Attachment 30 FWS-I Q and A Tracker Revd (17 Feb 2021)v2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W91CRB-21-R-0012
About this file
This document contains a question and answer tracker from a pre-solicitation engagement with industry for the Family of Weapon Sight - Individual (FWS-I) full rate production contract. The Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground plans to issue solicitation number W91CRB-21-R-0012 for the production of the FWS-I, associated spare parts, maintenance support, and technical assistance. Key details include clarification that the Total Evaluated Price matrix and past performance questionnaires will be provided with the final RFP, confirmation of the maintenance approach utilizing Regional Support Centers, and an extended proposal due date of March 4th, 2021.
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 | Solicitation Action |
| 1 | TEP Worksheet | Spares Pricing Tabs | Current formulas are not complete | There appears to be errors in the following Cell formulas: |
Eyepiece Spares Pricing Cells J18, L18, N18, P18, and R18 only add the cells J24 and J31 but they should add J24,J31,J38, J45, J52, J59, J66, and J73 (and then L, N, P, and R respectively) Housing Spares Pricing Cells J18, L18, N18, P18, and R18 only add the cells J24 through J66 but it should also add J73. J80, J87, J94, J101, J108, J115, J122, J129, and J136 (and then L, N, P, and R respectively) Optics Sensor Spares Pricing Cells J19, L19, N19, P19, and R19 only add the cells J25 through J67 but it should also add J74, J81, J88, J95, J102, J109, J116, J123, J130, J137, J144, and J151 (and then L, N, P, and R respectively) Weapon Sight Wireless Spares Pricing Cells J19, L19, N19, P19, and R19 only add cell J25 but it should also add J32, J39, J46, J53, and J60 (and then L, N, P, and R respectively) Ancillary Spares seems to be OK Can the Government please modify or clarify? The formulas correctly reflect the Government intent. These cells are not included in the TEP sum because the Government does not want to double count the cost of any individual spare part in the TEP. The rows that are not included in the TEP give the offeror a chance to offer pricing for parts that are included in larger modules that are also spared.
| For example, suppose the eyepiece is connected to the housing using screws and an o-ring. If the screws and o-ring are not included with the eyepiece when it is purchased as a spare part, then the screw and o-ring prices should be entered on the Ancillary Spares Pricing tab. If they are included with the eyepiece when it is purchased as a spare part (and if the vendor is willing to sell them separately as well), then the screw and o-ring prices should be entered in rows 33-73 on the Eyepiece Spares Pricing tab. | No Action Required | |||
| 2 | Solicitation W91CRB-21-R-0012 FWS-I.pdf | Clauses Incorporated by Full Text 52.211-11 | Where: |
EXAMPLE (values are arbitrary): CLIN awarded for 150 systems at a unit cost of $10,000/system to be
| delivered over a three (3) month period at 50 system/month. | In the last round of Q and A it was stated that the wording in this section was going to be revised to "Actual Delivery Schedule" and the total on row #3 corrected to 150. Will we see the revised version of this clause in an amended solicitation? | Both these changes were included in Amendment 3. (see page 39 of 66 in amendment 3) | No Action Required | |
| 3 | Solicitation | Section L Para 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.1.1, and 1.1.2.1 | 1.1.1.1 Table 1 - Proposal Volumes: Volume 1: Offer 30 Pages. 1.1.1.1.1 The number of pages specified in the above table is the firm page limit for that volume. |
1.1.2.1 Volume 1 Offer Offerors shall include the following:
- Standard Form 33, "Solicitation, Offer and Award," with blocks 12 through 18 completed and signed by the Offeror;
- RFP Section B, "Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs," with the Offeror’s proposed line item prices inserted in the appropriate spaces;
- RFP Section G, "Contract Administrative Data", completed by the Offeror;
| - RFP Section I, "52.204-24 REPRESENTATION REGARDING CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (OCT 2020)," completed by the Offeror. | The inclusion of the Government supplied RFP Section B, Section G, and Section I, as well as other statements and requirements identified in Para. 1.1.2.1 exceed 30 pages. | ||||
| Will the Government please remove or change the 30 page limit on Volume 1? | Volume 1 page limitation is changed to not to exceed 45 pages. | Modify Table 1 | |||
| 4 | Performance Spec | 3.3.8.3 | The FWS-I shall exhibit neither damage, nor degradation of performance after exposure to immediate (within (1) minute) temperature changes from +71 °C to -46 °C and from -46 °C to +71 °C after stabilization at each extreme, for a minimum of three cycles. Air velocity shall not exceed 1.7 m/s (335 ft/min). Temperature Shock testing shall be performed in accordance with MIL-STD-810G, Method 503.5, Procedure I-C. | A standard thermal shock chamber that utilizes an “elevator” style setup has a higher air flow velocity that exceeds 1.7 m/s which is standard for most commercial off the shelf chambers. This requirement will add additional NRE for the chamber manufacturer to ensure they can meet this requirement which will ultimately increase the overall price of a thermal shock chamber that is specific to this program. | |
| Will the Government please consider removing the air velocity requirement of not to exceed 1.7 m/s (335 ft/min)? | The Government will not remove the air flow velocity requirement. This requirement comes from MIL-STD-810: "...air velocity that does not exceed 1.7 m/s (335 ft/min) in the vicinity of the test item." The requirement can be met with appropriate test setup. | No Action Required | |||
| 5 | Solicitation, beta.sam | Due Date | Amendment 2 Date Offers Due: Feb 25, 2021 12:00 pm EST | The current severe winter weather, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, has severely limited communication, interaction, and general productivity for many of our proposal team members. Many who are already working remotely due to COVID policies and not on major city power grids have lost internet connectivity and power for extended periods of time. Offerors with employees who authorized to commute to the office are likewise adversely affected by transportation conditions. Additionally, offerors with employees in the northeast, midwest, and south central regions are experiencing greater impacts in their proposal efforts than offerors with employees and operations in less-affected areas. Could the government take into consideration the above factors by extending the proposal due date by one week to March 5, 2021 at 12:00PM EST? | |
| The due date for proposals is revised to 4 March 2021 12:00 PM Eastern Time. | |||||
| 6 | Amendment 3 | L.2.1.2.2.1, bullet 4 | Element 4 - FWS-I Frequency Allocation Application | ||
| 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. 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. | The RFP calls for the submission of a preliminary stage two DD1494 application. If our RF chipset already has an approved spectrum certification for use with FWS-I, is this application still required? | If the proposed RF chipset and antenna already have approved spectrum certification, the vendor shall include the model and part number for both the ISW module and antenna. If there is a discrepancy in Part Number/model compared to PdM SMS records, the Government will require the vendor to submit a DD-1494 for clarification. Section L will be revised accordingly. | Revise Section L, paragraph 2.1.2.2.1, Element 4 to read: |
"FWS-I Frequency Allocation Application 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."
| 7 | Amendment 3 | Section C, Appendix A | Summary: The FWS-I shall be supported by the Standard Army Maintenance and Supply System to the maximum extent deemed practical. A Modular TMDE station shall be provided by the Government which includes a base hardware and software interface (NVLabCap-based) to support all measurements required to sustain the FWS-I. | ||||
| 1. The TMDE software, special tools, fixtures, and interface equipment are being developed for Maintainer-level maintenance. | Please confirm that it is the Government's intent to deploy the "Modular TMDE station" at the maintainer level and that all the TMDE employed on it will be available for Field Maintenance support in the Two Level Maintenance Concept. | Yes, the Government intends to deploy the Modular TMDE at Regional Support Center(s) for maintainer level maintenance. The Modular TMDE will be available for Field Maintenance above the operator and crew level. | No Actions Required | ||||
| 8 | Amendment 3 | C.3.5.5 | |||||
| L.2.1.2.2.2, para #2 | (C) Utilizing the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Regional Support Centers (RSCs) is an acceptable maintenance approach for the FWS-I at the Maintainer-level. Maintainer-level support shall consist primarily of fault isolation, removal and replacement of modules and individual parts, and system exchange during the warranty period as needed. | ||||||
| (L) The narrative shall describe the Offeror’s approach and methodology for organic field and sustainment-level maintenance which may include the use of the CECOM Regional Support Centers. | Please confirm that the CECOM RSCs are employed for both Maintainer Field Maintenance Support and also Sustainment (Depot) Maintenance Support? | The CECOM RSCs are not equipped for depot-level repairs. Offerors are not required to include sustainment level repairs in the FWS-I sustainment strategy. If the offeror's maintenance strategy includes sustainment (Depot) level tasks, they will be performed at Army deopt(s). | No Action Required | ||||
| 9 | Amendment 3 | C.3.5.7.2 | |||||
| M.2.2.3.1.2 | (C) Spare Parts. Throughout this Statement of Work, the term “spares” or “spare parts” refers to all Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) and Shop Replaceable Units (SRUs). | ||||||
| (M) The Offeror’s maintenance concept may result in a "Strength" IAW Table 8 - Maintenance Concept Discriminators. // Total number of spare-able parts ≤ 25 | Based on the definition of a spare part as a LRU or SRU, please confirm that items such as the Technical Manual, Quick Reference Guide, and cleaning pen are not considered "spare parts" for purposes of the spare part count in section M.2.2.3.1.2? | Correct, Technical Manual, Quick Reference Guide, and cleaning pen are not considered "spare parts" for purposes of the spare part count in section M.2.2.3.1.2. | |||||
| 10 | Solicitation | Section L, table 1 | Volume 4, past performance indicates a 30 page limit with an asterick that points to excluding annexes | There are no references to allowable annexes in the past performance volume - please clarify | CPARS data, Cure Notices, and Show-cause Notices should are not included in the Volume 4 page count. This will be clarified in Table1/Section L, adding paragraph 2.1.2.4. | Under paragraph 2.1.1.1, Table 1, the refernce to paragraph 2.1.2.2.4 for Past performance has been added to the asterisk paragraphs for excluding annexes. | |
| 11 | RFP Section I Contract Clauses | 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages | Existing Clasue for Liquidated Damages | Currently the Liquidated Damages clause is un-capped. In extreme cases, that means the liquidated damages could end up being more than any fees being charged and put an un-capped financial burden on the contractor. Un-capped Liquidated damages will likely cause the contractor to increase their unit price significantly and put un-realistically conservative delivery times on their production lots potentially increasing the actual cost to the Army and delaying PdM-SMS's fielding schedule. Research on other Army contracts with liquidated damages for production systems shows the clause almost always includes a cap. | |||
| Will the Government add a cap to the current formula of 1.5% of the order value? | The Government will not add a cap for liquidated damages. Liquidated damages are for missed deliveries. The Government desires vendors to communicate production issues and negotiate a rebaselined delivery schedule in advance of missed deliveries. In the event of last minute delays, the Government expects vendors to negoatiate a rebaselined schedule as quickly as possible. | No Action Required |
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 .