MODIFICATION
A -- Joint General Purpose Decontaminant for Hardened Military Equipment (JGPD-HME)
- Notice Date
- 9/9/2015
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 325998
— All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
- Contracting Office
- ACC-APG - Natick (SPS), ATTN: AMSRD-ACC-N, Natick Contracting Division (R and BaseOPS), Building 1, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760-5011
- ZIP Code
- 01760-5011
- Solicitation Number
- W911QY16R0001
- Archive Date
- 9/8/2016
- Point of Contact
- Christine Sordillo, 508-233-6179
- E-Mail Address
-
ACC-APG - Natick (SPS)
(christine.f.sordillo.civ@mail.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Q1: When trying to find a copy of MIL-PRF-51560C to download, a message was given that there were no access privileges. Will this be made available? (Reference PSPEC Section 2.2.1, page 2) A1: Some MIL-PRFs are unavailable due to export restrictions. The applicable requirements for these items are listed in the JGPD-HME PSPEC, however efforts will be made to make these available to companies meeting the requirements to access export controlled technical documents. Q2: MIL-PRF-EA-C-2251 could not be found on a public website. Will this be made available? (Reference PSPEC Section 2.2.1, page 2) A2: See A1. Q3: MIL-STD-129P is listed, but MIL-STD-129R is the most current version. Is this a typo in the PSPEC, or is the desire to adhere to the older version? (Reference PSPEC Section 2.2.1, page 2) A3: The PSPEC will be updated to include the most recent revisions of standards. Q4: The web address provided for documentation (https://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/) was not working publicly. We found the following address worked instead: http://quicksearch.dla.mil/. (Reference PSPEC Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, page 3) A4: The PSPEC will be updated to reference the new site address. Q5: The radiological requirement is using mixed units (centiGrays and Becquerel's), which can be confusing. We suggest the starting challenge be expressed in centiGrays. If this change is not preferable, we suggest that either, a) the threshold be expressed in Becquerel's, or b) the isotopes present in the challenge be identified to allow conversion between Becquerel's and Grays. (Reference PSPEC Section 3.1.1.4, page 6) A5: The objective requirement for radiological decontamination will be removed from the PSPEC included with the final RFP. Q6: If changing the section to measure radioactive contamination in Grays, please provide details on how the dosage is to be measured, as this will have an impact on the results (i.e. distance from material, summation of smaller areas adding up to 1m2, etc.). (Reference PSPEC Section 3.1.1.4, page 6) A6: See A5. Q7: There appear to be some missing table lines between columns and a few instances of merged cells. The merged cells may be necessary (such as if you use the same pallet of product for verifying requirements 3.6.6.4-3.6.6.6) but at other points could be misleading (will the same single gallon of product be used to verify requirements 3.5.7-3.5.7.7). (Reference PSPEC Table V, pages 17-19) A7: The quantities delineated in PSPEC Table V are the estimated quantities required to verify the associated requirements. Some end items may be re-used across multiple tests. Additional quantities above those identified in the PSPEC may be required to support testing based on test schedule and pot life considerations. FAT quantities and test execution order will be further refined in future revisions of the PSPEC. Q8: On printed copies only, there are table entries that display quote mark Error! Reference source not found. quote mark (Reference PSPEV Table V, page 18) A8: Thank You. References will be cross checked and verified prior to release of the final RFP. Q9: On printed copies only, the table title displays quote mark Table Error! No text of specified style in document. VI Decontaminant Concentrations quote mark. (Reference PSPEC Table VI, page 22) A9: See A8. Q10: Why is quote mark JSGPM Hood quote mark highlighted? (Reference PSPEC Section 4.4.5.32.5.5, page 24) A10: JSGPM Hood will no longer be highlighted on future revisions. Q11: quote mark Table VI quote mark needs to be changed to quote mark Table VII quote mark as Table VI is on page 22. (Reference PSPEC Section 4.4.5.2.5.5, page 24) A11: See A8. Q12: The PSPEC only provides quantities for the First Article Test requirements. It is critical that the Draft RFP list the quantities (by product size), delivery schedule, and period of performance for the entire project for an accurate quote on product pricing and order turn-around times. A12: The full Draft RFP will include expected JGPD-HME quantities for the full contract period of performance; however, since the anticipated contract will be an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract, any