Attachment 8 - Question and Answer Template (Amendment 4)_13MAR2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Binocular Night Observation Device (BiNOD) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W91CRB-25-R-0007
About this file
This document is a Question and Answer (Q&A) template for the Binocular Night Observation Device (BiNOD) federal contract opportunity, solicitation number W91CRB-25-R-0007. The Q&A covers a wide range of technical, procedural, and contractual details related to the solicitation, with responses from the U.S. Army addressing vendor inquiries about the night vision goggle development and production contract.
Key highlights include the government's intent to execute an Accelerated Production Schedule, which involves potential waivers of certain non-critical criteria and the ability for vendors to submit alternative proposals. The contract is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type with potential for multiple awards, with an initial minimum buy of 61 qualification systems and a maximum quantity being updated from the original 18,000 to an unspecified higher number. The solicitation requires a 13% small business participation goal, mandates submission of past performance references, and seeks a low-cost binocular night vision device solution with specific technical and performance requirements. The proposal submission date has been extended to March 24, 2025, with firm fixed price contract terms and potential price redetermination in years 3 and 5.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Binocular Night Observation Device (BiNOD) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| NOTE: The solicitation superceeds the Government responses stated herein. | ||||
| No. | RFP / Document Reference | Offeror Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | Statement of Work at section 3.4.4.3. Accelerated Production Schedule | Alternate Proposals: The Statement of Work at section 3.4.4.3. Accelerated Production Schedule states: “The government reserves the right to accelerate the production and waive certain requirements. An accelerated production schedule could be utilized for the purpose of rapid delivery of core capability to the field while continuing to develop a fully-compliant, cost-effective system. The accelerated production schedule, if utilize by the Government, shall include the manufacture of Production-Ready Systems with the expectation that the Government will provide interim waivers of select non-critical criteria of MIL-PRF-A3309670 (see Appendix B for non-waivable critical criteria). Later production systems would be required to meet MIL-PRF-A3309670”. | ||
| Question: Will the Government consider allowing submission of both a Fully Compliant Proposal and an Alternate Proposal, for achieving accelerated deliveries of a Production Ready System. If an Alternate Proposals will be allowed, it is suggested the Government consider adding clause 52.204-22 ALTERNATIVE LINE ITEM PROPOSAL (JAN 2017) to the solicitation. Further, if an Alternate Proposal is acceptable, we request the Government provide expanded language to Section L, Page Limits, and Section B Pricing, to accommodate the Alternate Proposal. | A second proposals would only be for an alternate systems/variant, not an alternate proposal. |
Pricing for the accelerated production is covered under PY1 "BiNOD Production Ready Systems (See step ladder pricing tab of attachment). These systems are not expected to be fully compliant but still must meet minimum performance of the non-waivable critical criteria. The technical requirement for the Compliance Growth Matrix should reflect the path from the Production Ready System to the Fully-Compliant system. The response to technical program management should reflect the ability to deliver Production Ready Systems in an expedited schedule and qualify and deliver fully-compliant systems later in the schedule. Note: This should encompass the path of the baseline hardware's growth into the fully-compliant, cost-optimized system.
We will be issuing an ammendment that addresses the Government's intent to execute the Accelerated Production Schedule and also eliminate CLINs 006 and 007. Proposals should reflect the vendor's intent to execute that plan.
2 W91CRB25R0007, Section 2.1.1.ii, “Each Offeror shall submit a single, complete proposal that contains the Offeror’s best terms..” Does the Government intend to limit Offerors to a single proposal, removing the ability to offer an Alternative Proposal when an Offeror has competing options based on timeliness of availability? If an Offeror has a Product available today that the Government could have interest in, does the Government agree that a second proposal from that Offeror is appropriate? If so, does the Government agree that the sentence should instead be, “Each Offeror shall submit a single, complete proposal that contains the Offeror’s best terms.” ? We will be issuing an ammendment to include a choice by the vendor to submit a second proposal with a second variant system. Only one variant per vendor will be eligible for contract award.
Note: Second proposals should be for alternate systems, not simply alternate paths.
| 3 | Attachment 1 - BiNOD SOW (13Feb25) and Attachment 2 - BiNOD Performance Spec (28Jan2025) | These documents are marked CUI but these and other doucments were published on SAM.gov without restriction. For ease of responding to the RFP, should these documents be non-CUI? | CUI has been removed from the PSPEC and SOW. |
| 4 | Solicitation Section A, Order and Minimum Limitations. | Section A states: “3.) The MINIMUM guaranteed quantity of supplies to be ordered |
under this contract is Delivery Order #1 (CLINs 0001 – 0005 and 0008 - 0010). 4.) The MAXIMUM quantity of supplies to be ordered under this contract are 18,000 Bi-NOD systems”.
Question #1: Please advise why the Minimum Guaranteed Quantity in not all inclusive of CLINs 0001 – 0015, where these CLINs are all highly interdependent and constitute the development portion of the program.
Question #2: Please advise why the MAXIMUM quantity of supplies to be ordered is limited to 18,000 units, while the Solicitation is requesting firm pricing for up to 30,000 and 40,000 units in Year 3 and beyond? Should the 18,000 units reference be referred to the “MINIMUM” quantity?
Question #3: Please confirm the Step Ladder Pricing in Attachment 5 is meant to be Firm Fixed Ceiling Pricing. 1. The minimum order is the EMD Phase CLINs. Other CLINs will be awarded seperately.
2. The ammendment will increase the max quantity.
3. CLINs 0001 - 0020 would be what's reflected on the basic IDIQ contract award.
| 5 | RFP 2.1.4 | Volume naming indicates each volume should be a single separate file. Please clarify if it is acceptable to append the naming convention format with an explanatory label for multi file volumes. For example, Volume 3 includes a narrative compliance roadmap which will be in Word, and an excel spreadsheet for Attachment 3. (i.e. Abbreviated Company Name_BiNOD_VOL3_Attachment_3.xlsx) | This is acceptable. | |
| 6 | RFP 2.2.1.1 | What is the meaning of the acronym "P&D" in this paragraph? | Production and Deployment. | |
| 7 | RFP 2.1.2 | Examples of supporting documentation that are not considered part of | ||
| the page count are included in 2.1.2. Are other types of supporting documents (such as offeror generated test reports) allowed other than the specific examples listed which may be submitted outside the allocated page count? | We accept Offeror-generated test reports as supporting documents not included toward page limit. | |||
| 8 | RFP 2.1.4 and 2.3.1.1 | 2.1.4 states that only the transmittal letter is allowed to be in pdf format. Will the Government please consider allowing other items such as the DD254 (issued in pdf), and applicable supporting technical documentation such as the Baseline Hardware Instruction manual, and compliance supporting vendor data to be submitted in pdf format? | The DD254 is not part of the proposal submission documents. Attachments maybe PDF, but should be limited to the extent practicle. | |
| 9 | RFP 2.1.4 and 2.4.1.1 | Will the Government consider allowing the master schedule to be submitted in mpp format outside of the Volume 4 allocated page count to ensure a full and transparent schedule can be provided? | This is acceptable. | |
| 10 | RFP 2.1.8 and 2.5 | Section 2.1.8 states that form SF33 and a completed RFP section B are to be submitted as part of Volume 1 Cover Letter/Offer. Section 2.5 also states that SF33 and totaled section B are to be completed as part of volume 5. Does the Government want these two items submitted twice as part of two separate volumes? | Yes | |
| 11 | SOW Table 3 and Attachment 5 CLIN Structure | For the 30 systems specified in SOW Table 3 for IOT&E, PCA, FCA, and LD/TM Verifications, will these systems be taken from lot production or should they be provided separately (i.e. bid as part of the CLINs for these events)? | These will be part of the minimum buy 61 systems CLIN 0001. The USGs reserves the right to execute the Accelerated Production schedule explained in the SOW PRR paragraph. | |
| 12 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 3.5.6.11 | Requirement states 'the system soft carry case color shall be equivalent of the AMS-STD-595A solid color 20180 (Tan 499) or similar in color and pattern to the Operational Camouflage Pattern' while 3.5.6.9 requirement for the BINOD has been updated to be 'black matte'. Will the soft carry case color requirement be updated to match the BiNOD system color requitement? | No. Soft carry case shall be tan per requirement. | |
| 13 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 3.5.6.11 | Where is 'Operational Camouflage Pattern' defined? | It is our intent to more clearly define this. Note: The ENVG-B carrying case meets this requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Camouflage_Pattern | |
| 14 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 3.5.6.6 and 3.5.6.12 | Section 3.5.6.6 and 3.5.6.12 appear to be the same requirement. What is the intended difference between these two requirements, if any? | 3.5.6.6 is not intended to include the timing and will be corrected in Rev B | |
| 15 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 4.1.3.1 | Requirement states 'BINOD Operational Mode Summary / Mission Profile'. What is the definition of 'BINOD Operational Mode Summary / Mission Profile'? | The parameters of the Perf Spec encompass the rigors of the mission profile. | |
| 16 | SOW / 4.4.1 and 4.4.1.10 | |||
| CDRL E001 | SOW Section 4.4.1, in addition to CDRL E001, requires model, assembly, and schematic files in "Drawing Interchange Format (DXF) and in linked Pro/Engineer or CREO formats". Section 4.4.1.10 requires model files "Standard for Exchange of Product (STEP) AP203 file format". Will the Government please clarify that standard STEP file format in 4.4.1.10 is applicable and not the specific formats in 4.4.1 and CDRL E001? (Note: The referenced section #s in 4.4.1.10 (3.3.2.1.a, 3.3.2.1.b…) don't exist in MIL-PRF-A3309670.) | Concur as applicable. The CDRL is updated. | ||
| 17 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 3.5.7.48 | Requirement states "The BiNOD shall continue to provide essential mission function…". What is the definition of 'essential mission function'? | Intent is MTBEFF - Mean time bewteen essential function failure. The essential functions of a night vision system. The night vision aspect is essential. As opposed to the IR illuminator or manual gain. | |
| 18 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 3.5.7.56 | Requirement states "The BINOD shall not be permanently damaged, fail to operate, or exhibit degraded performance when subjected to airborne/assault operations...". What is the definition of 'airborne/assault operations'? | When subjected to normal use during airborne operations. i.e jump test | |
| 19 | SOW Table 3 | SOW Table 3 states that TRR will occur 30 Days prior to EDT-C, EDT-G, PQT, and LUT. EDT-C, EDT-G, and LUT all occur roughly 7 months after award, while PQT occurs roughly 18 months after award. Will two separate TRR events be required - one 30 days prior to EDT-C, EDT-G, LUT, and a second one 30 days prior to PQT? | EDT-C and EDT-G are no longer required to reflect USGs resrves the right to execute the Accelerated Production schedule explained in the SOW PRR paragraph 3.3.3.5. TRR could occur individually depending on offeror's test schedule. USG is not opposed to combined TRR if practical. | |
| 20 | SOW 3.5.4, CDRL C002, CDRL C003 | Section 3.5.4 states that the contractor shall prepare and submit ESS profiles IAW CDRL C003. However that CDRL is the GFE CDRL. Does the Government mean CDRL C002 for the ESS profiles? | The SOW is corrected. | |
| 21 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 3.5.1.2 | Section 3.5.1.2 states that "the total system mass shall be determined including the following: lithium batteries, filters, sacrificial windows, and helmet interface mount. These items are excluded from the total system mass determination: eyecups and retention lanyard." Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 list sacrificial windows as separate items from de-mist shields. Section 3.5.2.5 description denotes the 'eyepiece shield' as an 'eyepiece sacrificial window'. What is the definition of the eyepiece de-mist shield in the context of 'sacrificial windows' used in multiple sections throughout the MIL PRF? | De-mist shields and sacrificial windows may be same item or not. Please include mass based on the system configuration you propose. | |
| 22 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 / 3.5.4.4 | Section 3.5.4.4 description states 'System Monocular Stow/Deploy (Objective)'. No other section includes '(Objective)' in the description. What is the meaning and/or context of "Objective"? | This is not a threshold requirement. Objective requirements are goals but not mandatory requirements. | |
| 23 | RFP 2.6 | Will the Government please modify the requirement that past performance citations to include contracts as a major subcontractor? This would enable Offeror's to incorporate citations that meet the recency and relevancy and demonstrate the ability of the Offeror to execute a contract of this magnitude, but were executed as a major subcontractor. | The Government is primairly seeking past experience as a prime contractor. As such not change will be made. | |
| 24 | RFP 2.6 Section 3 | Will the Government please modify the requirement that Past Performance Questionnaires be delivered "no later than 30 days after the release of the RFP" to "no later than 30 days after submission of the RFP"? This would enable Offeror's ample time to identify, qualify and down-select appropriate contracts for inclusion in their response and questionnaire respondents' time to deliver their responses in accordance with the instructions contained within the questionnaires which indicate responses are required "within 30 calendar days of receipt". | No, the Past Performance Questionaireis required with the rest of the RFP. | |
| 25 | MIL-PRF-A3309670 4.1.3.2.3 | The text of paragraph 4.1.3.2.3 describes a sinusoidal sweep vibration environment, and references Figure 12, showing a graph consistent with a random vibration test environment. Will the Government please clarify that a random vibration test environment is intended? | Figure 12 does not imply random vibration. It is still a vibration sweep of frequencies with decreasing power from 5 to 25 Hz. | |
| 26 | Attachment 9 SBPCD | Section 7 of Attachment 9 cites a CDRL with question marks (i.e. B00??, Small Business Utilization Report). No Small Business Utilization Report CDRL form DD1423 was issued with the RFP. Is this CDRL required? If so, provide an associated DD1423. | The SOW has been revised, a CDRL is added, and Attachment 9 corrected. | |
| 27 | RFP Section I | Understanding the US Government may elect to award a single or multiple award contract. Is the Government intending to award a dual award IDIQ with Fair Opportunity for Delivery Orders as described in the pre-solicitation notice? | The award will be an IDIQ type contract. Per Section M the Government may award more than one contract. | |
| 28 | Attachment 5 BiNOD CLIN Structure | In the event of a dual award, what will the evaluation criteria be for fair opportunities? | Each Fair Opportunity Notice will describe the evaluation factors for that Deliver Order. | |
| 29 | SOW 3.4.2.1 & 3.4.2.1.1 | Section 3.4.2.1 states 'During Government testing, the contractor shall provide on-call support at the test site location.' What are the locations of the Government test facility/facilities for the EDT-G tests described in section 3.4.2.1.1? | EDT-G CLIN is being removed to reflect USGs reserves the right to execute the Accelerated Production schedule explained in the SOW PRR paragraph. | |
| 30 | SOW 3.4.2.1.1 | Section 3.4.2.1.1 describes the EDT-G series of test events captured IAW the Requirements Verification Matrix (RVM) in MIL-PRF-A3309670. What is the expected schedule/duration of the EDT-G test support? | EDT-G CLIN is being removed to reflect USGs reserves the right to execute the Accelerated Production schedule explained in the SOW PRR paragraph. | |
| 31 | Attachment 5 CLIN Structure | Will the US Government change CLINS 0006 and 0007 to CPFF type CLINS to allow for a more applicable type as it relates to the various functional reviews required? | CLINS 006 and 007 are being removed to reflect USGs reserves the right to execute the Accelerated Production schedule explained in the SOW PRR paragraph. | |
| 32 | Attachment 5 CLIN Structure | How will the contractor have the ability to adjust pricing to address market changes including future executive orders and changes in regulation not currently contemplated? | The award type will be Firm Fixed Price. FAR Clause 52.216-5 Price Redetermination-Prospective will be added. At the beginning of PY3 and PY5 the redetermination will be made. | |
| 33 | RFP Section B | Section B does not allow for an Offeror to add step ladder pricing or the out year pricing requested in Attachment 5. What pricing should be placed in Section B when submitting Offeror's proposal? | The Section B tab of Attachment 5, Cell F17 auto populates. Use that figure for CLIN 0016. | |
| 34 | Attachment 5 CLIN Structure | Maximum quantity of supplies to be ordered is 18K BiNOD systems however the step ladder pricing for CLIN 0016 goes out 7 years and is beyond the 18K max order. Please clarify, what is the maximum quantity of supplies to be ordered? | The 18K maximum is being ammended. See attachment 5. | |
| 35 | RFP Section B | Will the Government update the inspection and acceptance of CLIN 0016 to Origin, consistent with previous night vision goggle contracts awarded by the Army? | F.O.B. will be Destination. Inspection & Acceptance will be Origin to alloww for DCMA to perform. | |
| 36 | Attachment 5 CLIN Structure | Will the Government add language to allow for awardees to revisit out year pricing of CLIN 0016 based on results of the EMD phase of the procurement cycle and market conditions? | See question #32 response. | |
| 37 | Attachment 1 - BiNOD SOW, 3.4.1.1 Measurement Standards, ".... The Government will decide what is the standard of measurements for all image intensifier tubes and systems…." and "...The contractor shall, at no additional expense to the Government, address and rectify to the Government’s satisfaction, any correlation issues identified through Government correlation testing. " | Does the Government agree that the precedence for the measurement standards has always been worked to an agreement by the Contractor and the Government? If so, does the Government agree that the sentences would instead state, "The Government in collaboration with the Contractor will decide what is the standard of measurements for all image intensifier tubes and systems." and, "The contractor shall, with commercially available technology, at no additional expense to the Government, within reasonable and justifiable expense to the Contractor, address and rectify to the Government’s satisfaction, any correlation issues identified through Government correlation testing." ? | Clarification of the paragraph in question: "The Government will review contractor proposed standards of measurements for all image intensifier tubes and systems". and, "The contractor shall submit for Government approval reasonable and justifiable approaches to address and rectify uncorrelated measurements between the Government and the contractor at no additional expense to the Government. | |
| 38 | Attachment 2 - BINOD PSPEC, 3.5.6.5 Monocular Stow Auto-Off, N/A | Does the Government agree that without Stow Auto-Off, emmited light from the monocular may inadvertently reveal the soldier’s position in low-light conditions, especially when eye-cups are not mounted? If so, would the Government agree to add the requirement that each monocular automatically power off when flipped to the side? This requirement would enhance operational security and support requirement 3.5.6.2 Light Emmissions. | The Government agrees that the feature is beneficial. During requirements development, the user community did not require this capability. Offerors are welcome to present their own system's beneficial characteristics even if not directly traceable to a capability required by the user. This characteristic with others, may become part of the performance specification at a later date but there is no plan for it at this time. | |
| 39 | Attachment 2 - BiNOD PSPEC, 3.5.6.6, "The BINOD shall automatically power-off both monocular channels when the within 500 ms of the system is placed into the stow configuration." | Does the Government agree that the sentence may have multiple meanings, and if so that the actual intent is "when the system is placed into the stow configuration"? | Concur. There will be a rewording for clarification in the next performance specification revision. | |
| 40 | Attachment 3 - SOW, Section 3.5.4 ESS, "The contractor shall prepare and submit ESS profiles IAW CDRL C003." | Does the Government agree that CDRL C003, the GFP Inventory Report CDRL, is incorrect and that the reference should instead be to another CDRL? If so, would the Government please update Attachment 3 with the correct CDRL? | See question #20. | |
| 41 | Attachment 9 - SBPCD, 2.a) Small Business Concerns Table, PWS Column |
W91CRB25R0007 Solicitation, Section M, 3.5 Factor 6, 2nd Bullet, "The type, variety, and complexity of work SBCs are proposed to perform IAW the work supporting PWS Part
| 5. | Would the Government please identify what is meant by "PWS"? Would the Government also please explain the intent of that column? Would the Government also explain what is referred to as PWS Part 5? | The Solicitation and Attachment 9 are updated replacing PWS with SOW. The column with the SOW Reference Number would be if a Small Business was performing a specifc task/paragraph of the SOW. You may place NA. | ||
| 42 | Attachment 9 - SBPCD, 7. "The Offeror shall propose annual reporting of the requirements in paragraphs 1-3 above (contractor format acceptable) in accordance with Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) B00??, Small Business Utilization Report." | Does the Government agree to the submittal of ISR reports only for small business utilization as required by FAR 52.219 and then please eliminate reporting of Commitment Plan through "CDRL B00??" as this is not standard practice and not FAR required and will increase the cost of the program? | Attachment 9 is corrected with regards to the CDRL. Small Busniess Participation and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan are two seeperate reporting requirements. | |
| 43 | BiNOD CDRL E001, "Content of submissions shall be IAW SOW paragraph 7.4.1 (inclusive of all subparagraphs). " | Attachment 1 BiNOD SOW does not include a paragraph 7.4.1. Would the Government please update the CDRL with the correct reference? | CDRL was updated to show correct SOW reference 4.4.1 | |
| 44 | W91CRB25R0007 Solicitation, Section E Inspection and Acceptance Terms | Does the Government agree that if an Offeror already hosts DCMA at their site and facility that the INSPECT BY site for CLINS 0015-0018 could instead be "Origin" instead of "Destination"? If so, would the Government please update Section E with INSPECT BY for CLINS 0015-0018 as "Origin (DCMA at Site) / Destination (if DCMA not available at Origin site)?" | See answer to question 35. | |
| 45 | W91CRB25R0007 Solicitation, Section L, 2.1.7 Written Proposal Submission Instructions, "..Offerors shall submit all volumes via email.." | Does the Government agree that a CUI proposal cannot be emailed? If so, would the Government either amend the solicitation and release it as Non-CUI, or provide instructions on the required use of a SAFE link for the submission? | CUI has been removed. | |
| 46 | W91CRB25R0007 Solicitation, Section M 3.2.4 Factor 2/Subfactor 1 | Will the Government please identify the tests the Government will perform on the baseline hardware submission? | The Govt will only evaluate to the extent to determine the baseline goggle meets the criteria of 2.3.1.1 of Section L. No destructive testing will occur. | |
| 47 | W91CRB25R0007 Solicitation, Section M, 3.5 Factor 6, 4th Bullet, "...Failure to meet the MQR shall result in the Offeror being unacceptable for this factor and therefore ineligible for award." | Does the Government agree that an Offeror is to demonstrate their maximum effort shown to meet goals and if the Offeror does not meet goals at the onset submission, that doesn't negate their effort to increase participation to meet the goals with the plan they are providing? If the Government agrees, should the sentence be changed to "Failure to meet or demonstrate a plan to address the MQR shall result in the Offeror being unacceptable for this factor and therefore ineligible." | The proposed Small Business Participation has been revised. | |
| 48 | SOW, Paragraph 5.8.4 | With each state’s laws varying significantly, please clarify the RFP’s requirement of compliance with all local, state, and federal laws. Would you have us set the baseline as federal laws, then address each local and state as it becomes necessary?. | Agreed | |
| 49 | SOW, Paragraph 5.10.1 | Please clarify if the DMSMS Life Cycle Management Data Plan/Report apply to non-deployable hardware/software such as manufacturing equipment and test equipment? | Anything that affects the continued production or sustainment of the system in the field. | |
| 50 | RFP, Page 25, Section H, Economic Pricing | “The contractor shall offer an economic quantity discount for purchases in excess of certain amounts (as specified by the Contractor)…”. Where in the proposal does the contractor submit economic pricing data? | This is a contract clause applicable when Delivery Orders are awarded, not a solicitation requirement. For reference this will be base on the quantities in stepladder pricing Attachment #5. | |
| 51 | RFP, Page 25, Section H, Economic Pricing | How will the Government evaluate economic pricing data? Additionally, Attachment 5 does not include a column for economic pricing and Sections L & M are ‘silent’ on this requirement. Additionally, Attachment 5 does not include a column for economic pricing. Additionally, Attachment 5 does not include a column for economic pricing. | See #50 answer. | |
| 52 | RFP, Page 70, Section 3, Submission of Past Performance Questionnaire | RFP, Page 70, Section 3, Submission of Past Performance Questionnaire, states: “…each Respondent/Agency POC complete its response and send it electronically directly to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) responsible for this acquisition no later than 30 days after release of the RFP…”. Are the 30 days mentioned business days or calendar days? | They are calendar days. Due with the proposal submission per extention to March 24, 2025. | |
| 53 | RFP, Paragraph 52.216-22 page 34 | Please clarify how the statement “The government may require performance at multiple locations.” applies to an offeror with one place of performance. | FAR 52.216-22 : "Govt may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations" -- deliveries especially or events (e.g., testing) may occur outside of offeror's place of performance IAW the SOW. | |
| 54 | RFP Section L; 2.7 Small Business; Attachment 9 | Can the Offerors embed the specific elements of Attachment 9 into their proposal response? Is the Government expecting to see proposal response and a completed Attachment 9? | Per paragragh 2.7, All Offerors (both large and small businesses) are required to complete a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) in Attachment 9. | |
| 55 | Spec, para 3.5.2.4 Laser Interference (LIF) requirement | Will the Army accepted a LIF unit custom designed to fit the unit submitted for consideration.? | No. US Army is doing it's utmost to reduce logisitics footprints. If the offeror can show that a LIF is already provisioned and in Army inventory in sufficient quantities to maintain longterm sustainment, USG may reconsider. | |
| 56 | Attachment 9 Small Business Participation Commitment Document | On page 4, item seven references a CDRL B00?? Small Business Utilization Report. After reviewing the CDRL items provided with the RFP, this CDRL is not a part of the documents provided. Would the Government please provide guidance to offerors to correct this issue? | See answer to #42. | |
| 57 | Section L, 2.7 Volume 7 - Small Business, pg. 71 | The sixth paragraph on the page it references submission of an proposed annual reporting of small business requirements in accordance with CDRL A012 - Small Business Utilization Report. This CDRL does not appear in the list of 26 CDRLs sent with the RFP documents. Can the Government please clarify the requirement? | Section L will be correct to read B002. The CDRL was addressed on the previous amendment. | |
| 58 | SOW 3.5.4 Enviromental Stress Screening | In this SOW references, it states submission of ESS profiles IAW CDRL C003. CDRL C003 is Government Furnished Property Inventory Report. In the CDRL, SOW 3.5.4 is not references in the document. Can the Government provide the correct CDRL reference in the SOW? | See answer to question #20. | |
| 59 | MIL-PRF-A3309670, page 55 | In the last two paragraphs there is a reference to the submission of CDRL D014 as the IUID Marking Activity Validation and Verification Report. Can the Government clarify this submission of this CDRL is D014 or D015 and make the change in the document? | My Perform Spec comment addressed this - The CDRLs were mistakenly included in the Perform Spec. SOW 5.9.2 covers CDRLs D001 and D015 | |
| 60 | RFP Section L, 2.6, third paragraph, third paragraph, page 67 of 69. | The instructions for Volume 6 states, "One (1) of the five (5) may include a major subcontractor." The instructions do not address the number of major subcontractor past performances if the Offeror opts to submit fewer than five (5) past performances, i.e., three (3) or four (4). Is one major subcontractor past performance allowed, or are none allowed? | Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3) past performance references. The maximum shall not be greater than five (5). Whether you chose 3, 4 or 5, only one (1) of these may be a major subcontractor. | |
| 61 | SF30 | Formally request an extension of 30 days given the quick response to a complex proposal submission, substantive changes from the draft RFP published in 2024 as well as many ambiguous requirements and omissions throughout the RFP Package | The Government has provided a 7 day extension. | |
| 62 | 61 Qualification Systems | Is UID marking required for these units? Are all accessories including the LIF required for these units? | No IUID required for those 61. Yes LIFs are required for Qualification Systems under CLIN 0001. | |
| 63 | RFP, Page 70, Section 3, Submission of Past Performance Questionnaire, | “…each Respondent/Agency POC complete its response and send it electronically directly to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) responsible for this acquisition no later than 30 days after release of the RFP…”. Are the 30 days mentioned business days or calendar days? | ||
| See answer to question #52. | ||||
| 64 | Spec, para 3.1.2, System Architectures | External Battery Pack and External Cable are not listed as kit items in either Architecture. Nor are they listed as items that would be stowed within the soft carry case, see Paragraph 3.5.2.13. Please provide clarification on the performance, operation and testing for these Authorized Accessories. | No testing or delivery of authorized accessories is required by the offeror. It is for the unit's in the field to procure and field. One exception is eyecups. System must be compatible with Eyecups and are required to pass the light security requirement but not supplied as part of the kit. | |
| 65 | Spec, para 3.5.3.15, Helmet NVG Shroud Mount Assembly Replacement, states: | The BINOD helmet shroud mount assembly in the case of Architecture A (Figure 1) shall be user replaceable without special tools and without gloves and in the case of Architecture B (Figure 2) shall be capable of fault diagnosis and replacement at the unit level by a trained maintenance technician. Please provide more guidance on "...user replaceable..." for an integrated shroud mount, vs. "...fault diagnosis and replacement..." for a detachable shroud mount. Is the requirement reversed? | Yes reversed | |
| 66 | RFP Section L, para 2.3.1.1, TRL 6 Sample Qty 1 | Does the TRL 6 submission unit need to UID marking as outlined in the RFP? Are all of the accessories? | No IUID required. The baseline hardware only needs to be a functioning goggle, not the full kit. | |
| 67 | 3.5.4.27 High Ambient Light Auto Shut Down Indicator |
3.5.7.14 Monocular High Ambient Light Protection Level
3.5.7.15 Monocular Hight Ambient Light Protection Activation Time
3.5.5.14 Monocular High Ambient Light Protection Mode Visual Acuity
| Is a "High" light shut off sensor required? A provision for warning the user before shutdown is in 3.5.4.27, however if no high light sensor is included this won't be necessary. Explanation: Not including a highlight sensor reduces risk of injury or death to the user in a combat or critical scenario where a bright light would shut the goggle off and momentarily blind the user. Modern image tubes are resiliant and handle bright light and brief daylight exposure without permanent damage to the image tube, goggle, or the end users vision. Autogating and autobrightness control corrects for these scenarios. | No sensor is required. | ||
| 68 | Spec 3.1.4, Authorized Accessories, items c),and d) and Figures 1 and 2 | If an offeror we to provide this authorized accessory, could the Government provide additional information/expectations concering the external battery pack and cable? | No authorized accessories are required by the offeror. |
| 69 | Spec 3.5.1.27 , Binocular Stow Forward Protrusion | In Figure 8 on page 15, Is the tube power auto shut off "stowed" position for a binocular with articulating pods considered "stowed" when the pods have articulated and cleared the users eyeline when the mount is in its "deployed" down position or if the mount were to be in its "stowed" up position the pods would be articulated back towards the helmet in the fully stowed condition. Both of these position turns each tube channel off. Is an additional auto shut off when the goggle is stowed up required? | Stowed up against the helmet is the only auto off position required. Deployed down is the only auto on. If offeror is using side stow only to turn off the goggle in the stowed up position, it is not likely to meet the time off requirement in para 3.5.6.12. |
| 70 | Spec 3.1.4, Authorized Accessories, items c),and d) and Figures 1 and 2 | Is two pins acceptable for positive and ground or does each input need an additional redundant pin for both items? | No authorized accessories are required by the offeror. |
| 71 | N/A | To address that a U.S. tube manufacturer is not willing to quote for relevant IITs to a Submitter company (NV OEM); thereby causing an anti-competitive nature in the unobstructed and fair participation on this Bi-NOD tender and requesting the issuing Authority to require that the U.S. Tube manufacturers to quote accordingly other OEM NV vendors that are planning to participate in this tender. | The government has no authority to compell a company to quote another company on an item. |
| 72 | N/A | For the issuing Authority to request the U.S Tube manufacturers establish a competitive pricing list of the tubes considered in this solicitation that US Gov can procure and/or utilize at its own will. | The Government will not procure the tubes. |
| 73 | N/A | To claim that due to the hurdles that some IIT Manufacturers pose on an unobstructed participation on this solicitation to request 3 weeks of extension on the submission due time and equivalent time to submit the QnAs. | At this time the solicitation will not be extended past March 24, 2025. |
| 74 | W91CRB25R0007_Amendment 2 Solicitation, Section L 2.4.1.1, Sub-Factor 1:Schedule, "Offerors shall provide a master schedule." | Is it the Government's intent that Offerors submit a Microsoft Project Plan file, named as "company_name_BiNOD_VOL3_Schedule.mpp" ? If so, does the Government require the complete project plan be printed out as part of Volume 3 or is the required schedule narrative, in paragraph or tabular format, sufficient for the Government's evaluation? | Please provide a * .mpp file. Do not need print these. All files should be digital. The schedule narrative is part of the .mpp |
| 75 | W91CRB25R0007_Amendment 2 Solicitation, Section L 2.4.1.1, Sub-Factor 1:Schedule, "The Schedule narrative shall include a description in paragraph or tabular format for each milestone, decision point, deliverable, test/demonstration event, and next level supporting task listed in the master schedule. The narrative descriptions shall include: the purpose, objective, inputs, outputs, and the metric or criteria for measuring progress and confirming completion. " | Is it the Government's intent that each individual "milestone, decision point, deliverable, test/demonstration event, and next level supporting task" be described with "the purpose, objective, inputs, outputs, and the metric or criteria for measuring progress and confirming completion," and if so does the Government agree that would be, in tabular format, a table with 100-150 individual rows and 5-7 columns? Or does the Government instead require summaries of much fewer numbers of "ne, decision point, deliverable, test/demonstration event, and next level supporting task"? Would the Government please explain their intent? | USG requires 3 levels deep in the master schedule for this submission. More than that, for fidelity's sake, is up to the offeror. |
| 76 | Amendment 1&2, Attachment 7, Question #1 Answer, "We will be issuing an amendment that addresses the Government's intent to execute the Accelerated Production Schedule" | Will the Government please detail the Accelerated Production Schedule and how Offerors should reduce or eliminate specific SOW reviews or deliverables? With that, when does the Government believe the Amendment will be released? | The SOW was revised on Amendment #3--See Table 3 of the SOW. |
| 77 | Amendment 1&2, Attachment 7, Question #4 Answer to then Question #2 Answer, "2. The amendment will increase the max quantity. " | What is the minimum quantity, as this was implied in the answer that it was 18,000, please? Please confirm when the amendment will be released and the max quantity and minimum quantities identified? | See answer to #4. |
| 78 | Attachment 9 SBPCD | In the absence of an IDIQ ceiling value, what are the instructions for how an offeror should calculate the total contract ceiling value in Attachment 9? | Your total proposed amount from Section B of the solicitation. |
| 79 | RFP Section 2.7 and Attachment 9 | The small business participation value in RFP section 2.7 is 13%, whereas the minimum required percentage specified in attachment 9 is 15%. Which is the small business participation value that should be used? | Attachment 9 is revised to 13%. |
| 80 | RFP Section 2.7 and Attachment 9 | Based on the current supply chain capabilities for complex technology components, can the minimum quantitative requirement be reduced to 10%? | Amendment 3 made a change that should answer this question. The stated percentage is unchanged. |
| 81 | RFP Section 2.7 | Based on the current supply chain capabilities for complex technology components, can the minimum quantitative requirement be based on an overall evaluation instead of including the sub-category minimum quantitative requirements? | See answer to question #80. |
| 82 | Attachment 3 | Does the Government intend for Offerors to utilize Attachment 3, tab “Quality Validation Matrix Cost” to propose an alternative testing methodology? | Yes, Alternative testing should reflect the intent to meet government performance needs and show how much can be saved on unit cost. |
| 83 | Attachment 5 | Does the Government intend for Offerors to price its CLIN 0016 production systems based on the proposed alternative testing methodology it includes in Attachment 3, tab “Quality Validation Matrix Cost”? | Yes. CLIN 0016 should reflect the best price. Note again: Alternative testing should reflect the intent to meet government performance needs |
| 84 | RFP Section M | Attachment 3, tab “Quality Validation Matrix Cost” is not included in Section M Evaluation of Technical Factor 2 / Sub-factor 2. How will the Attachment 3, tab “Quality Validation Matrix Cost” be used in the Government's evaluation of Sub-Factor 2? | TF2 / SF2 is BiNOD Performance Compliance Roadmap. The QVM should still meet performance specifications. Proposing tests that meets those specifications but costs less does not apply here. QVM applies to TF1 / SF1 Kit Price Reduction Strategy |
| 85 | Attachment 3 | Is the Offeror instructed to update the “Estimated percent of total unit cost” for Rev A Baseline in Attachment 3, tab “Quality Validation Matrix Cost” to accurately reflect its Estimated percent of total unit cost for a Rev A Baseline solution? | Yes. |
| 86 | RFP Submission Instructions | If CUI information will be submitted as part of the BiNOD proposal, should a DoD Safe or encrypted email submission be used? | If necessary Offerors may request DoD Safe. |
| 87 | RFP Section I | As this RFP is issued under FAR Part 15, would the Government please replace FAR 52.227-3 with FAR 52.227-3 ALT I or ALT II consistent with 27.201-2(c)(2)? | This clause has been removed. |
| 88 | RFP Section I | Would the Government please provide the details within FAR 52.209-3(a) and (b)? | This clause has been removed. The SOW will govern FAT. |
| 89 | SOW (25 Feb 2025), Section 5.5 |
CDRL D010
CDRL D011
| CDRL D012 | Training Material and Technical Manuals indicate that the TMs are expected to be delivered in contractor format. However, Block 16 of CDRLs D010, D011, and D012 reference several standards and regulations that our format must comply with. Would you please confirm that contractor format is acceptable? | 5.5 states, "Training material shall include Instructor Guide, Student Guides, Presentation Material, Practical Exercises, and Oral and/or Written Exams, and contractor formatted TMs. This is for the sake of speed of editing and printing for training events. Beyond training material, TMs must be according to MIL-STD per the CDRLs. | ||
| 90 | SOW (25 Feb 2025) | |||
| Amendment 1 | Amendment 1 indicates that CLIN 0006 (EDT-C Testing) and CLIN 0007 (EDT-G) have been deleted, yet SOW Sections 3.4.2.1 (Government Testing) and 3.4.2.2 (Contractor Testing) remain unchanged from the previous revision and still require EDT-C and EDT-G. Would you please advise if we should expect an amended SOW reflecting the deletion of CLINs 0006 and 0007? | SOW 3.4.2.1.1 EDT-G & 3.4.2.2.2 EDT-C were deleted. Rest of 3.4.2.1 & 3.4.2.2 remain for other Govt & Contractor testing | ||
| 91 | SOW (25 Feb 2025), Table 3 | |||
| Amendment 1 | If the Government is not planning to amend the SOW, how should the contractor bid the testing requirements stated within the SOW? | The SOW was updated in Amenent 3. | ||
| 92 | SOW (25 Feb 2025), Table 3 | |||
| Amendment 1 | SOW Table 3 (Test, Validation, and Verification Event Schedule) is unchanged from the previous revision. If we delete the EDT-C and EDT-G test events from the SOW IAW Amendment 1, does this impact the quantity for CLIN 001 (Qualification Systems)? | See answer above. | ||
| 93 | SOW (25 Feb 2025), Table 3 | |||
| Amendment 1 | Does the deletion of CLINs 0006 and 0007 impact the dates of any subsequent test events? | See answer above. | ||
| 94 | Amendments 1 and 2 | With the issuance of Amendments 1 and 2, will the Government be extending the response date to this RFP? | Amendment 3 extended the due date. | |
| 95 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | If the initial goggle sample submitted is machined from aluminum while the production version is intended to use injection-molded polymer of the same mechanical design to reduce unit cost and weight, while maintaining the same ruggedness, and performance, would that be acceptable? All other aspects of the system, including circuitry, functionality, performance, submersion, rough handling, features, interface, and ergonomics, will be equivalent to the final production version. | If the baseline hardware is fully functional, meets critical criteria, and the offeror can show how they can meet the new accelerated schedule the USG has set forth with the updated design, then USG is open to evaluate the proposal. USG concerns with this path would be manufacturing readiness and scheduling risks. | |
| 96 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | Is it required to provide the off the shelf existing L.I.F. with NSN 5855-01-379-1410, or can we provide our own made in house alternative that meets the same specifications? If that is acceptable can we be provided the necessary technical specifications of the optical filter. | See answer to question #55. | |
| 97 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | What is the required runtime for the external battery pack powering the goggle? What is the required battery type if any? | See answer to question #64 | |
| 98 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | For the goggle’s specified auto power-off feature in the “stowed” position, would articulating (folding) the pods to the side of the helmet with the mount flipped up be sufficient to consider it in a "stowed" position? | See answer to question #69 | |
| 99 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | If the battery pack submitted with the sample goggle is made from machined polymer, while the production version will use injection molded polymer, would that be acceptable? Additionally does the battery pack need to be entirely manufactured in the United States? If not, what percentage must be U.S. made? Additionally what percentage of the sub components are allowed to be manufactured the United States and then assembled in the United States. | No authorized accessories are required by the offeror. | |
| 100 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | Does the eyepiece optics and objective optics of the goggle need to be entirely manufactured in the United States? If not, what percentage must be U.S. made? Additionally what percentage of the sub components are allowed to be manufactured the United States and then assembled in the United States. | See DFARS 252.225-7001 and 252.225.7002 | |
| 101 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | Must the night vision goggle housing, excluding the image intensifier tubes and optical components, be fully manufactured in the United States? If not, what percentage is required to be U.S made? Additionally what percentage of the sub components are allowed to be manufactured in the United States and then assembled in the United States. | See DFARS 252.225-7001 and 252.225.7002 | |
| 102 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | Must the night vision battery pack, be fully manufactured in the United States? If not, what percentage is required to be U.S made? Additionally what percentage of the sub components are allowed to be manufactured in the United States and then assembled in the United States. | See DFARS 252.225-7001 and 252.225.7002 | |
| 103 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | Must the night vision mount, be fully manufactured in the United States? If not, what percentage is required to be U.S made? Additionally what percentage of the sub components are allowed to be manufactured in the United States and then assembled in the United States. | See DFARS 252.225-7001 and 252.225.7002 | |
| 104 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | Is the NVG Mount required to fit into a specified shroud or mounting feature? If so could that specification be made available. | Shroud is standard US military helmet shroud mount. Document A325638 is now listed as an attached document. | |
| 105 | W91CRB25R0007 Statement of Work | Is the NVG Mount required to have a "breakaway" feature? If so could the specifications of said "breakaway" feature be outlined. | Breakaway is covered in the performance specification para 3.5.1.28 - 35 |
It is a system-level requirement 106 Attachment 5 Please confirm that the Unit Price called out in Attachment 5 is intended to be the contract ceiling prices for the given year and each delivery order will be competed as a Fair Opportunities/Delivery Order to provide final pricing and delivery schedule? The ID/IQ contract ceiling is the sum of CLIN 0001 - 0020.- Fair Opportunity request will be issued for new Delivery Orders.
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12&K000000CUI//EXPT
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12&K000000CUI//EXPT
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12&K000000CUI//EXPT
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12&K000000CUI//EXPT &P of &N
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12&K000000CUI//EXPT
&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12&K000000CUI//EXPT
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .