Government only pay for accepted items released for shipment after LAT is complete?) More explicit language and clarification may be helpful in ensuring that all parties price the CLINs accordingly.

Solicitation Section 4.4.1 MSV LAT is updated. The Government pays for actual LAT testing outside of the awarded contracts. In accordance with

PD Tables XXIV-A and XXIV-B, the Government will pull completed MSVs from a finished lot for LAT testing. Upon passing LAT, the Government will pay for the complete lot, to include the LAT samples and remaining

MSVs in the lot.