quantities provided in the RFP will represent the Government's best estimated quantities, rather than binding quantities. Q13: Part of the notice is a discussion about packaging. What is the process for coordinating meetings with the Government to discuss packaging configurations before the final RFP is released? A13: If an Offeror would like to meet with the Government to discuss their packaging configuration, the Offeror should request a meeting with the Contracting Office who will pass the information along to the Product Office for coordination. Questions shall be submitted to the Product Office via email no later than 3 days prior to the meeting. Q14: What is the current phase (CP I, CP II, DT, LRIP, FRP) of the acquisition so we can comment appropriately about the DRFP posted on FBO? A14: JGPD-HME is currently in the DT phase. Q15: Will the acquisition be single-award or multiple-award - it should be considered to be in the best interest of the government and the joint services to have this acquisition as a multiple-award as a solution for one service may not fit the specific needs for another service. Even though this is a Joint product - it can be run as a Joint program that has multiple, compatible products to meet the requirements of the individual Joint Services. A15: The Government intends to make a single award but reserves the right to make no award. Q16: What were the test and reports produced under the latest DT phase award? Will those documents or equivalent be required in this round of GDP submissions? If yes, will the government be providing adequate time and test methodologies prior to final RFP release so that prospective respondents can provide equivalent 3rd party testing. A16: In RFP W911QY-14-R-0020-0002 - GPD-HME Developmental Testing (DT) released June 2014, it stated the following: quote mark Testing planned to occur in the Developmental Test (DT) phase of GPD-HME are as follows*: Accelerated Shelf-Life and Real-Time Shelf-Life Testing Biological Efficacy Testing Chemical Efficacy Testing Fielded Decontaminant and Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants (POL) Compatibility Ignitability Testing Chemical Biological Radiological Contamination Survivability Early User Evaluation Individual Protective Equipment Compatibility Detector Compatibility Material Compatibility and Equipment Degradation Packaging/MIL-STD-810G Water Source Compatibility Health Hazard Assessment (HHA) These DT events are designed to fulfill the GPD-HME Milestone C (MS C) entrance criteria. *NOTE: Although the test events listed above are planned to occur in DT, the Government reserves the right to change, delete or reprioritize test events to best suit the Government's requirements. Although the Offeror's are Commercial or Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) items, the Government reserves the right to conduct testing, utilizing the same testing procedures for all awardees, that may differ from instructions provided in regards to decontaminant to agent ratio, residence time on contaminated surface and application procedures (but consistent with the CBRN Decontamination Multiservice Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for CBRN Decontamination Field Manual 3-11.5, Chemical Contaminant and Decontaminant Test Methodology Source Document and Test Operating Procedures). quote mark In the Draft RFP that was released, areas which the Offeror will be required to describe their product's effectiveness and performance are listed. Additionally, PSPEC Section 4 provides information on test methodology found in the listed Test Operations Procedures (TOPs), Source Documents, etc. for each requirement. The Government plans to release the final RFP in mid to late fall 2015. The Government is interested in Industry's feedback as to what it believes is an adequate amount of time to obtain third party testing. Q17: The last known phase of the JGPD-HME program was at DT phase. The DT phase was awarded to a single company. Potential offerors are not aware and have not been purview to what testing and development advances were made through the Single Award company during the DT phase. Will the government give adequate time so other potential offerors could conduct equivalent testing to report back to the government as part of the next RFP phase? A17: See A16. Q18: Will any services be part of the final RFP when released? There is no mention of this in the FBO posting or PSPEC. A18: The expected contract will be a supply contract with ancillary requirements for program management, engineering, and test support. Q19: Is the draft PSPEC dated 24 April 2014 that is provided and posted through the FBO the most current PSPEC? The previous draft available during RFP W911QY-14-R-0020 for General Purpose Decontaminant for Hardened Military Equipment (GPD-HME) was dated 31 March 2014 with a response date of July 18 2014. Was there a modification to the draft PSPEC that was not released during the RFP of the last phase? A19: The PSPEC version released with this Draft RFP has a typo in the date. It is the 24 April 2015 version. Q20: Comparing the previous draft PSPEC from 31 March 2014 to the PSPEC dated 24 April 2014 the chemical efficacy KPP was changed. Can the government give rationale and reason to why the chemical efficacy was changed? A20: The chemical efficacy requirement was changed to reflect more recent toxicology data from Public Health Command. The updated PSPEC chemical efficacy requirements reflects the Services' requirements for JGPD-HME. Q21: PSPEC Section 3.3.1 (Packaging Interface) - language was added in the PSPEC from previous drafts about being able to open the JGPD-HME using full protective military and first-responder CBRN protection clothing. How will this be evaluated in the final RFP? If offerors will need to provide data on this testing, industry will need time to conduct the testing. If this was tested with the Single Award Company during the DT phase, will the Government be releasing the testing protocol and methodologies so other potential offerors could conduct evaluation testing? A21: All verification of each requirement is located in the PSPEC. See Section 4.4 Q22: PSPEC Section 3.5.6.7 to 3.5.613 (IPE) - language was added in the PSPEC from previous drafts to include several additional types of IPE compatibility testing. Was this testing conducted under DT phase? Will industry be required to provide testing reports in support of their claims for an RFP response or will this be evaluated during the current phase? Time will be needed to provide test data for this IPE compatibility testing. Will government provide ample time to conduct testing prior to final RFP release? A22: IPE testing is being conducted as part of the DT phase. Proposals will be evaluated for compatibility with IPE as stated in the Draft RFP: quote mark Individual Protection Equipment (IPE) Compatibility - Compatibility testing with relevant IPE items (e.g. Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST), JSLIST Block 2 Glove Upgrade Non-Flame Resistant (JB2GUnFR), Toxicological Agent Protective (TAP) Apron, Joint Protective Air Crew Ensemble (JPACE), Alternative Footwear Solution (AFS)). quote mark The Government plans to release the final RFP in mid to late Fall 2015. The Government is interested in Industry's feedback as to what it believes is an adequate amount of time to obtain third party testing. Q23: PSPEC Section 3.5.7 (Decontaminate Preparation Time) - the language and definitions can be misleading. Some products have a performance gap between the quote mark mix time quote mark and quote mark ready for use time quote mark, and that can be from 5 to 60 minutes. Does quote mark ready to use quote mark mean just mixed or activated and ready for immediate application? Is mix time the same as ready-to-use time? Some products take 0 minutes to activate after mixing and others take 60 minutes. Does quote mark zero hour ready to use quote mark mean at quote mark mix time quote mark ? A23: quote mark Ready-for-use quote mark means ready for immediate application and fully able to meet all efficacy requirements. In other words, once decontaminant in its storage configuration (including components and water if necessary) is gathered, it shall take Warfighters less than 15 minutes to mix and prepare the decontaminant and it shall be ready to apply immediately. Q24: PSPEC Section 4.2.1 says a minimum of 200 storage packaging containers and 16 pallets will be required but section 4.2.3 totals to 210 gallons. Should the minimum be 210 instead of 200? Does this mean that 1-gallon is the preferred volume for package configurations? Will the 16 pallets needed to be filled with empty or full packaging containers? A24: First Article Test quantities are expected to be updated prior to release of the final RFP. Quantities will be identified by pallet, storage container, and volume based on the nature of the test being performed. Quantities may be changed based on test execution schedule and the serviceable life of the decontaminant once opened. The unit of measurement used to identify FAT quantities should not be used as an indication of preferred volume for packaging configurations, as it is intended only to identify the quantity needed for testing. All pallet and storage container quantities are for JGPD-HME in the intended fully loaded 'as delivered' configuration. Q25: Does the Program office intend to release any additional draft solicitation materials, specifically sections C (SOW), L, M, and allow adequate time for review and comment prior to the final solicitation being released? A25: Yes, a full Draft RFP will be released prior to the final RFP. Q26: It is our understanding that the JGPD-HME program is approaching a milestone C decision to support production readiness; is the government anticipating multiple, competitive bids for JGPD-HME at this time, at the required TRL to warrant a full and open competition for this phase of the program? A26: Yes, the Government expects to receive multiple proposals from industry for this requirement. Further, the Government invites industry to share the current or future status of any bid/no bid decisions with respect to this RFP. Any feedback in this regard would be extremely useful to the Government for future solicitation planning. Q27: Would the Program office consider reducing TRL entry requirements to permit the opportunity for alternative technologies to compete for work starting at EMD and at a TRL 6 entry point? If not, does the Program office anticipate any future opportunities which would permit superior performing, non-corrosive materials, to be further evaluated and produced to support these important decontamination missions? A27: The test data that will be required in the JGPD-HME RFP will most likely require a mature decontaminant with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 8. Follow-on phases of JGPD-HME developments may include efforts to expand JGPD-HME capabilities to smart or niche decontaminants (e.g. that provide agent indications or decontamination assurance). The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD) is requesting information from industry on potential candidate technologies for the Joint CBRNE Advanced Capability Sets (JCACS) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD). The JPEO-CBD will host an Industry Day on 16 September 2015 at Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area), Maryland. For more information on the JCACS ATD and the Industry Day, please see FedBizOps. Q28: Section 3.1.1.6 of the Performance Specification refers to the decontaminant pot life and as part of the threshold statement includes a reference to sections 3.1.1.4 and 3.1.1.5, which are themselves objective requirements. Should Section 3.1.1.6 include only 3.1.1.1 through 3.1.1.3? A28: The threshold requirement for section 3.1.1.6 should include only 3.1.1.1 through 3.1.1.3. The PSPEC will be updated to remove requirements 3.1.1.4 and 3.1.1.5. Q29: Is the Government willing to accept efficacy data where the decontaminant has not been applied with the M26? A29: Yes. While efficacy data with the M26 is preferred for some agents and scenarios, the Government will consider efficacy data that has been pipetted or sprayed on the coupon in another manner. A pipette application is operationally relevant for field expedient applicators. Q30: What is the min critical testing that the JPM needs to see to meet the GPD requirements? A30: In the Draft RFP that was released, it states, quote mark In the RFP, the Offeror shall describe the product's performance and ability to meet all the requirements in the JGPD-HME PSPEC. Specifically, the Offeror shall describe the product's effectiveness and performance in the following areas... quote mark The Offeror is responsible for their candidate's testing. The Government has provided some specifics in the Draft RFP (e.g. relevant materials, type of testing, etc.) and verification methods for JGPD-HME requirements are given in Section 4 of the JGPD-HME PSPEC. Q31: How many trials are needed for the efficacy tests to meet the minimum requirement? Speaking to one of the DT test centers, they mentioned 60 trials for the testing they conducted. They thought that this might not be necessary and we should ask what the minimum needs to be. A31: See A30. Q32: A DT test center mentioned that they are very busy with the DT phase testing they are doing for GPD and that is keeping the environmental testing chamber occupied for the next couple of months. We would need help with the logistics of keeping the test chamber available for us to conduct our testing. We would need the JPM to let the DT test center know that this was ok since the JPM is the owner of the equipment. A32: JPM P is not able to provide access to Government Furnished Equipment for vendor testing. Q33: At the end of the current DT Phase testing for the current GPD candidate that is going on we would need to start our own DT phase of testing - what is the minimum that the JPM would like to see from all the tests? - Environment (Cold, Hot, Humid)? - Pot Life testing at T=1 hr and T=6 hr? - Others? A33: See A30. Q34: What is the Government's goal for cost of ready-to-use decontaminant in price per gallon? A34: The currently fielded decontaminants available are STB and HTH, the per gallon cost of ready-to-use decontaminant are $15.82 and $5.01, respectively. The Government is seeking decontaminants that are in a similar price range per gallon.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/11d0bb17a052bf9ed2d2128bcc3fd7c6)
- Record
- SN03877444-W 20150911/150909235618-11d0bb17a052bf9ed2d2128bcc3fd7c6 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |