Amendment 1.pdf

0001 3 May 2024

Same as Blk 6

RFP 32425

xx

8 April 2024

X 1

a. The purpose of this amendment is to post Questions and Answers.

b. Return all signed copies of amendment/s with the proposal/s.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

PROCUREMENT SECTION

NATIONAL ACQUISITION PROGRAMS UNIT

X

Request for Proposal (RFP) 32425

BALLISTIC HELMETS

and Replacement Parts

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Posted to SAM.gov on May 3, 2024

The following questions and answers are provided for informational purposes only. Nothing contained in the below questions and answers constitutes a change to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

Any change to a term or condition will be issued through an amendment to the solicitation.

Note: In some instances, questions have been abbreviated or additional context has been added to clearly describe the question for all potential Offerors. Any reference to a specific product or potential

Offeror has been removed and made generic.

QUESTION 1:

If the helmet fails one test shot, say the 25mm edge shot, does that automatically mean the submission fails to advance in the process?

ANSWER 1:

YES. SECTION M.3.5 PHASE II OF THE RFP STATES, “FAILURES ON ANY OF THE EVALUATIONS WILL

RESULT IN THE HELMET BEING REMOVED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION” (PAGE 83). REGARDING

PERFORATION – BACKFACE DEFORMATION TESTING (P-BFD), THE RFP DEFINES WHAT CONSTITUTES A

FAILURE ON PAGE 84. IN ADDITION, THE STATEMENT OF WORK, SECTIONS C.4.1.2 AND C.4.1.3 SPECIFY

MAXIMUM ALLOWED BFD.

QUESTION 2:

It appears that a main change from the 2019 DEA-FBI Ballistic Helmet Protocol testing to the 2024 version is the modification from fresh water to saltwater for the two (2) Water Conditioned helmets. Thus, can the Government confirm that a helmet make/model that has previously been tested by an NIJ-approved ballistic laboratory under the 2019 DEA-FBI Ballistic Helmet Protocol would not need to be completely retested? Would the original testing, supplemented with updated testing for two (2) Ballistic Helmets under the new saltwater submersion testing, meet the requirements of this solicitation?

ANSWER 2:

YES. PROVIDED THAT THE MAKE AND MODEL OF THE BALLISTIC HELMET ARE THE SAME AND ANY

UPDATED REQUIREMENT AND/OR TEST PROTOCOLS ARE COVERED WITH SUPPLEMENTAL TEST

REPORTS.

QUESTION 3:

If a ballistic helmet was previously tested in connection to the 2019 DEA solicitation, and test results from an independent laboratory were previously transferred to the FBI (via the DEA solicitation), do the original results still need to be emailed to BRF@FBI.GOV by the testing lab?

ANSWER 3:

TEST REPORTS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED, EITHER DIRECTLY TO THE FBI OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE

DEA, WILL NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SOLICITATION. WHILE HISTORICAL TESTING IS

ACCEPTABLE (SEE ANSWER #2), THE TEST RESULTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO BRF@FBI.GOV WITH

“ATTN. RFP 32425” INCLUDED ON THE SUBJECT LINE.

PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT 002 FOR AN UPDATE ON THE SUBMISSION OF TEST DATA DIRECTLY FROM AN

APPROVED NIJ LABORATORY.

QUESTION 4:

Should the past performance references also include the product Manufacturer’s performance on a previous similar contract as well as the Offeror?

ANSWER 4:

PAST PERFORMANCE IS ONLY RELEVANT FOR THE OFFEROR.

QUESTION 5:

The previous DOJ helmet contract included a 10-day delivery expectation for orders of 10 units or less. Will this requirement be included as part of the new contract?

ANSWER 5:

ANY CONTRACT THAT RESULTS FROM THIS SOLICITATION IS SEPARATE FROM ANY PREVIOUS DOJ

CONTRACT. THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR THIS SOLICITATION IS OUTLINED IN SECTION F.2.

QUESTION 6:

Will the manufacturer's standard Coyote Tan/Brown color be acceptable or is there a specific

Pantone/RAL color that must be matched?

ANSWER 6:

THE FBI DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC PANTONE/RAL COLOR. SECTION C.3.4 STATES, “COYOTE BROWN

(OR SIMILAR).”

mailto:BRF@FBI.GOV

QUESTION 7:

Can you please explain the sliding scale and how the weight, BFD, fragmentation & user assessment score will be assessed?

Example: Brand X submission obtains an Average BFD rating of 12.7 mm -How many points would be received of the 264? Brand Y submission obtains an average BFD rating of 3.0 mm -How many points would be received out of the 264?

ANSWER 7:

SECTION M.3.5 PHASE II OUTLINES THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR THIS SOLICITATION. ASSESSMENT

#3 OUTLINES THE PERFORATION – BACKFACE DEFORMATION (P-BFD) TESTING. “THE RESULTS OF EACH

TEST IMPACT WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE TEB [TECHNICAL EVALUATION BOARD] AND POINTS

ASSIGNED…” (PAGE 85). EACH OF THE 44 TEST IMPACTS WILL BE SCORED INDEPENDENTLY. THE

MEASURED BFD OF EACH TEST SHOT WILL BE ASSIGNED POINTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POINT

SCALE ON PAGE 85 OF THE RFP. THOSE POINTS WILL BE TOTALED FOR THE OFFEROR’S P-BFD SCORE.

THE EXAMPLE PROVIDED IN THE ABOVE QUESTION HAS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION BECAUSE IT

PROVIDES AN OVERALL AVERAGE.

QUESTION 8:

If one shot falls outside the BFD requirements doesn’t that automatically score you 0 points for the BFD section or is it a sliding scale?

ANSWER 8:

EACH OF THE 44 TEST IMPACTS WILL BE SCORED INDEPENDENTLY; HOWEVER, ANY TEST IMPACT THAT

RESULTS IN A FAILURE WILL RESULT IN THE OFFEROR’S SUBMISSION BEING ELIMINATED FROM

FURTHER CONSIDERATION. PLEASE SEE SECTIONS C.4.1.2 AND C.4.1.3 FOR THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED

BFD. THESE BFD REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO REPRESENTED IN THE SCORING TABLE ON PAGE 85 WITH

SPECIFYING THAT FRONTAL IMPACTS WITH BFD MEASUREMENTS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20.1

MM RESULT IN A FAILURE. SIMILARLY, RIGHT, LEFT, REAR, AND CROWN IMPACTS WITH BFD (MM)

MEASUREMENTS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 15.1 MM RESULT IN A FAILURE.

QUESTION 9:

Can you explain why is there such a high emphasis on BFD versus the other categories of testing such as

Fragmentation Testing (Rate to Penetration)? Is there any historical data which justify the high significance of BFD vs RTP?

ANSWER 9:

THE FBI SEES THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PURPOSES OF A BALLISTIC HELMET AS (1) TO STOP

BULLETS AND (2) MINIMIZE INJURY TO THE USER FROM BEHIND HELMET BLUNT TRAUMA.

NONETHELESS, THE FBI DOES NOT DISCOUNT FRAGMENTATION TESTING. SUBMISSIONS WILL BE

DISQUALIFIED IF THEY FAIL TO MEET THE V50 RATING SPECIFIED IN SECTION C.4.1.7 (E.G., HELMETS

SHALL HAVE A V50 RATING OF 2,050 FPS, USING A 17-GRAIN FRAGMENT-SIMULATING PROJECTILE).

THE UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM’S LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED AND ASSAULTED

(LEOKA) DATA SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT’S POSITION THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE

MORE LIKELY TO BE INJURED OR KILLED FROM BULLETS THAN FROM FRAGMENTATION.

QUESTION 10:

If, for example, my helmet needs an extension on the July 10th submission deadline, is that possible? If so, for how long?

ANSWER 10:

SEE AMENDMENT 003.

QUESTION 11:

The original 2019 DEA-FBI BRF Protocol testing/certification did not require NVG shrouds be applied to helmets for testing. Thus, is it acceptable that in order to get an average current weight of an existing approved product, the independent NIJ test lab can weigh the proposed NVG shroud and hardware, and it be added to the original weight of the tested helmets from the 2019 reports for an average complete weight as long as the construction of the helmets has not changed? If this is not acceptable, can we weigh

(14) comparable complete helmets for weights to be sent independently?

ANSWER 11:

AS NOTED IN ANSWER #2, PRIOR TEST DATA FROM AN INDEPENDENT, NIJ-APPROVED, BALLISTIC

LABORATORY IS ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, THE WEIGHT OF THE HELMET

SYSTEM MUST BE WEIGHED IN THE CONFIGURATION OF A “COMPLETE HELMET.” AS SUCH, FOURTEEN

HELMETS, OF THE SAME MAKE AND MODEL, WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE TEST FACILITY FOR

UPDATED WEIGHTS.

QUESTION 12:

Two awards may result from this solicitation. How will the FBI ensure compatibility/interchangeability between potentially two different design solutions? i.e., minor differences in geometry, rails, nod mounts, retention systems, etc.

ANSWER 12:

THE FBI HAS NO EXPECTATION OF INTERCHANGEABILITY BETWEEN COMPONENTS OF TWO SEPARATE

HELMETS (E.G., THE FBI IS NOT REQUESTING INTERCHANGEABLE SUSPENSION AND RETENTION

SYSTEMS BETWEEN THE TWO SEPARATE AWARD WINNERS). QUESTIONS REGARDING POTENTIAL

ACCESSORIES ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS SOLICITATION.

QUESTION 13:

If two awards are made, how will future requirements be bid between the two awardees?

ANSWER 13:

AS NOTED IN SECTION B.2, THIS SOLICITATION IS FOR TWO FIXED PRICE, INDEFINITE-DELIVERY

INDEFINITE-QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACTS. SECTION C.7 DOCUMENTS THE AUTHORIZED BUYERS.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE BIDS.

QUESTION 14:

If multiple bids are received for the same manufactured end item, the solicitation states that the same user evaluation score shall be used for all bids. However, the same approach is not utilized for the ballistic testing. Will the FBI use the same ballistic testing results if the end item is the same across multiple bids?

ANSWER 14:

THE BALLISTIC AND NON-BALLISTIC EVALUATION OUTLINED IN SECTION M.3.5 (PHASE II) OF THE

SOLICITATION ARE SCORED ON OBJECTIVE DATA OBTAINED BY INDEPENDENT, NIJ-APPROVED

BALLISTIC LABORATORIES. IF TWO (2) SEPARATE OFFERORS SUBMITTED TESTING ON THE SAME

MAKE/MODEL HELMET, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE SAME INDEPENDENT TEST DATA WOULD BE

SUBMITTED FOR BOTH, IN WHICH CASE THE SCORES WOULD BE IDENTICAL. IF AN OFFEROR SUBMITTED

SEPARATE INDEPENDENT TEST DATA, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SCORE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH

SECTION M OF THE SOLICITATION.

QUESTION 15:

In section L.9 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: VOLUME #4 BALLISTIC HELMET SAMPLES the

Government has requested, if possible, that sample helmets and accessories shall have no manufacturer stickers or identifying markings. In the case that manufacturer identification is present in the samples and accessories, how will the Government ensure a blind user evaluation?

ANSWER 15:

THE INTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO HAVE AN UNBIASED USER EVALUATION. ONE WAY TO AID

THIS IS BY NOT EXPLICITLY IDENTIFYING THE MANUFACTURER OR OFFEROR OF THE HELMETS. THE

GOVERNMENT UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE ARE PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS TO THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, CHANGING THE MACHINED OR INJECTION MOLDED COMPONENTS, SO AS TO REMOVE A LOGO, MAY

UNREASONABLY FINANCIALLY BURDEN THE OFFEROR. FURTHERMORE, SOME BALLISTIC HELMETS MAY

BE IDENTIFIABLE BASED SOLELY ON THEIR SHAPE/DESIGN. NONETHELESS, THE TECHNICAL

EVALUATION BOARD WILL MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO NOT EXPLICITLY IDENTIFY THE

MANUFACTURER OR OFFEROR. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REMOVING OR COVERING ANY

LABELS OR LOGOS, WHEN POSSIBLE.

QUESTION 16:

Would it be possible to receive an extension of 60-90 days? This will help us align our helmet performance and testing with the requirements.

ANSWER 16:

SEE AMENDMENT 003.

QUESTION 17:

Can you define how you are measuring weight? What is the expected helmet cut and size? In addition, how do you ensure all helmet sizes are fitting the same head circumference, for example a Size M in one manufacturer could be the same size as Size L in another?

ANSWER 17:

SECTION 4.1 OF THE DEA AND FBI BALLISTIC HELMET TESTING PROTOCOL STATES THAT HELMETS

TESTED AT THE LABORATORY SHALL BE SIZE LARGE AND OF MID-CUT DESIGN. THE LABORATORIES WILL

DOCUMENT THE WEIGHT OF EACH OF THE FOURTEEN (14) HELMETS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION

M OF THE SOLICITATION, THE AVERAGE WEIGHT WILL BE CALCULATED AND A SCORE WILL BE ASSIGNED.

AS THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARDIZATION FOR HELMET SHAPE AND/OR SIZE, THE GOVERNMENT

IS REQUIRING SIZE LARGE HELMETS TO ENSURE THAT THE SAMPLES FIT THE PEEPSITE GENERATION 2

HEADFORM. SECTION L.9 OF THE SOLICITATION OUTLINES AN ALLOCATION OF REQUESTED SIZES FOR

THE USER EVALUATION. FOR THE USER EVALUATION, THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO MEASURE THE

HEAD SIZES OF THE ASSESSORS AND, USING THE OFFEROR-SUPPLIED SIZING RECOMMENDATIONS, ASSIGN HELMETS BASED ON THE USER’S HEAD SIZE.

QUESTION 18:

Are there any accessories required for the user evaluation outside of just the helmet?

ANSWER 18:

SECTION L.9 OF THE SOLICITATION STATES, “TWO (2) SAMPLES OF EACH ACCESSORY THAT THE OFFEROR

PLANS TO MAKE AVAILABLE ON CONTRACT” (PAGE 77).

QUESTION 19:

Would it be possible to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule (SEP 2021) (15U.S.C. 637(a)(17))? This will help with competition and allow the customer to receive the best solution in the market.

ANSWER 19:

SECTION I.2 OF THE SOLICITATION OUTLINES THE RELEVANT CONTRACT CLAUSES (TERMS AND

CONDITIONS). PLEASE NOTE THAT CLAUSE 26, 52.219-33 NONMANUFACTURER RULE IS SELECTED.

QUESTION 20:

Can a U.S. small business partner provide and support a non-domestic TAA compliant solution?

ANSWER 20:

SECTION I.2 OF THE SOLICITATION OUTLINES THE RELEVANT CONTRACT CLAUSES (TERMS AND

CONDITIONS). PLEASE NOTE THAT CLAUSE 50, 52.225-5 TRADE AGREEMENTS IS SELECTED.

END OF QUESTIONS & ANSWERS