Frequently Asked Questions Note: These answers are provided for clarification purposes only. They are not part of the solicitation. In the event that they contradict anything in the solicitation the solicitation language shall be used. Question 1. The chosen NAICS code for this program (541614, Process, Physical Distribution and Logistics Consulting Services) does not correctly represent the industry involved in this program. This NAICS code primarily involves small-scale distribution models with no manufacturing or re-manufacturing requirements. As a result, we believe this NAICS code unfairly limits the requirements for Small Business to an unreasonably small size standard for which no responsible offeror would ever qualify ($6.5 million in sales). The SECREP program clearly requires manufacturing and re-manufacturing activities and should be categorized accordingly under a manufacturing NAICS code. We believe a more correct NAICS code that would allow for manufacturing and true integration would be 336111 (Automobile Manufacturing), 336312 (Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing), or 336399 (All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing). Answer. Ideally there would be a NAICS code for Supply Chain Management or Third Party Logistics (3PL) services. Since there is not, the best available NAICS code for the primary requirements of this program is 541614: Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services. The following requirement description was used in determining the NAICS: The Marine Corps Logistics Command (LOGCOM) is seeking a Logistics Integration Support (LIS) service to develop and manage a commercial capacity to Remanufacture, Overhaul, or Repair (ROR) selected secondary repairable items (SECREPs). The goal is to provide responsive and cost effective supply chains for each SECREP with increased component availability and reliability as a complement/ alternative to any existing organic or commercial capabilities already in place. SECREPs to be covered by this program are both commercial and non-commercial and include components of wheeled and tracked vehicles, electronics, optics, and weapon systems. The requirement is not primarily for remanufacturing deemed as manufacturing pursuant to FAR 22.1003-6 and therefore is subject to the Service Contract Act. The current contract with the incumbent performing this requirement was solicited under NAICS 541614. Question 2. Which solicitation will be released first, SECREPs or MCLogs [another separate Marine Corps Logistics Command service acquisition]? Answer: I have talked to the MCLogs contracting officer and I'm comparing two rough estimates here, but MCLogs is further along in the acquisition planning document approval process (as of 13 Aug 09) than SECREPs LIS so we believe the MCLogs solicitation will go out first. Question 3. Will you provide a listing of all the vendors currently providing support to the SECREP maintenance program? Answer: The only current SECREP Logistics Integration Support services provider LOGCOM has is Raytheon Technical Services. That is the single contract we are seeking to recompete. Question 3a. Will the Marine Corps provide a list of the current vendors performing SECREP Remanufacture, Overhaul or Repair (ROR)? Answer: The only vendor performing ROR of the listed SECREPs for LOGCOM is the current SECREP LIS incumbent. We do not have any contracts with any other individual vendors to perform ROR services (for those items anyway; this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of all Marine Corps SECREPs). Our assumption is that no single company can ROR the wide range of equipment covered by this program, and therefore in the draft PWS we recognize that much of the actual physical ROR work may be performed by subcontractors of the selected offeror's choosing. Any subcontractors currently performing ROR work under this program belong to the incumbent, not the Government. Question 4: Will the contractor have access to the Marine Corps supply system to procure repair parts required for SECREP ROR? If not, what immediate support is available for obtaining the necessary documents and TDP’s associated with the NSN list? Answer: From the Project Officer: If we have answers to tech data then we will work with the integrator and provide what we have and are auth to give. Our inability to provide should not become an excuse for the integrator's non-performance. Obtaining tech data and OEM specs are the responsibility of the integrator. The integrator and his selected vendors must know how to request access to Emall and the govt parts system to maintain eligibility to use govt parts system. Once again we will work with them on how to obtain such access to the parts system. There is no guarantee that the parts needed will be available and if unavailable, it will not be construed as auth not to meet contractual TATs. Question 5. Will the Government provide relevant technical data and repair occurrence factors (this would expand what has been provided to address scope of repair vs. replacement and the quantity of heavy vs. light repair requirements)? Answer: We have provided usage data for the past years. There is a level of risk and uncertainty involved in this effort, as usage may be based on a large number of operational and other factors (e.g. phase-out of equipment, other competitive sources of OEM spec SECREPs). Assistance in obtaining tech data as we have it will be provided but our staff is limited and the onus will be on the integrator to accumulate such data. We will answer direct data questions as well as we can, but this is an IDIQ contract and the successful offeror must dynamically adapt to emerging requirements from our customers. Question 6. Will the Government provide qualified vendor information? Answer: There is only one item which requires a qualified vendor. That information will be provided. Question 7. Will there be small business participation requirements? Answer: Yes, there will be small business participation requirements for each category including a specific target for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. Question 8. One of the previous RFIs talked about multiple awards. Will multiple awards be made? Answer: The purpose of this program is to generate a logistics services Integrator who provides a single fixed price ROR in a fixed turn around time, allowing Marine Corps customers to right-size their inventories and plan production lines. We are seeking approval in accordance with Section 843 of the of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act, “Enhanced Competition Requirements for Task and Delivery Order Contracts” to make a single award based on the “integrally related” nature of this service requirement. Question 9. Will this contract require IUID marking of SECREPs? Answer: This is a service contract, not a supply contract, therefore the requirements for marking items delivered under a supply contract do not apply. SECREPs turned in as GFM for ROR may already be marked, or may not require markings at all. Eventually the Marine Corps will implement a plan to mark existing items in inventory, and marking items turned in for ROR (whether through organic or contract means) may be the best way to do this. In this case the additional price of IUID marking SECREPs turned in under this contract will be negotiated via the procedures set forth in the contract. Additionally, because this contract requires tracking of all GFM turned in to the integrator (for GFM tracking and post-ROR warranty) there is an implied requirement that the integrator durably tag or otherwise mark all SECREPs turned in for ROR. Question 10. Why does this contract require the integrator to provide warranties? Has a cost-benefit analysis been done on each item to determine whether a warranty is worth the extra cost? Aren’t many warranties likely to be voided by combat damage or misuse by the Government anyway? Answer: The warranties required by the contract are intended to be the standard “fit for use” warranties generally included in all remanufactured items, and should reflect the actual expected minimum service life (or shelf life) of the item (just as a 36,000 mile warranty on a new car should reflect the minimum expected service life of that car, and warranty repairs reflect quality problems). They are not intended to function as extended, or “insurance”-type warranties, where warranty repairs are expected and priced in. The Government does not expect this warranty requirement to increase the price of the contract, as it is simply a way of expressing the minimum quality required of the product. Excess honored warranty claims are an indication of quality control problems. Question 11. Is this a requirements contract? Is the historical usage data a guarantee of future usage? Answer: This is not a requirements contract. The integrator (and the LOGCOM SECREP LIS program office) simply provides one method of obtaining OEM spec SECREPs for Marine Corps customers. These customers may ultimately choose to use organic capabilities, DLA or Marine Corps item managers, or other contracts to meet their needs, based on availability, their experience and expectations, price and turn around time. High quality, competitive prices and consistent turn around times will likely result in significant usage of the integrator as a primary source of SECREP ROR, however the historical usage data provided may not be an indicator of future usage, and only the guaranteed IDIQ minimum is guaranteed. Operational tempo, including operations in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the availability of logistics infrastructure in theater may have a significant effect on the amount of work available. As existing major end items are phased out or replaced, certain SECREPs may leave the inventory completely. As new items are fielded their SECREPs may be added to the contract. Trends in the historical data may be related to any or all (or none) of these factors. Question 12. How can we fix unit prices for rebuilds when we don’t have historical information on the level of wear/usage of SECREPs turned in for ROR? Answer: Fixed unit price ROR is made possible through the use of an Over and Above CLIN for missing reusable (or core) components or damage beyond fair and reasonable wear. The Draft Clauses (published via RFI and in the Applicable Documents section of this website) provide the details of O&A usage. The solicitation and resulting contract will contain detailed requirements. Question 13. Does this contract require performance in Iraq or Afghanistan? Answer: This contract does not require performance outside the locations specified in the PWS (continental US plus Okinawa, Japan), however Marine Corps units located in or deployed to other locations can ship SECREPs for ROR to their designated supporting location (e.g. Camp Pendleton RIP supports Hawaii; Albany supports OIF and OEF), at which point the Integrator will take custody of the GFM, complete the ROR and either return the item to the supporting location for further disposition or arrange to ship it directly back to the unit using Government shipping (ATAC). Instances of this type of support can be found in the historical data by referencing specific DODAACs. Question 14. I can ROR NSN [x] faster than the Government’s required TAT. Can I propose that? What if by increasing TAT I could significantly lower my proposed price? What about a longer warranty period? Answer: No. TATs affect inventory decisions made by our Marine Corps customers. A longer TAT requires a higher level of inventory and vice versa. In order to entertain and evaluate different TATs, the Government would have to determine their effect on inventory levels and therefore carrying costs at all customer locations, by NSN, for each different offeror, compared to estimated future usage times your proposed price. This is not practical. Our customers’ desired outcomes are standardized (not minimized) TATs, so that is what the contract is structured to support. As for warranty periods, the intent is that the warranties standardize and incentivize quality at the Government’s desired level. The only situation where we are interested in a contractor proposing alternative warranty periods is when we have misjudged the “industry standard” warranty and are either paying more for a longer warranty period, or are missing out on the standard warranty that is normally provided for a certain item. Question 15. My company has the expertise to perform the [program management, information provision, automotive component rebuild, etc.] part of this contract. Can I propose on part of the contract? Will the Government provide facilities for the remanufacture of SECREPs or components? Answer: No, the Government intends to award a single contract to meet the requirement described in the PWS. No Government industrial facilities are available. An interested offeror who can only meet part of the requirement should consider teaming with other offerors on the effort. A list of interested companies and points of contact is available at this website in section 0.4 Interested Parties List. Question 16. What is the difference between the Scope of Work and the Configuration Checklist provided for each NSN [ http://www.logcom.usmc.mil/smc/secrepmaint/dbpage.asp ]? Answer: The Scopes of Work and Configuration Checklists available at the website are from the current contract. The NSN-unique information contained Configuration Checklists and Scopes of work will be combined into a single document (called the Configuration Checklist) for the upcoming solicitation and resulting contract. The contractual language (description of O&A, warranty, etc.) currently contained in the Scopes of Work will be removed, as it merely duplicates (or possibly contradicts) the actual language in the contract. Additional Configuration Checklists will be created and added to the website for any new SECREPs added to the NSN list for this competition that were not previously covered under the current contract prior to solicitation. Question 17. Will there be tiered SOW’s for each NSN or will there be single SOW’s with single pricing within the RFP? Answer: The NSNs were chosen so that there should generally be a standard level of work (i.e. a single standard price) for the work required (remanufacture, overhaul or repair). That said, there may be a few NSNs listed in different quantities, to allow for quantity discounts. In other words to allow a price for the ROR of a single order of that item, or for 100 or 500 turned in at the same time. Question 18. In addition to the MC covering all the costs for freight, will they also supply whatever packaging material/ stands needed to transport the variety of parts? Answer: The Marine Corps will only pay freight when using ATAC to and from Okinawa, unless addressed using O&A during contract performance based on a unique requirement. The MC will be responsible for packaging items over 150 lbs, and for items which have specialized containers. Question 19. Will size and dimensions be made available for all units when the RFP releases, currently posted on the MC NSN list there are several with no size and dimensions? Answer: The Integrator will package all items over 150 lbs. Items over 150 lbs are identified on the list. We will not be supplying other dimensions at this time. Question 20. Are the replacement parts that are used to ROR an asset required to be OEM parts? Answer: Repairs are to be made in accordance with OEM specs. We expect the integrator/vendor to know what OEM specs are and what parts are acceptable per OEM specs. Question 21. Will units be source inspected by DCMA on site at the repair facility or once they have been returned back to the RIP? In conjunction with this, will return shipments be FOB Origin or Destination? Answer: the contract will contain the Inspection of Supplies and Inspection of Services clauses but inspection/acceptance occurs at the turnover location. The only Government involvement in shipping is when items are shipped to/from Okinawa using ATAC. Question 22. What does a hit (unit of issue) mean on the historical data? Is it per repair or per shipment? (example, one engine or a container of 5 engines). Answer: On the historical data each line/hit/transaction is a single item, so a container of 5 engines would show up as five separate transactions/hits.
Pages to are hidden for
"Table of Contents"Please download to view full document