QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATING TO SOLICITATION NO. M67854-01-R-1099 MARINE TARGET ACQUISITION SET (MTAS)

Notice Date

August 30, 2001

Contracting Office

Commander, Marine Corps System Command, Code CTQ, 2033 Barnett Avenue, Ste 315, Quantico, VA 22134-5010

ZIP Code

22134-5010

E-Mail Address

Click here to contact the contracting officer via (marrdr@mcsc.usmc.mil)

Description

This is a notice providing all potential offerors two non-technical questions and answers relating to the subject Marine Corps requirement. The solicitation, as previously amended, remains unchanged. Q: What part of FAR 2.101 did the Marine Corps use to determine the MTAS is a commercial item? A: FAR Part 12 implements the Federal Government's preference for the acquisition of commercial items. The MCSC performed market research pursuant to FAR Part 10 and is confident that both components of the MTAS are commercial items within the purview of FAR Part 2.101 "commercial item" paragraph (h) "nondevelopmental item" and FAR Part 12. In fact, MCSC confirmed that available products meeting both the ILLM and the LOM requirements were developed exclusively at private expense, and sold in substantial quantities on a competitive basis to multiple State and local governments. Furthermore, U.S. regulations do not prohibit the sale of an infrared laser and/or infrared illuminator to State and local governments i.e. law enforcement agencies. Q: Did the head of the agency determine that bundling was necessary and justified in accordance with FAR 7.107? A: FAR 7.107, which is entitled "Additional Requirements for Acquisitions Involving Bundling", does not apply to the MTAS solicitation, because the MTAS solicitation does not "bundle" any requirements. "Bundling" as defined in FAR 2.101 means "consolidating two or more procurement requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, into a single solicitation for a single contract that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to (i) the diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified; (ii) the aggregate dollar value of the anticipated award; (iii) the geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites; or (iv) any combination of the factors described in paragraphs (1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition. (Emphasis supplied) While it is true that the ILLM and LOM components of the MTAS have been previously provided under separate smaller contracts, the consolidation of the ILLM and the LOM components into a single contract is not likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to any of the above referenced factors. Specifically, the consolidation of the ILLM and the LOM components into a single solicitation for a single contract is not likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to (i) the diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified. The MCSC market research performed pursuant to FAR Part 10 confirmed that available products meeting both the ILLM and the LOM requirements were developed by small business exclusively at private expense, and sold in substantial quantities on a competitive basis to multiple State and local governments. Moreover, the consolidation of the ILLM and the LOM components into a single solicitation for a single contract is not likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to (ii) the aggregate dollar value of the anticipated award. The MTAS solicitation was amended on 03 AUG 01 to read "a maximum for the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract of 3,000 units, not to exceed $5 million." The $5 million dollar threshold does not preclude small business participation. The consolidation of the ILLM and the LOM components into a single solicitation for a single contract is not likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to (iii) the geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites. Obviously, the latter factor is not applicable to the MTAS solicitation. Thus, none of the above referenced factors, which are delineated in the FAR 2.101 "bundling" definition, apply. Therefore, the consolidation of the ILLM and the LOM components into a single solicitation for a single contract is not likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern. As such, FAR 7.107, which is entitled "Additional Requirements for Acquisitions Involving Bundling", does not apply to the MTAS solicitation, because the MTAS solicitation does not "bundle" any requirements, as defined in the FAR 2.101 "bundling" definition. -end-

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20010904/SPMSC011.HTM (W-242 SN50W4T2)