SAMDaily.us | PRESOL | 10 | Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)

SAMDAILY.US - ISSUE OF NOVEMBER 05, 2021 SAM #7279
SOLICITATION NOTICE

10 -- Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)

Notice Date: 11/3/2021 12:31:15 PM
Notice Type: Solicitation
NAICS: 332994 — Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing
Contracting Office: W6QK ACC-PICA PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 USA
ZIP Code: 07806-5000
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-21-R-0025
Response Due: 11/22/2021 1:00:00 PM
Archive Date: 12/07/2021
Point of Contact: Angelica Merino, Stephanie Kless
E-Mail Address: usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil, usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil
(usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil, usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil)
Description: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/03/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Ref:�TDP, Multiple Documents Our review of TDPs reveals 11,711 missing documents of CAD models, CAD drawings, specifications, SolidWorks drawings, SolidWorks components, SolidWorks assemblies, test descriptions, technical notes, and more (see attached spreadsheet). These documents are important to develop BOM and our pricing. Without the documents Offerors are at a distinct disadvantage in estimating costs without undue risk to both the Offeror and the government.� Q: Will the government provide these documents to all Offerors? A:�The native files are not necessary for bid but will be sent to the winning contractor upon contract award. Ref:�TDP, Multiple Documents Q:�Given the volume of missing documents and the potential impact on our ability to develop accurate, reasonable pricing, will the government extend the due date of proposals at least 30 days beyond the release of the 11,711 missing documents?� A:�The Government does not believe that the TDP released to prospective offerors is missing any files. �If the TDP contained any material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified. Ref:�SOW, C.3.2.4.2 States: The delivered RWS shall be built within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, and the delivered RWS components shall be seamlessly interchangeable in both directions with all existing RWS components down to the lowest individual piece/part level. [emphasis added] Q:�Does �individual piece/part level� mean LRU? A:�The �individual piece/part level� means Shop Replaceable Unit (SRU) and is defined by Exhibit G which is titled SRU. Ref:�SOW, C.3.2.4.2 Q: If �individual piece/part level� does not mean LRU, will the government define �individual piece/part level�? A:�The �individual piece/part level� means Shop Replaceable Unit (SRU) and is defined by Exhibit G which is titled SRU. Ref:�SOW, C.3.3.5.5-, tates: For each item produced under this contract, all hardware, software, and firmware delivered shall be of a single design. Q:�Does this requirement apply to each variant as an instance dash number or does this apply to all variants as a whole instance dash number? A:�Don't understand the question. Ref:�C.3.4.5 states: The Contractor shall perform Conformance Inspection and Testing as specified in Section 4 of the respective Specification and Section E of the contract. Q: Would the Government clarify the reference to Section 4? A:�As of now, the only respective specification is GSPEC00008 Ref: SOW, C.3.4.5 Q:�If this Section is in the solicitation documents, would the government point to the referenced Section 4? A:�As of now, the only respective specification is GSPEC00008 Ref:�C.3.6.2.1 states: The Contractor shall conduct a warranty program for a period of two years from the date of delivery of each production system to ensure that any workmanship or material deficiency of any delivered system is corrected by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government. Q: Will the government change ��two years from the date of delivery�� to ��two years from the original date of delivery as shown on the DD250��? A:�No. The USG doesn't see the value of making this change at this time. Ref:�C.3.6.2.2.2 states: The Government will be responsible for shipping items returned for warranty service, and the Contractor shall be responsible for shipping costs for returning the warranted item to the Government within CONUS. Q:�Is the contractor responsible for shipping costs of new items to FOB? A: No. Ref:�C.3.6.2.2.2 Q:�Is the contractor responsible for shipping non-warranty items for repair or rebuild to the depot and contractor�s facility? A:�No, the contractor is not responsible for shipping non-warranty items from/to the Government. Ref:�SOW, C.3.6.4.1.1. states: If field maintenance does not have the capability to repair a particular component or system-level failure, that component or system is designated a ""Not Repairable This Station"" item and forwarded to the next higher repair authority: the depot. Q: What is the process for depot maintenance work requests (DMWR)?� A:�The USG will establish a process with the contractor after contract award to properly integrate the USG and contractor's established processes. Ref: SOW, C.3.6.4.1.1 Q:�Is the DMWR generated by the contractor or the field maintenance?� A:�The USG will establish a process with the contractor after contract award to properly integrate the USG and contractor's established processes. Ref: Q&A released 10-21-2021 states:�The Government�s permission to release the CROWS TDP for competition purposes and the royalty for non-incumbent-made systems are both terms of license agreement with the incumbent.��The agreement itself is not releasable. Q: Will the government release the CROWS TDP in its entirety to Offerors? A:�We have released the CROWS TDP in its entirety for the purposes of this competition and will release the native files to the winning offeror upon award. Ref: SOW, C.2.1.2,��Technical Manual 9-1090-219-23&P contains data and information that would benefit Offerors in identifying parts and subsystems to Remote Weapons Systems. Q: Would the government provide an electronic media copy of the Technical Manual to Offerors? A:�The Government is currently updating the technical manuals for the tech refresh versions. For information purposes the Government will provide the TM 9-1090-219-10, TM 9-1090-222-10, TM 9-1090-219-23&P, and TM 9-1090-222-23&P as attachments to the RFP. Ref:�Attachment 0016/SOW C3.6.4.5, Exhibit K RFP States: C.3.6.4.5. Report. The Contractor shall submit a Depot Maintenance Cost Report every 90 days that includes a breakdown of labor categories, labor hours, labor rates, materials, and material prices per Contractor and Subcontractor line item repair. The Depot Maintenance Cost Report shall include the average LRU repair cost for each LRU during the reporting periods (CDRL A028, DI-FNCL-80462, Depot Maintenance Cost Report) Q: The RFP requires pricing of Depot and repair by use of the same fully loaded rates that is priced in Exhibit C. Exhibit K excludes the ability to propose for performance at a subcontractor location. If the Government requests reporting of subcontractor labor/rates, will the Government update Exhibit K to include subcontractor labor rates?� A:�The labor rate proposed on Exhibit K on this contract will be used for depot and repair regardless of whether the repair is performed by the prime or a sub-supplier. For CDRL A028 reporting, subcontractor repairs labor categories and rates shall be based on Exhibit K. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/02/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FYI, the POC's email have been changed to the following: renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil Attachment 0016 has been updated and attached along with Attachment 0025 Questions and Answers Ref: C.3.6.2.1. The Contractor shall conduct a warranty program for a period of two years from the date of delivery of each production system to ensure that any workmanship or material deficiency of any delivered system is corrected by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government. Warranty shall not apply to spare parts or repairs. Q: Exhibits G� (SRUs)� & H� (LRUs) specify a 2-year warranty period for spares, however Exhibit D (Systems) does not specify a warranty period. The SOW specifies that warranty is not to be applied to spares or repairs, but is to be applied to systems, which is opposite of what is requested in Attachment 16. Will the government please clarify how warranty is to be applied in Attachment 16 and correct the spreadsheet if it is in error? A: We don't want warranty on spares but we do want it on systems. This will be corrected on the attachment. Ref: RFP, Section C.3.6.1 C.3.6.1. states: The Contractor shall establish an Integrated Product Support program as an integral part of the RWS Production and or development process and ensure realistic application of each IPS element. The Contractor shall assess the impact of design changes on each of the IPS elements, identify risks to include achieving the necessary support for each of the IPS elements, and outline strategies to mitigate these risks. This assessment shall be documented in the Integrated Logistics Support Plan. The objective in this phase is to ensure the program develops an integrated logistics system that meets production and or development requirements, sustains system performance specifications, manages operating and support costs, optimizes the logistics footprint, and complies with environmental and other logistics-related regulations. The Contractor shall use MIL-HDBK-502A, AR 700-127, and the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) IPS Guidebook as guides for the IPS effort. The Contractor shall plan required support actions and provide the transition of all data, files, information, and records established and/or maintained under this contract to the Government.� The Integrated Support Plan shall address how the Contractor shall interface with and support the 12 IPS elements as detailed in MIL-HDBK-502-A and DAU� IPS guidebook. Per the referenced DAU IPS guidebook and DOD 5000.02 the government program office should have existing documentation including: -�� A Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP), -�� Capability Production Document (CPD) with defined Sustainment KPPs/KSAs -�� Product Support Arrangements, (PSAs) -�� Established or planned Material Availability (Am), Material Reliability (Rm) and other sustainment metrics. -�� A baseline for the 12 IPS elements 1Q: Will the government provide the above supporting documentation required to support an informed ISP or is the expectation that the offeror will develop an ISP without benefit of the baseline documentation which would be available to the incumbent? A: We will provide the approved LCSP and CPD. The LCSP should contain information pertaining to sustainment metrics. We do not have a baseline of the 12 IPS elements that we can share. We will answer any specific questions with respect to the 12 IPS elements that the LCSP does not address. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents TDP files provided are incomplete and insufficiently describe the parts, subassemblies, assemblies, subsystems, and systems at a level necessary to bid and produce the CROWS variants. For example, within TDP 60201886-11-CXX-L01 the PDF file entitled K)983987_ states that the document contains native files for the TDP. TDP 60201886-11-CXX-L01 as provided by the government contains no SolidWorks files (3D models and 2D drawings), and many referenced files/drawings contained within the html index file are non-existent. The TDP is missing many work instructions, test procedures, parts lists, specifications, etc. For example, Cable Harness W2 (Assembly Part 60265468-00) references several files that are missing: ECAD Model 6026548-A, Assembly Drawing ASSY60265468_A.pdf, WD�60265468_.pdf, WL�60265468-00.xls, WL�60265468_.pdf. 2a Q: When will the government provide complete TDPs including the native files that are referenced as being contained in the TDP? A: With respect to your example cable harness W2, we have provided the assembly drawing, wiring diagram and wiring list in pdf. We have deleted the xls native file of the wiring list. The native files are not necessary for bid but will be sent to the winning contractor upon contract award. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents 2b Q: Will the government screen all of the files in the TDPs for accurate and complete records to enable all Offerors a common build-to-print basis for pricing? A: The TDPs are provided to set the parameters within which the contractor shall build the RWS hardware.� The Government does NOT warrant that all RWS built to the Technical Data Package will meet requirements or interface seamlessly with the provided software.� The Government only warrants that it is possible to build RWS, within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, which meet requirements.� This is represented by the RWS provided to the contractor.� The contractor shall be responsible for determining how to build RWS within the constraints of the Technical Data Package that (when combined with the provided software executable code) meet all requirements as outlined in this Statement of Work and the Detail Specification. If the TDP contained any material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents A review of TDP 60201866-11-C01-L01 reveals 1792 documents referred to in the index file are not present in the zip file issued via DoD SAFE. The attachment provided with these questions is not the entire list but instead those documents we could readily identify as missing. 3a Q: Will the government confirm that the missing documents are not required by Offerors to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of RWS and each variant? A: We confirm that the deleted native files are not required by Offerors to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of RWS and each variant Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents 3b Q: Will the government provide a listing of those documents that are required by Offerors to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of RWS and each variant? A: The TDP released to prospective offerors states all the requirements needed to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of the RWS and each variant.� See answer to question 2b. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents 3c Q: Will the government extend the solicitation date permitting adequate time to obtain the missing files, issue the files to Offerors, and permit Offerors time to develop correct pricing in response to the solicitation? A: The Government does not believe that the TDP released to prospective offerors is missing any files.� See answer to question 2b. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------10/22/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Ref:�Solicitation, SF 33, Item 9 Item 9 states offers are due to the Government by 4:00 PM 2021NOV22. While the final count is undetermined, a significant number of technical drawings are written in a language other than English, are missing parts of drawings, are missing distribution lists, and some are missing specifications. The deficiencies and missing data result in Offerors being unable to adequately estimate each system without undue risk to the Government and Offeror. QUESTION: Request the Government extend the due date of proposals 30 days beyond the time necessary to complete an in-depth review of drawings, technical documents, instructions, and specifications to translate documents where foreign language is found, replace missing drawings, and complete the technical specifications and instructions. This review and correction will result in Offerors having an equal opportunity to reasonably price systems in response to the solicitation. Answer:�The GOV will not be extending the proposal date at this time for this reason.� The alleged issues are stated generally and without specifics, thus preventing the GOV from addressing or explaining any perceived issues. �For TDP issues that have been specifically identified and addressed please review the answers to other questions posted concurrently with this answer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------10/21/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Q: We do not see that there is access to foreign companies could you please confirm this? Also if the system that must be produced is the Kongsberg system, or if the technical evaluation will support others. A: Proposals will be evaluated IAW section L and M of the RFP, this acquisition is being solicited Full and Open Competition. Q: In reference to Attachments 10 and 11 (GSPEC00008) in page 8. I understand that first I need to sign the NDA and NON-USE agreement, correct? After that we should send the receipt of the Technical Data Package to be able to receive the technical documentation? Could you please explain this process? A: Attachment 0002 Form 1350, 0004/0006 (NDAs) and 0003 approved DD 2345. These forms need to be submitted in order to receive the TDP. Q: Is there a certification we need to have by the US and Canada JCO? A: Yes, DD2345 Q: We did not see the DD form 441 � Security Agreement or DoD5220.22-M and any revisions to it can Foreign Companies apply and how the rules about access to the information for only US nationals work? Also, if foreign companies can register in ATCTS? A: The solicitation provides the list of all documents that need to be filled out and submitted to the Government. Additional information relating to registration in ATCTS is available at the website. Ref: RFP, 2. PROPOSAL FILES b. RFP states: Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. Accomplishing this requires setting the security permissions on each PDF file, i.e., passwords need to be applied to the file so that the security setting can�t be changed (two unique passwords in fact, one password to open the file and the other password to prevent changes). To meet this requirement, the Government must be provided the first password to open the file.� Q: Request provide instructions for passing this information securely to the Government. A: At least 7 days prior to the solicitation closing date, request a DOD safe from the Government to submit the files securely. Make sure to take into account upload times when submitting the submission. Ref: RFP, 2. PROPOSAL FILES b. RFP states: Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. Q1: Is the Table of Contents excluded from page count restrictions? A: Yes Q2: May offerors include other typical front matter exclusive of page count? (Title Page, List of Tables, List of Figures, Acronym List, Cross-Reference Matrix if included) A: Yes Ref: RFP, Section K, (a) (1) and RFP Section L, (v) VOLUME V Past Performance RFP states: The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 332994. In Section L, (v) VOLUME V Past Performance, line 5 states: Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 332994, Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing) required by the RFP. Q: Will the Government confirm that �similar to� Is interpreted to mean that similar programs can have a NAICS code other than 332994 as long as they were similar work, and therefore can be provided as past performance? A: Yes Ref: RFP, B.1 Ordering Periods Q: For pricing purposes, what date should be used for the period of performance start date? A: Assume a start date of August 31, 2022 for the purposes of pricing the proposal. Ref: RFP, M Factor 4 Cost/Price Factor, section (d)(iv) Evaluated Royalty Amount Q1: Given the significant competitive advantage the incumbent has due to the $10K per system royalty on all other offerors, will the government provide the evaluated royalty amount that will be added to the total evaluated price of offerors other than KDA? A: The added evaluated amount for the royalty is $10k per unit. Q2: Will the Government identify what the royalty is for?� Can a copy of the license be provided to the Offerors? A: The Government�s permission to release the CROWS TDP for competition purposes and the royalty for non-incumbent-made systems are both terms of license agreement with the incumbent.� The agreement itself is not releasable. Ref: Attachment 0006 - Recipient may disclose portions of the Data to a prospective or actual subcontractor or supplier for the purpose of obtaining proposals or quotations from such prospective subcontractor or supplier for use by Recipient in its own proposal for submission in response to the Solicitation. Recipient shall release to each such prospective or actual subcontractor or supplier only such portion of the Data that is necessary for such subcontractor or supplier to provide to Recipient the information necessary for Recipient to prepare its proposal for submission to the Government. Prior to such disclosure, Recipient shall obtain from each such prospective subcontractor or supplier a Use and Non-Disclosure Agreement executed by such prospective subcontractor or supplier which contains the same requirements and restrictions as are imposed upon Recipient by this Agreement, modified as necessary to identify properly the parties thereto. Recipient shall notify Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer, usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil, of the identity of each subcontractor or supplier to whom a release or disclosure of any portion of the data has been made and the specific contents of such release or disclosure. Upon request, Recipient shall also provide a copy of the Use and Non-Disclosure Agreement executed by such subcontractor or supplier. Q: For any subcontractors that we may need to share parts of the TDP with, we should follow the Attachment 0006 instructions where each sub should complete this Attachment and then send to us, and then we will notify Stephanie G. Kless as described below.� Is that correct? � A: That is correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------10/7/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Q: The RFP requires mandatory per unit rental pricing for all quantity ranges and for all line items. What shall we put in this field if our offer is not ""predicated on the use of Government Property"" to ensure fair evaluation of our price against other offerors? A: The rental value to be entered is 0 if your proposal is not ""predicated on the use of Government property"". Q: SOW section 3.4.2 does not include a schedule. Will the Government please confirm that completion of FAT for the three variants must be completed with in 18 months of Contract Award as stated during the Pre-Solicitation Conference, dated� 17 March? A: The completion of FAT for the three variants must be completed within 18 months of contract award. Need to change RFP to include schedule, currently missing. Q: The RFP requires pricing per unit and per unit rental value for all option periods (OP). Assuming FAT needs to be completed no later than 18 months after Contract Award, will the Government please provide guidance on how to treat option periods 2-5? Also, what shall we put in the ""rental value""� field if our offer is not ""predicated on the use of Government Property"" to ensure fair evaluation of our price against other offerors? A: Initial FAT needs to be completed no later than 18 months. Subsequent option periods are for subsequent FATs if ordered. The rental value to be entered is 0 if your proposal is not ""predicated on the use of Government property"". Q: Since Section B does not contain the majority of government identified CLINs will the government please identify FOB origin or FOB destination for each of the CLINs. A: Supply CLINs will be FOB origin and Service CLINs will be FOB Destination. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/30/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Ref: ""Prices proposed in the Price Matrix will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price based upon price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a). For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offerors proposed fixed-price LINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable."" ""The Government will perform a cost realism analysis of the proposed indirect costs applied to the Government provided T&M Material and Travel to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the proposed method of performance described in the Offeror's proposal to determine the most probable cost of performance. If the Offeror fails to support any portion of the indirect rates applicable to the proposed T&M Material and Travel costs, the Government reserves the right to adjust the costs to the higher of the proposed amount or readily available data in the cost realism position. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Governments best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offerors proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed, the evaluated becomes the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost."" Q: FAR 15.404-1(d)(3) provides that:� �Cost realism analyses may also be used on competitive fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts when new requirements may not be fully understood by competing offerors, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates that contractors� proposed costs have resulted in quality or service shortfalls. Results of the analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. However, proposals shall be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation, and the offered prices shall not be adjusted as a result of the analysis.�� The nature and complexity of the CROWS ACAT 1 Program, critical safety and performance requirements, need for high quality, define this as an ""exceptional case"", and supports conducting a price realism analysis on the fixed price elements. Will the government consider adding appropriate language and conducting such an assessment for the fixed-price CLINs and the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)? A: No, a price realism will not be performed on the FFP portion of the proposal, a cost realism will be performed on the T&M portion. Ref: Required Recapitalization/Overhaul/Reset Production Rates: Up to 50 systems per month no later than 180 days after award*. *For orders awarded in accordance with Section H0001 ""H.1. Cumulative Quantity Pricing"", ""after award"" shall be replaced with ""after the end of the award Cumulative Quantity Period as defined in H.1.2."" Ramp up from 50 per month to a surge requirement of up to 150 per month within four months of PCO direction. Required Conversions Rate: Up to 50 conversions per month after 180 days from award*. Ramp up from 50 per month to a surge requirement of up to 150 per month within four months of PCO direction. *For orders awarded in accordance with Section H0001 H.1. Cumulative Quantity Pricing, after award shall be replaced with after the end of the award Cumulative Quantity Period as defined in H.1.2. Q: The Statement of Work (SOW) and Section F requires the recapitalization and conversion of CROWS legacy units as part of the contractual effort at the rate of 50 units each per month. This exceeds the number of new units being delivered per month and therefore represents a significant portion of the contract scope. However, the current CLIN structure provides no CLIN in which to price this effort. How will the government establish price realism for the entire contract scope if upgrades and conversions are not priced? A: The recap will be taken into account in our price evaluation based on depot labor rates and LRU/SRU prices. Ref: I-60 52.230-6 ADMINISTRATION OF COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS I-209 52.230-2 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS I-210 52.230-4 DISCLOSURE AND CONSISTENCY OF COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES--FOREIGN CONCERNS52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION Q: Since the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board has yet to offer guidance on how to handle ID/IQ hybrid contracts with respect to CAS application,� such as the one contemplated by W15QKN-21-R-0025, will the Government clarify how the relevant CAS clauses will apply to the contract? Specifically, the R-0025 solicitation requests Firm Fixed Price LINs under a competitive acquisition, generally exempt from CAS; and Time&Material LINs, generally non-exempt from CAS. A: CAS will not be applicable to the contract resulting from this solicitation. The clauses will be deleted at contract award. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/23/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers 1. Ref: Section L states, ""Format. The submission SHALL be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume SHALL be clearly identified and SHALL begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume SHALL be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents SHALL be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files SHALL use the following page setup parameters: Page Size, Width 8.5 Page Size, Height 11"" Q: Section L requests a number of process charts and technical drawings that will not� fit on a single 8.5"" x 11"" page size even using 8 point font. Will the government please confirm that 11"" x 17"" (Ledger Size) foldout pages can be used for large drawings and tables as is standard practice on many RFPs? A: 11"" x 17"" (Ledger Size) foldout pages can be used for large drawings and tables, but the amount of pages allowed will remain the same. 2. Ref: Section L requires an IMS to be submitted as part of the Management Factor along with a narrative analysis as stated in paragraph L (i) 2.c, ""Provide an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that, at minimum, includes all activities required for FAT and all activities leading up to building the FAT systems and conducting a successful FAT; and other appropriate supporting events (e.g., test, approval, and key meetings). The IMS WILL also include major/key subcontractor and supplier schedules. An analysis SHALL be furnished that shows the proposed schedule is supportable and achievable considering other contract requirements, downtime, and delays. The IMS MUST clearly illustrate the interdependencies of all activities, events, and milestones; and explain the critical path and any factors affecting it."" Q: To ensure adequate detail to support effective government analysis, will the government allow the IMS to be presented as an .mpp file as an appendix and excluded from page count? A: The IMS can be presented in .mpp file as an appendix and excluded from page count. 3. Ref: Required Recapitalization/Overhaul/Reset Production Rates: Up to 50 systems per month no later than 180 days after award*. *For orders awarded in accordance with Section H0001 ""H.1. Cumulative Quantity Pricing"", ""after award"" shall be replaced with ""after the end of the award Cumulative Quantity Period as defined in H.1.2."" Ramp up from 50 per month to a surge requirement of up to 150 per month within four months of PCO direction. Required Conversions Rate: Up to 50 conversions per month after 180 days from award*. Ramp up from 50 per month to a surge requirement of up to 150 per month within four months of PCO direction. *For orders awarded in accordance with Section H0001 H.1. Cumulative Quantity Pricing, after awa...
Web Link: SAM.gov Permalink
(https://beta.sam.gov/opp/17c43d48da19494db122370b78b8ec4d/view)
Record: SN06170053-F 20211105/211103230111 (samdaily.us)
Source: SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

10 -- Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)