Attachment 30 FWS-I Q and A Tracker - 23 Feb 2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91CRB-21-R-0012
About this file
This document contains a question and answer tracker related to a solicitation for the Family of Weapon Sight - Individual (FWS-I) Full Rate Production contract. The solicitation is seeking proposals for the production of FWS-I devices, associated spare parts, maintenance, and technical support. Key details include that the FWS-I is an uncooled, lightweight infrared imaging device for surveillance and target acquisition during various conditions. The FWS-I must also provide a wireless Rapid Target Acquisition capability when used with an Intra-Soldier Wireless device and interconnectivity when used with a Direct View Optic. Adherence to schedules, integration, qualification, and intellectual property rights are emphasized. The solicitation number is W91CRB-21-R-0012 and is being issued by the Department of the Army through the Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
View the file
Other files
Show all 46
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
Q&A
| Solicitation W91CRB21R0012 | Question & Answers |
| This will be posted to beta.SAM.gov |
| No. | RFP Document | Section / Paragraph # | RFP Wording | Question /Comment for Government | Government Response |
| 1 | Amendment 5 | Section L.2.1.1.1, Table 1 | It appears that the note associated with the dagger mark was accidentally edited. Please confirm the working in Amendment 3 is still valid. | Yes, the note next to the dagger mark from Amendment 3 is still valid. Amendment 5 partially removed the later part of that note inadvertantly. | |
| 2 | Amendment 5 | Section L.2.1.2.2.1 Elements 4 and 5 | It appears that the change to Annex D discussed in the Ammendment 5 Q&A Tracker (#6) accidentally replaced the text of Element 5, which is Annex E, instead of Element 4, which is Annex D. Please confirm the wording in Amendment 3 is still valid. | Vendor is correct. |
Element 4 should state "The Offeror shall submit for informational purposes a preliminary stage two DD1494 application for equipment frequency allocation for spectrum certification for the FWS-I as part of the Offeror’s proposal. If the offeror's proposed wireless chipset and antenna already have approved spectrum certification, the vendor shall include the model and part number for both the ISW module and antenna in lieu of a new DD1494. If there is a discrepancy in Part Number/model compared to PdM SMS records, the Government will require the vendor to submit a DD1494 for clarification. If required, the Offeror’s FWS-I preliminary stage two DD1494 shall be submitted as Annex D and will not be counted against the page count for the Technical Integration Volume. "
Element 5 should state "The Offeror may submit results from contractor or independent testing to support its product performance claims. The contractor test results shall be submitted as Annex E and will not be counted against the page count for the Technical Integration Volume."
3 Amendment 5 Q&A Amendment 3 Q&A Amendment 5 Question 3 Question 53 Section L.2.1.1.4 The answer to question 3 in the current Q&A document makes clear that the government expects Sections B, G, and o RFP Section I, "52.204-24 REPRESENTATION REGARDING CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (OCT 2020)" are to be considered inside the page count for Volume 1.
The answer to Question 53 in the Amendment 3 Q&A suggests that the Government wants contractors to use the Government's pages from the RFP for their Section B submission, not contractor reformatted versions.
Section L.2.1.1.4 says that the narrative for all volumes must be in Word, and that the only exception to this rule is the letter of transmittal, which "shall be contained in Volume 1 and may be in PDF format."
Will the Government please clarify:
* May offerors convert solicitation pages from Sections B, G, and I to Word format to be edited and submitted, or must they use the soliciatation pages?
* If the Government wishes to keep these pages in PDF format, would the Government prefer that the PDF portions be in a separate file, where they can keep the Government's formatting, or is the Government directing that each page be embedded in the Word file, which will add the offeror's header and footer to the page information?
* If the Government wishes to keep the PDF pages in a separate PDF document, would the Government prefer that offerors submit the non-RFP pages of their response in both Word and in PDF so that the entire Volume 1 can be read in a single file? Paragraph 2.1.1.1.4 is revised. The only exception is Volume 1 may be in PDF format or as otherwise specifcally noted.
Do not convert section B, G, I into Word documents.
Do not embed section B, G, I into Word Documents.
Volume 1 may be submitted as single PDF file if the vendor chooses.
| 4 | Amendment 5 | 2.1.2.4.1 | The instructions for past performance direct that CPARS information be provided if available. May this be submitted as an attachment to the volume in PDF format? | PDF format for CPARS information is acceptable. |
| 5 | Amendment 5 | L.2.1.2.5 | Volume 5 - Small Business requires the submission of |
* SAM registration profiles for each SB
* Documentary evidence of the nature of small business commitments
* Contractual Reports verifying small business participation
| Many of these documents exist as PDF documents, and some, such as teaming agreements may be electronically signed, where manipulating the file voide the electronic signature. May this information be submitted in PDF format separate from the Word document for the narrative? | These documents maybe in PDF format. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | |
| 9 | |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | |
| 15 | |
| 16 | |
| 17 | |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | |
| 21 | |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | |
| 25 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 28 | |
| 29 | |
| 30 | |
| 31 | |
| 32 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 35 | |
| 36 | |
| 37 | |
| 38 | |
| 39 | |
| 40 | |
| 41 | |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 44 | |
| 45 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 49 | |
| 50 | |
| 51 | |
| 52 | |
| 53 | |
| 54 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 57 | |
| 58 | |
| 59 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | |
| 62 | |
| 63 | |
| 64 | |
| 65 | |
| 66 | |
| 67 | |
| 68 | |
| 69 | |
| 70 | |
| 71 | |
| 72 | |
| 73 | |
| 74 | |
| 75 | |
| 76 | |
| 77 | |
| 78 | |
| 79 | |
| 80 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 83 | |
| 84 | |
| 85 | |
| 86 | |
| 87 | |
| 88 | |
| 89 | |
| 90 | |
| 91 | |
| 92 | |
| 93 | |
| 94 | |
| 95 | |
| 96 | |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 100 |
Industry Day Q&A Priority Question(s) for Government Proprietary Y/N
| 1 | How many Bid samples will be required with the proposal submission? | N | |
| 1 | Will ballistics/shock information on NGSW be available with the RFP? Without specific information it will be difficult to assess the impact on the design. | N | |
| 2 | Will the USG be requesting feedback on the draft Section L & M that was posted? If so, what is the timeline? | N | |
| 3 | Will you be formally responding to the feedback that industry provided on the draft RFP? | N | |
| 1 | Section L & M Past performance - please clarify how a Company with relevant experience but no US Governmental prime contract track record can meet the Past Performance criteria and score a Strength | ||
| Is this covered by 1.2.3.3.2 | Y | ||
| 2 | Section L & M Past performance - please clarify whether wireless capability is a relevancy criteria (1.2..3.3.1) as it is not stated as relevant in 1.1.2.4 | ||
| 3 | Section L & M Past performance (1..1.2.4) - please explain what is a new Corporate Entity and how this might apply to a company that wants to be a supplier to PEO Soldier | ||
| 4 | Section L & M Logistics - there is a requirement (1.2.3.1.2) to provide a replacement unit within 48 hrs upon receipt of a warranty failure. Please advise the geographical location to which the replacement must be delivered ? | ||
| 5 | Timescale for Awards - the RFP will be in Q1 - when is the bid due and what else happens before award in Q4 | ||
| 6 | Quantity of Awards -are we correct that there could be one follow on Contract Award and up to 2 awards via the PDR/CRD route making a total of 3 vendors | ||
| 7 | Cost - is the cost submitted for a CLIN for just the CLIN activity or can it also include the cost of the work required to generate the data presented in the CLIN report | Y | |
| 9 | Section L & M Section 1.1.2.2.1 , Element 5 . The requirement to provide contractor test results is a "may" , would providing the results be considered a strength ? | Y | |
| 1 | Can Gov't provide additional detail to the Schedule presented, for example, seqencing to identify qualification and PRR timeline? | N | |
| 2 | What is expected RFP response time? | N | |
| 3 | Will questions previously submitted to the Govt be addressed in an update to BETA.Sam? | N | |
| 4 | Is there a ceiling value on IDIQ? | N | |
| 5 | Will documents identified in Section 2.2.2 of Specification be released with the Final RFP? | N | |
| 1 | Can the Army clarify the requirements for the Integrated Program Master Schedule mentioned in Section L?. While requirements for an Integrated Master Schedule are included in the draft SOW, there is no mention of an Integrated Program Master Schedule and the term “IPMS” appears only once in the SOW (within 3.5.16 Provisioning Technical Documentation) so the requirements are not clearly understood. | N | |
| 2 | Can the Army provide a draft of Attachment #23 "Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix"? | N | |
| 3 | Can the Army provide a draft of the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment #25 of the RFP? | N | |
| 4 | Can the Army clarify what is the potential CPFF requirement mentioned in Section L? | N | |
| 5 | Can the Army provide a draft of NVThermIP Modeling Guidance, Attachment #16 mentioned in Section L? | N | |
| 1 | What is the performance of the inertial sensors used in the ENVG and IVAS, and is there a government-selected or recommended module for RTA? | ||
| 2 | Would the government consider a 5-year factory warranty desirable for this program? | ||
| 1 | You mentioned a potential future requirement for the “Powered Rail” or “Intelligent Rail.” Do you anticipate including the Picatinny Smart Rail ICD in the Final RFP for industry to plan for future Power/Intelligent Rail integration? | ||
| 2 | For the same Powered Rail/Intelligent rail potential future requirement, do you have an anticipated initial timeline for when that requirement could be inserted in the FWS-I program in the future? |
One question per line, in priority order. Please send only one spreadsheet per company.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .