Correected Pricing Attachment. The latest is version 4
Questions from Industry #8
Q: Is this specification available? If it is, please provide a copy.
This document is sub-doc listed within NDTS-1101 "J"
LMA-PG001 Requirements for ETCH/Cleaning Prior to Penetrant Inspection
A: The spec, LMA-PG001, is not available. It is not required.
For some background NDTS-1101 spec, which is required and provided in the
TDP, references LMA-PG001 for some alternate procedures. We use NDTS-1101 a
lot for all of our parts procurements in DLA and no one has ever asked for
or needed LMA-PG001.
Note: Updated attachment A is being provided to TDP requesters
Questions from Industry #7
The Government has decided to extend the RFP close date to 23 January 2018 at 10:00 am (MST). Barring a substantive issue, this will be the final extension.
Q: Must we include shipping costs from the Kitting location to the Delivery Site?
Q: Also would it be possible to clarify the following from Section M,
"4. Where the Government has specified an item for the kit which is not produced by U.S. small business concerns, such item shall be excluded from the calculation of total value for "kit assemblers only."
A: Yes. A manufacturer would need to count all manufactured parts in the calculation, even if the part is on the Critical Safety List and is required to be purchased from a approve source.
Q: Pricing Matrix Question.
On the Basic tab, the Evaluated CLIN Price for each kit equals the sum of the Weighted Evaluation Prices for all Ordering Periods except Ordering Period 1.
A: The exclusion of Ordering Peroid 1 is incorrect and has be corrected on Pricing Attachment version 3.
|SLEP_Pricing_Attachment_version_3||SLEP_Pricing_Attachment_version_3.xlsx||SLEP_Pricing_Attachment_version_3|Jan 16, 2018 (adds 6 days)
Questions from Industry #6
Q: FBO states that the RFP due date was extended but there hasn't officially been an Amendment issued with the new due date. Will there be an amendment that has to be signed and returned as part of our response?
A: There has been an issue with posting documents to FBO. Therefore, the document was not posted and will not be posted latter, outside of an additional change. Therefore, no signature will be required. Please sign the basic and all amendments posted in the future.
Q: Do we need to send the Client Authorization Letters to our commercial customer contacts for the Past Performance or do we just have to include it in our response for the Gov't to send if needed?
A: Please send.
Q: The parts lists for kits still have tools listed. We believe these are NOT part of the SOW for this effort. Could you please confirm that tools are not required?
A: No tools are not required.
Q: Is there a latest FPQL-3064 that goes with the FPS-3064 that was released with the Final TDP.A: That will be sent out by COB 1/5/2018.
Questions form Industry 5
21 Dec 29017
Q: Section L (RFP References above) requires the Integrated Master Schedule and the schedule simulation (Monte Carlo) results to be submitted as part of the 100 page limit for the Technical Volume. As we understand, per Section L of the RFP, the IMS submittal in the Technical volume would only include hard copies of both IMS and Monte Carlo analysis results. Based on our interpretation of Section L the Government is not asking for the offerors to provide any of the source files associated for the IMS or the Monte Carlo analysis. If this is not the Government's intent or our understanding is incorrect we believe there needs to be some sort of update in order to clarify the Government's intent. In the event the Government does not plan to request the source files for both the IMS and the Monte Carlo analysis, we were wondering how the Government plans to perform an evaluation of the proposed schedule and Monte Carlo analysis information to ensure the Offeror truly does have a clear "understanding of critical program milestones and critical path to deliver kits on-time for first article test" and can "demonstrates an overall schedule variance of <5% at the 95% confidence level"? If the IMS file is not properly networked and/or contains Constraint Dates (hard or soft constraints) the credibility and integrity of the schedule and the Monte Carlo results are compromised and may not represent the "true" picture of the actual and/or probable deliver schedule. Based on our experience the only way to accurately assess and provide a uniform evaluation of the credibility of the schedule against the Section M evaluation criteria would be to request the source files for an independent USG evaluation. Based on our experience the only way to accurately assess and provide a uniform evaluation of the credibility of the schedule against the Section M evaluation criteria would be to request the source files for an independent USG evaluation. Therefore, we believe the Government should request the offerors provide electronic copies of the IMS and Monte Carlo analysis source files in order to validate the offerors assertions and help ensure the USG will have a successful program.
A: No source file data associated with an IMS or schedule simulation (Monte Carlo) is requested. As stated in Section L, the IMS and schedule simulation is part of the 100 page limit for the Technical Volume. Offerors should provide detail in their proposal of their schedule's critical path and critical program milestones and how the offeror will ensure on-time kit deliveries. Schedule simulation inputs, constraints, assumptions, number of runs/trials and variations used in the runs (such as the task duration distribution) should be included in the Technical Volume. Schedule simulation results should provide the likely range of schedule success (for example a bell curve chart) and sensitivity analysis to provide understanding of the level of uncertainty included in the schedule.
Q: Last Q/A there was a question regarding kits 201716924-10 & 201716924-30
for missing P/L. The answer was " 201716924 is an AF drawing of the kit list and will list what is in a -10 or a -30. It is listed on the EDL". In the EDL you have a general list of the parts but it doesn't determine actual size (for example it calls for C3629 without the dash numbers) and it doesn't show quantities.
A: The EDL is a list of all of the LM engineering drawings and specs that were provided on the data disk. Use the MKPL's for the kits parts list.
Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.19 calls for change quantity for different parts. At the end it shows two identical parts NAS1436H06 with two different quantity 10 & 16. Is a mistake in P/N or is it a mistake in duplication of a line?
A: The correct MK5423A Attachment A will be sent out.
Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.23 calls for "Increase quantity" for part AIC85-3-10. P/N AIC85-3-10 has a basic quantity of 64 in P/L. The amendment calls to increase the quantity to 56. Is it a mistake and we should leave it with 64 quantity? Should we decrease the quantity from 64 to 56?
A: This is also included in the correct MK5423A Attachment A that will be released. The wording changed from "increase/decrease" to "change". 56 is the correct number.
Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.23 calls for "Increase quantity" for parts AIC596-5-12 & 16B605-27. Both of these parts do not show in the P/L at all. It is our understanding we should add the parts to the P/L. Is that correct?
A: This is answered in the correct Attachment A that will be sent out.
Q: Kit MK5423A attachment A para.25 calls for deleting part MS20427M-6-7 from P/L with quantity of 0. There is no such part in P/L. On the other hand we find P/N MS20427M6-7. Is it a typo? The S20427M6-7 shows in P/L with a quantity of 20 and not quantity of 10. Do we remove the full quantity of 20 from kit? Or do we remove only 10 each?
A: This is answered in the correct Attachment A that will be sent out.