Amendment 001_Attachment 7_Q and A Responses - RFP 15F06725R0000117_2025-04-21.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) 15F06725R0000117

OVERT ARMOR KIT

Ballistic Resistant Soft Body Armor, Accessories, and

Replacement Components

Attachment 7: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Amendment 001

Dated April 21, 2025

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:

Can you please advise where to submit this bid.

ANSWER 1:

DETAILS ON THE SUBMISSION, INCLUDING INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES, CAN BE FOUND

IN SECTION L.

QUESTION 2:

Can a vendor submit more than one (1) proposal, offering, or technical solution?

ANSWER 2:

NO. SECTION L.5 OF THE RFP STATES THAT OFFERORS ARE LIMITED TO ONE (1) SUBMISSION FOR

CONSIDERATION.

QUESTION 3:

Section E.2.1 states, “The soft armor panels within the system shall be warrantied for ballistic protection for a period no less than eight (8) years from receipt by the government.” The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certification for body armor is valid for five (5) years, after which manufacturers must undergo follow-up inspections and testing to maintain certification. In light of this standard industry practice, we respectfully request clarification on the following points:

Given the five-year NIJ certification period, how does the Government intend to reconcile the required eight-year warranty period with the standard NIJ certification timeline?

Will the government accept a warranty structure that includes mandatory recertification or testing at the five-year mark in alignment with NJ standards, while still providing coverage for the full 8 years?

ANSWER 3:

WHILE THE NIJ REQUIRES THAT BODY ARMOR BE WARRANTED BY THE MANUFACTURER, THEY DO NOT SPECIFY A LENGTH OF WARRANTY. “ALL BODY ARMOR MODELS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (NIJ) COMPLIANT PRODUCTS LIST ARE WARRANTIED FOR THEIR BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE

BY THE MANUFACTURER. THE WARRANTIES IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC PERIOD OF BALLISTIC

PERFORMANCE BUT THEY ARE NOT EVALUATED BY THE COMPLIANCE TESTING PROGRAM.”1 FURTHER, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE SELECTION AND APPLICATION GUIDE 0101.06 TO BALLISTIC- RESISTANT BODY ARMOR2 DEFINES THE WARRANTY AS, “A MANUFACTURER-SPECIFIED PERIOD OF

TIME THAT IDENTIFIES THE LENGTH OF TIME THE MANUFACTURER SUPPORTS THE BALLISTIC

PERFORMANCE OF A SPECIFIC BODY ARMOR MODEL AGAINST A SPECIFIED THREAT LEVEL.” (PAGE 43)

SOFT BODY ARMOR MODELS CERTIFIED BY THE NIJ MAY STAY ON THE COMPLIANT PRODUCTS LIST IN PERPETUITY, PROVIDED THE PRODUCT CONTINUES TO MEET NIJ REQUIREMENTS AND SUCCESSFULLY

COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND TESTING (FIT).

THERE IS NO 5-YEAR NIJ CERTIFICATION PERIOD AND NO RECONCILIATION NEEDED BETWEEN THE SOLICITATION’S STATED REQUIREMENT FOR AN 8-YEAR WARRANTY ON BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE

WITH NIJ’S CERTIFICATION POLICY.

THE MINIMUM WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION E.2.5 OF THE RFP REMAIN.

QUESTION 4:

Is there a preferred color of the initial 10 samples and accessories or is this at the discretion of the offer?

Do ID placards need to accompany the initial 10 samples, and if so, what agency/lettering do you prefer?

ANSWER 4:

THE COLOR OF THE INITIAL TEN (10) OAK SAMPLES, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION L.9, IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE OFFEROR. THERE IS NO COLOR PREFERENCE. IDENTIFICATION PLACARDS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THE INITIAL TEN (10) OAK SAMPLES. SECTION L.9, FOOTNOTE #25 STATES, “SAMPLES OF THE PLACARDS AND PATCHES ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR PHASE I OR PHASE II EVALUATIONS BUT WILL BE

REQUIRED FOR PHASE III – USER EVALUATIONS (PAGE 84).

QUESTION 5:

Of the 14 OAK samples required for Phase III – User Evaluation, what colors will be required to be submitted? Are ID placards required for the User Evaluation and if so, what agency/lettering do you prefer?

1 Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (CJTTEC), Compliance Testing Program, Body Armor Care and Replacement (https://cjttec.org/compliance-testing-program/for-law-enforcement/body-armor-care-and-replacement/) 2 https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247281.pdf

ANSWER 5:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT REQUIRED SPECIFIC COLORS NOR STATED A COLOR PREFERENCE FOR THE

OAK SAMPLES REQUIRED FOR PHASE III – USER EVALUATION.

IDENTIFICATION PLACARDS ARE REQUIRED FOR PHASE III – USER EVALUATION TESTING (SEE FOOTNOTE #25). THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SPECIFIED WHICH AGENCY OR LETTERING THE OFFEROR SHOULD PROVIDE FOR PHASE III AND WILL ACCEPT ANY AGENCY LETTERING AS REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES FOR EVALUATION. OFFERORS CAN BE ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO HAVE ASSESSORS

FROM THE FBI, DEA, AND USMS PARTICIPATING IN PHASE III – USER EVALUATION.

QUESTION 6:

Regarding the M4 magazine accessory pouches, does the government require the M4 magazine pouches to be stacked or side by side?

Or does the government prefer a kangaroo pouch with M4/pistol stacked?

Do you have any different thickness of battery for the radios which may affect thickness for each agency?

ANSWER 6:

SECTION C.4.5.8 OUTLINES THE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY POUCHES. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT SPECIFY SIDE-BY-SIDE OR STACKED. OFFERORS ARE FREE TO SUBMIT POUCH DESIGNS WHICH THEY FEEL

WORK BEST WITH THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT STATED A PREFERENCE FOR OR AGAINST “KANGAROO-STYLE” MAGAZINE

POUCHES.

SECTION C.4.5.14 SPECIFIES PARTICULAR MOTOROLA RADIOS IN USE. OFFERORS SHOULD ASSUME THE

STANDARD MOTOROLA BATTERY SIZE FOR THESE RADIOS.

QUESTION 7:

Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation requiring the offeror to have a GSA Schedule for proposals pertaining to RFP 15F06725R0000117?

ANSWER 7:

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A GSA SCHEDULE.

QUESTION 8:

Section C.4.5.6 notes that while not required, removable back panels shall be sufficiently durable and incorporate traditional MOLLE. Does the FBI have a preference for the attachment mechanism of the back panel to the OAK? Is the back panel restricted from incorporating laser-cut MOLLE whatsoever?

ANSWER 8:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT STATED A PREFERENCE FOR THE ATTACHMENT MECHANISM. OFFERORS ARE ENCOURAGED TO SELECT AN ATTACHMENT MECHANISM THAT WORKS BEST WITH THEIR ARMOR

SYSTEM.

PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT 001, SECTION 1; C.4.5.6, WHICH SPECIFIES TRADITIONAL AND/OR LASER CUT

MOLLE.

QUESTION 9:

Section C.4.5.7 requires that OAK shall have the ability to attach modular front panels. Are QASM attachments a preference or just an example of the attachment mechanism that is acceptable?

ANSWER 9:

THE REFERENCE TO QASM BUCKLES WAS INTENDED AS AN EXAMPLE AND NOT A PREFERENCE.

OFFERORS ARE FREE TO PROVIDE ANY ATTACHABLE MODULAR FRONT PANEL THAT THEY BELIEVE

WORKS BEST WITH THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 10:

Section C.4.5.11 dictates a MOLLE attachment system for accessory pouches. Can systems that attach to MOLLE, such as Tek-lok be utilized?

ANSWER 10:

NO.

QUESTION 11:

Reference RFP Section C.4.2.5, would the FBI accept a solution that features cummerbunds with a butt fit to the Front and Rear panels?

ANSWER 11:

THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN SECTION C.4.2.5 STAND AS WRITTEN. “ANY SEAM IN THE SOFT ARMOR AROUND THE ABDOMEN, SIDES, AND BACK SHALL HAVE OVERLAPPING BALLISTIC COVERAGE

OF AT LEAST TWO (2) INCHES…”

QUESTION 12:

Is there a preference for an internal or external hard armor plate pocket? Similarly, is there a preference between top loading and bottom loading? Is a zipper opening plate pocket acceptable?

ANSWER 12:

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SPECIFIED A PREFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNAL / EXTERNAL PLATE POCKETS

OR BETWEEN TOP / BOTTOM LOADING PLATE POCKETS. ZIPPER OPENINGS ARE ACCEPTABLE.

OFFERORS SHOULD SUBMIT DESIGNS THAT WORK BEST WITH THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 13:

Section C.4.3.7 states, Exterior of the overt carrier shall have traditional and/or laser cut MOLLE (modular webbing) …” Does this inclusion of either / both traditional and laser cut MOLLE apply to pouches, cummerbunds, and the removable back panel of the OAK?

ANSWER 13:

YES.

PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT 001, SECTION 1; C.4.5.6.

QUESTION 14:

Does the optional Plate Carrier mentioned require armored sides or a skeletal solution?

ANSWER 14:

OFFERORS SHOULD SUBMIT DESIGNS THAT WORK BEST WITH THEIR PLATE CARRIER SOLUTION.

QUESTION 15:

Would the FBI accept an NIJ 0101.06 Certified Level II solution so long as the Offeror can validate (with independent test report) that the ballistic threat profile listed in the RFP is satisfied? If so, please confirm that there is no requirement for 44 magnum and that the Level II plus special threats listed in the RFP would be deemed acceptable.

ANSWER 15:

NO. THE REQUIREMENT FOR NIJ LEVEL IIIA (OR HG2), AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION C.3.1, STANDS AS

WRITTEN.

QUESTION 16:

Can the FBI please confirm that all ballistic testing in Phase II, not only the 45-degree angle shot, will be performed within the carrier in the “as worn” configuration? Similarly, if offerors are working to provide their own independent testing for the requirements set forth in the RFP, please confirm that the instructions to the lab should be to test ALL ballistic threats and conditions with the soft armor panels within the carrier in the as worn configuration?

ANSWER 16:

IT IS THE GOVERNMENT’S INTENT TO CONDUCT ALL BALLISTIC RESISTANCE TEST SHOTS IN THE AS-

WORN CONFIGURATION.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE INDEPENDENT LAB TESTING REQUIRED FOR THIS SOLICITATION IS LIMITED TO

THE TEST DATA SUPPORTING THE NIJ CERTIFICATION (SEE SECTION L.6).

QUESTION 17:

Considering that the RFP does not mandate a female structured or non-structured soft armor solution, would the FBI accept a mix of structured and non-structured panels as samples so that end users can evaluate both styles for comfort, fit, etc.?

ANSWER 17:

QUESTION 18:

Regarding the Front and Rear ID placards, the FBI has not mandated any specific size/dimensions. Can the FBI please advise/confirm if 3” x 6” badges would be acceptable?

ANSWER 18:

C.4.5.1 AND C.4.5.2 DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION PLACARDS. FOOTNOTE #2 STATES, “THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SPECIFIED A MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE FRONT OF REAR PLACARD.”

OFFERORS MAY SUBMIT IDENTIFICATION PLACARDS THAT INTEGRATE WITH THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 19:

Do offerors need to submit completed clauses from Sections K.1 through K.3, or is it only required to complete the clause in Section K.2?

ANSWER 19:

ALL CLAUSES FROM SECTION K MUST BE COMPLETED. PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF UPDATE TO K.3 INCLUDED

IN AMENDMENT 001.

QUESTION 20:

Can you confirm that this solicitation is a small business set aside?

ANSWER 20:

QUESTION 21:

The specification requires different colors for the OAK and accessories including but not limited to Ranger Green (or similar), Coyote Brown (or similar), Midnight Blue16 (or similar), black, and Multicam (or similar). Can the government explain which service will use which color for material planning and ordering purposes? Many of these colors require minimum order quantities with the supply chain.

ANSWER 21:

QUESTION 22:

How is the FBI going to test non-planar (structured female) armor?

ANSWER 22:

“IT IS THE INTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TEST ARMOR PANELS IN THE “AS WORN” CONFIGURATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE SOFT ARMOR PANEL INSERTED IN THE OVERT CARRIER. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 1.0” EDGE TEST AT 45-DEGREES, THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TEST THE FRONT BALLISTIC PANELS (WITHIN THE CARRIERS) ON THE RESPECTIVE MALE OR FEMALE TORSO GELATIN BACKERS. THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TEST THE REAR BALLISTIC PANELS (WITHIN THE CARRIERS) ON THE

RECTANGLE GELATIN BLOCKS.” (RFP PAGE 94)

PLEASE SEE THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES IN SECTION M FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.

QUESTION 23:

Section C.4.1.1: Does the Government expect the soft armor to stop the 12g shotgun, 1 oz slug, Federal Ammunition Power-Shok Rifled Slug HP round with just the soft armor?

ANSWER 23:

QUESTION 24:

Section C.4.1.3: Is the FBI expecting ALL threats to stop 1” from the edge? Including the shotgun round?

ANSWER 24:

THE 1” EDGE TEST AND 1.0” EDGE TEST @ 45 DEGREES WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH A 124 GRAIN 9MM

(NATO) FMJ.

QUESTION 25:

Section C.4.1.4: Specific to the 1.0” Edge Test @ 45 degrees, will the FBI allow for an additional ballistic resistant component to be added to the front torso panel for this testing?

ANSWER 25:

THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO CONDUCT ALL BALLISTIC RESISTANT TESTING IN THE “AS WORN” CONFIGURATION. “AS WORN CONFIGURATION” IS DEFINED IN SECTION A – “DEFINITIONS” AND INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING, “FOR TESTING SPECIFIC TO THIS SOLICITATION, HARD ARMOR PLATES AND EXTERNAL BALLISTIC ACCESSORIES WILL NOT BE UTILIZED AS PART OF THE ARMOR SYSTEM. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, OPTIONAL SHOULDER/BICEP ARMOR ACCESSORIES, NECK/THROAT

ARMOR ACCESSORIES, AND GROIN ARMOR ACCESSORIES.”

SECTION C.4.4., FOOTNOTE #19 STATES, “THE BALLISTIC RESISTANT EXTERNAL ACCESSORIES WILL NOT

BE UTILIZED DURING THE FBI’S BALLISTIC RESISTANT TESTING.”

SECTION C.4.2.2 STATES, “BALLISTIC RESISTANT SOFT MATERIALS, SEPARATE FROM THE ARMOR

PANELS, MAY BE INCORPORATED INTERNALLY WITHIN THE OAK ARMOR SYSTEM.”

QUESTION 26:

Will the 1.0” Edge Test @ 45 degrees test shot be tested on both the planer and non-planer ballistic designs.

ANSWER 26:

QUESTION 27:

Section C.4.1.8: The FBI is requiring submersion of the armor per, “This shall include light exposure to water (e.g., humidity, sweat, rain, routine cleaning) as well as the complete submersion of the armor panel in water for up to 24 hours.” Is there a more specific time of submersion, such as in the NIJ 0101.06 Standard which is 30 minutes?

ANSWER 27:

THE EVALUATION PROCESS TO VERIFY WATERPROOF CHARACTERISTICS IS DOCUMENTED IN SECTION M.3.5, PHASE II, FACTOR 5. “THE PANELS AND THE CARRIER WILL BE SUBMERGED TO A DEPTH

BETWEEN 18” – 24” IN ROOM TEMPERATURE TAP WATER FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 14 AND 24

HOURS.”

QUESTION 28:

Section E.1.2: The FBI states “The Government may also conduct random Quality Assurance (QA) testing of product to ensure that the soft body armor continues to meet all ballistic resistance performance requirements.” How will these tests be conducted? What is the protocol and frequency? Are we allowed to witness the testing?

ANSWER 28:

IF THE GOVERNMENT CONDUCTS RANDOM QA TESTING, THE BALLISTIC REQUIREMENTS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEMENT OF WORK REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SOLICITATION. THE TEST PROTOCOL WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVALUATION STANDARDS DOCUMENTED WITHIN THE SOLICITATION. THE GOVERNMENT ALSO RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSPECT ARMOR PANELS TO ENSURE

THAT THE PRODUCT RECEIVED MATCHES THE BUILD PACKAGE.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SPECIFIED A FREQUENCY FOR RANDOM TESTING. THE DECISION OF

WHETHER TO INVITE THE CONTRACTOR TO WITNESS QA TESTING WILL BE AT THE GOVERNMENT’S

DISCRETION.

QUESTION 29:

Section M.3.5: Can the FBI state the bust cup dimension of the “Jane Mold” from Clear Ballistics to aid in a better fit of the test items for female armor testing?

ANSWER 29:

OFFERORS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER OF THE MOLD TO REQUEST

DIMENSIONAL SPECIFICATIONS.

QUESTION 30:

Section M.3.5: Is it the FBI’s intention to use the “Jane Mold” from Clear Ballistic for female testing, whether the armor is planar or non-planar?

ANSWER 30:

QUESTION 31:

Will the FBI reconsider the Small Business requirement? The Small Business requirement limits the number of ballistic options available to the FBI thus potentially excluding the best ballistic option(s).

ANSWER 31:

QUESTION 32:

Within the Price Matrix, some of the required line items are replacement items (CLIN 005 is for Soft Armor

– Replacement Panels for OAK; CLIN 006 is for Replacement OAK Carrier, no armor panels included). Will the FBI consider them acceptable if from the large business manufacturer, so they have consistency of the kit already is use?

ANSWER 32:

ANY REPLACEMENT ITEMS DELIVERED UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE OF THE SAME MAKE AND

MODEL AS THE OAK.

QUESTION 33:

Many of the items not listed as replacements but are part of a kit acceptable from the manufacturer, large or small? So, if someone wants to add an extra handcuff pouch later on who has to make it – a SB or is a LB acceptable.

ANSWER 33:

PLEASE SEE SECTION I FOR CONTRACT CLAUSES. THE CONTRACT CLAUSES APPLY TO THE CONTRACT

FOR THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT.

QUESTION 34:

It is clearly delineated how the technical aspects of the RFP will be scored but how will the pricing be evaluated in relation to the technical aspects?

ANSWER 34:

SECTION M DETAILS THE EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD. PRICE IS CONSIDERED AT TWO DISTINCT POINTS: (1) THE CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO) WILL CONSIDER PRICE REASONABLENESS PRIOR TO THE START OF PHASE I. (SECTION M.3.1) (2) PRIOR TO CONTRACT AWARD, THE CO WILL CONSIDER PRICE WHEN DECIDING WHICH OFFER IS THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT. SECTION M.1 STATES, “THE CONTRACT SHALL BE AWARDED TO THE RESPONSIBLE OFFEROR WHOSE SUBMISSION CONFORMED TO THE SOLICITATION AND WAS DETERMINED TO BE THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE

GOVERNMENT. FACTORS CONSIDERED WILL BE TECHNICAL, PAST PERFORMANCE, AND PRICE.”

QUESTION 35:

Please confirm the “as worn configuration” includes any ballistic resistant soft materials, separate from soft armor panels, that may be incorporated internally within the OAK armor system. This may include ballistic resistant materials sewn into the carrier, affixed within the plate/panel pocket, overlapping, adjacent to, or used in conjunction with the soft armor panel.

ANSWER 35:

QUESTION 36:

Please confirm that the OAK shall always (rather than when possible) be ballistically tested in the clarified as worn configuration which includes any ballistic resistant soft materials, separate from soft armor panels, that may be incorporated internally within the OAK armor system. This may include ballistic resistant materials sewn into the carrier, affixed within the plate/panel pocket, overlapping, adjacent to, or used in conjunction with the soft armor panel.

ANSWER 36:

THE SOLICITATION DOES NOT SAY, “SHALL ALWAYS.”

THE SOLICITATION MAKES MULTIPLE REFERENCES TO “WHEN POSSIBLE” (SEE FOOTNOTE 10) AND “IT IS

THE INTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT…” (SECTION M, PAGE 95).

QUESTION 37:

Section C.4.3.7 and C.4.3.13 reference MOLLE. Section C.4.3.7 specifically references “traditional and/or laser cut MOLLE (modular webbing)” but C.4.3.13 states, “the cummerbund, if present, shall have modular webbing (MOLLE).” Is the Government requirement for traditional webbing on the cummerbund even if laser cut slits are used on the front carrier? Or if laser cut is used on the front carrier should the cummerbund match the front and be provided in laser cut as well?

ANSWER 37:

THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALLOW EITHER TRADITIONAL AND/OR LASER CUT MOLLE (MODULAR

WEBBING). THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SPECIFIED A REQUIREMENT FOR A CONSISTENT TYPE (E.G., ONLY ONE TYPE OR THE OTHER). OFFERORS ARE FREE TO MATCH OR NOT MATCH THE MODULAR

WEBBING ON THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 38:

Section C.4.5.6 states, “Removeable back panels, which connect to the carrier, are permitted but not required. A back panel system, if available, shall be sufficiently durable and incorporate traditional MOLLE/modular webbing.

Will the Government update the pricing document to include this optional accessory?

Is the Government requirement webbing on the back panel even if laser cut slits are used on the front carrier? Or if laser cut is used on the front carrier should the back panel match the front and be provided in laser cut as well?

ANSWER 38:

PLEASE SEE AMENDED PRICE MATRIX.

PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT 001, SECTION C; C.4.5.6, FOR MOLLE REQUIREMENT.

QUESTION 39:

Please provide a detailed list of items required for sample submission as part of Phase III User Evaluation.

ANSWER 39:

PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT 001, SECTION M.

PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT 7, PHASE III CHECKLIST

QUESTION 40:

Section C.4.2.2 allows for “ballistic resistant soft materials, separate from the soft armor panels, may be incorporated internally within the OAK armor system” while Section C.4.3.11 requires, “the overt carrier shall allow for the removal of all soft armor panels for cleaning.” Please confirm that any additional ballistic resistant soft materials that may be incorporated internally are not considered “soft armor panels” and therefore, do not need to be removable.

ANSWER 40:

QUESTION 41:

Section J, Checklist item #7 states NIJ certification and associated test reports from an independent laboratory shall be provided. Please confirm what “associated” test reports must be submitted. Just the NIJ associated detailed ballistics data? Or does the FBI also want independent testing data on all of the FBI special threats listed in C.4.1, the Areal Density and center shot as well?

ANSWER 41:

SEE AMENDMENT 001, SECTION J CHECKLIST FOR NIJ CERTIFICATION AND ASSOCIATED TEST REPORTS.

THE FBI DOES NOT REQUIRE INDEPENDENT TEST DATA REPLICATING THE SECTION M EVALUATION

PROCESS.

QUESTION 42:

Section C.4.5.8 requires a list of accessory pouches including a tourniquet holder and a flashlight pouch.

Which brand and model of tourniquet and flashlight should these pouches accommodate?

ANSWER 42:

TOURNIQUETS CURRENTLY IN USE INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TOO THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES:

THE COMBAT APPLICATION TOURNIQUET (C-A-T) GEN 7 AND SOF TOURNIQUET .

FLASHLIGHTS IN USE ARE TYPICALLY COMBAT-STYLE FLASHLIGHTS. EXAMPLES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, STREAMLIGHT POLYTAC, STREAMLIGHT PROTAC HL-X, SUREFIRE G2X LED, AND MODLITE

MULTI-MODE HANDHELD PLHV2 LIGHT.

QUESTION 43:

Section L.8 states, “The offeror shall provide in its proposal a list of references that were requested to respond to the past performance questionnaire along with point of contact information (name, email, address, phone number).” Please confirm no additional information on past performance is required from the offeror other than providing the list of references outlined above.

ANSWER 43:

YES, WE CONFIRM. OFFERORS ARE ENCOURAGED TO READ SECTION L.8.

QUESTION 44:

Section M.3.5 of the solicitation outlines the gelatin molds that the government intends to utilize in the evaluation. Page 94 has the following quote, “the government intends to test the front ballistic panels (within the carriers) on the respective male or female torso gelatin backers. The Government intends to test the rear ballistic panels (within the carriers) on the rectangle gelatin blocks.”

If the Government requires independent ballistic data from an offeror, please confirm the back panels may be tested on the male or female torso molds instead of the rectangle block?

Will the Government consider testing the rear ballistic panel (within the carriers) on the male or female torso mold instead of the rectangular block?

ANSWER 44:

SEE ANSWER #41.

THE FBI DOES NOT REQUIRE INDEPENDENT TEST DATA REPLICATING THE SECTION M EVALUATION

PROCESS.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS DOCUMENTED THE INTENDED TEST PROCEDURE IN SECTION M OF THE

SOLICITATION. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ANTICIPATE MAKING ANY MATERIAL CHANGES TO

EVALUATION PROCEDURES AT THIS TIME.

QUESTION 45:

Section M.3.1 documents the evaluation of price and states the “Government will compare the average price of the three (3) standard Overt Armor Kits (e.g., the average price of CLIN 001, CLIN 002, and CLIN 003).” How will the average price of the three standard Overt Armor Kits specifically be calculated? Add all years plus 6-month extension? Take only the average of the highest year?

ANSWER 45:

SECTION M.3.1 IS SPECIFIC TO THE PRICE REASONABLENESS EVALUATION. THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO AVERAGE THE COST OF CLINS 001, 002, AND 003 FOR THE BASE YEAR, THE FOUR OPTION YEARS, AND THE 6-MONTH EXTENSION.

IF OFFERORS DELINEATE PRICING FURTHER BASED ON COLOR AND/OR SIZE, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL CALCULATE AN AVERAGE COST FOR THE OAK ACROSS ALL AVAILABLE COLORS AND SIZES.

FORMULA TO CALCULATE AVERAGE FOR EACH OFFEROR WILL BE AS FOLLOWS:

OAK- PER THE PRICING MATRIX (ATTACHMENT 1, AMENDMENT 001) ALL COLUMNS (COLUMNS C

THROUGH AF) FOR THE BASE YEAR, ALL OPTION YEARS, AND 6 MONTH EXTENSION FOR CLINS 001,002& 003 (ROWS 5 THROUGH 7) WILL BE ADDED TOGETHER FOR A GRAND TOTAL DIVIDED BY 3 FOR THE

AVERAGE PRICE OF THE OAK.

PLEASE NOTE THE PRICE OF OAK ACCESSORIES MUST BE DETERMINED TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE.

OAK ACCESSORIES- PER THE PRICING MATRIX ((ATTACHMENT 1, AMENDMENT 001) ALL COLUMNS (COLUMNS C THROUGH AF) FOR THE BASE YEAR, ALL OPTION YEARS, AND 6 MONTH EXTENSION FOR

CLINS 004 THROUGH 0035 (ROWS 8 THROUGH 36 AND ROWS 41 THROUGH 43) WILL BE ADDED

TOGETHER FOR A GRAND TOTAL DIVIDED BY 32 FOR THE AVERAGE PRICE OF THE ACCESSORIES.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO COMPARE TO HISTORICAL DATA AND OTHER INDUSTRY STANDARDS AS

APPROPRIATE.

QUESTION 46:

What color OAK samples will be requested for the Phase III User Evaluation?

ANSWER 46:

PLEASE SEE ANSWER #5.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT REQUIRED SPECIFIC COLORS NOR STATED A COLOR PREFERENCE FOR THE

OAK SAMPLES REQUIRED FOR PHASE III – USER EVALUATION.

QUESTION 47:

Section C.3.4 states that the OAK shall be available in a variety of different sizes to accommodate different body sizes. What is the size tariff based on historical FBI purchases? What is the historical percentage of male designated armor versus female designated armor purchased by the FBI?

ANSWER 47:

THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SHARE HISTORICAL PURCHASE DATA, INCLUDING THE QUANTITY,

GENDER, AND SIZE OF ARMOR KITS PROCURED.

QUESTION 48:

Section C.3.1 documents the requirement for NIJ certification. Footnote #2 reads, “For the purposes of this solicitation, pending certification means that the certification application has been submitted to the NIJ Compliance Testing Program Administrator and that the armor has completed and passed all NIJ-required ballistic testing, which was performed by an accredited independent laboratory recognized by the NIJ.

Can you please clarify this footnote? Does this mean an offeror could have ballistic testing completed at an NIJ recognized lab, and assuming it passed all the required testing, then the offeror could submit it to the NIJ for certification, or does this mean the ballistic testing has been completed and passed at an NIJ recognized lab and the offeror is only waiting for the certification letter from the NIJ?

ANSWER 48:

THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT BALLISTIC TESTING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, PASSED AT AN NIJ RECOGNIZED

LAB, AND THE OFFEROR IS ONLY WAITING FOR THE CERTIFICATION LETTER FROM THE NIJ.

QUESTION 49:

It is our understanding that the NIJ has not issued any test IDs yet for NIJ 0101.07 testing and even with a proposal due date of June 11, 2025, it does not seem likely there will be an opportunity to meet the “pending certification” requirement in time for a response. Can the FBI extend the proposal due date for an additional 90 days to September 11, 2025, to allow time for all potential small business offerors to meet the requirements and submit a compliant proposal?

ANSWER 49:

QUESTION 50:

Section C.4.2.5 specifies the FBI’s coverage requirement.

Does the FBI prefer a base design where there is one front soft armor panel and one back soft armor panel where the side flaps would overlap on the side by a minimum of 2” for a two (2) panel design or a base design with one front panel soft armor panel and one back soft armor panel that would not overlap 2” but would include right and left side cummerbunds with ballistic inserts for a four (4) panel design?

ANSWER 50:

THE GOVERNMENT INTENTIONALLY DID NOT SPECIFY A PREFERENCE. OFFERORS SHOULD SUBMIT THE

DESIGN THEY BELIEVE WORKS BEST WITH THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 51:

When the solicitation references MOLLE, is it a requirement for product in accordance with the US Army's CO/PD 02-02N or is a functionally compatible pouch attachment ladder system (PALS) acceptable? Is the "MOLLE" requirement consistent between the various products and accessories of the OAK?

ANSWER 51:

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MOLLE WITHIN THE SOLICITATION DO NOT INCLUDE STRICT COMPLIANCE

WITH US ARMY CO/PD 02-02N.

THE REFERENCES TO MOLLE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CONSISTENT ACROSS THE

SOLICITATION.

QUESTION 52:

Section C.4.3.13 specifies the MOLLE requirement of the cummerbund (if present). Related to the question above, for a cummerbund, is compliance restricted to the above referenced MOLLE specification, or is functionally equivalent 'laser-cut MOLLE' acceptable?

ANSWER 52:

SEE ANSWER #37.

THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALLOW EITHER TRADITIONAL AND/OR LASER CUT MOLLE (MODULAR

WEBBING). THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SPECIFIED A REQUIREMENT FOR A CONSISTENT TYPE (E.G., ONLY ONE TYPE OR THE OTHER). OFFERORS ARE FREE TO MATCH OR NOT MATCH THE MODULAR

WEBBING ON THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 53:

Is the ITW 810-1076 QASM buckle the required component for OAK? Clarification is requested regarding the attachment methodology for M4 magazine pouches, pistol magazine pouches, and handcuff pouches.

While the QASM system is typically utilized for placard integration, the QASM is not common in the intended application for all listed C.4.5 accessories. Please confirm that the exact QASM buckle system is required or if an alternative attachment method is acceptable (e.g. PALS).

ANSWER 53:

THE ITW 810-1076 QASM BUCKLE IS NOT A REQUIRED COMPONENT FOR OAK. THE REFERENCE TO QASM BUCKLES WAS LIMITED TO SECTION C.4.5.7 AND WAS INTENDED AS AN EXAMPLE AND NOT A

PREFERENCE FOR THE ATTACHMENT OF A MODULAR FRONT PANEL.

C.4.5.11 FURTHER DETAILS THE REQUIREMENT BY STATING, “ACCESSORY POUCHES SHALL UTILIZE A

MOLLE ATTACHMENT SYSTEM TO INTEGRATE WITH THE OVERT CARRIER.”

QUESTION 54:

Regarding the identification placards referenced in Section C.4.5.2, what color lettering will be required for “POLICE”? and will the generic "POLICE" placard be included in CLINs 001, 002, and/or 003? Or will these only be procurable through CLIN 030 Replacement "primary" placards?

ANSWER 54:

THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT SPECIFY A COLOR REQUIREMENT FOR THE “POLICE” LETTERS ON THE GENERIC LAW ENFORCEMENT IDENTIFICATION PLACARD. THE “POLICE” PLACARD IS NOT A REQUIRED COMPONENT OF CLIN 001, 002, OR 003. CLIN 001, 002, AND 003 ARE INTENDED AS A STANDARD OAK

LOADOUTS FOR THE THREE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES REPRESENTED.

THE “POLICE” PLACARD IS INTENDED FOR A GENERIC LAW ENFORCEMENT PLACARD AND SHALL BE

AVAILABLE ON CONTRACT.

QUESTION 55:

Regarding the required accessories listed in Section C.4.5.8, does the government have a requirement for a single or double handcuff pouch?

ANSWER 55:

OFFERORS MAY SUBMIT POUCH DESIGNS WHICH THEY FEEL WORK BEST WITH THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 56:

Regarding the required accessories listed in Section C.4.5.8, Admin pouch (also CLIN 020) - given the potential for varied interpretations of “Admin pouch” specifications, we request the program office to provide examples of desired configurations, features, and dimensions.

ANSWER 56:

OFFERORS MAY SUBMIT ADMIN POUCHES WHICH THEY FEEL WORK BEST WITH THEIR ARMOR SYSTEM.

QUESTION 57:

Regarding the required accessories listed in Section C.4.5.8, Flashlight pouch (also CLIN 021) - given the diverse range of flashlight dimensions available, please provide the minimum and maximum dimensional specifications that the pouch is required to accommodate.

ANSWER 57:

SEE ANSWER #42.

FLASHLIGHTS IN USE ARE TYPICALLY COMBAT-STYLE FLASHLIGHTS. EXAMPLES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, STREAMLIGHT POLYTAC, STREAMLIGHT PROTAC HL-X, SUREFIRE G2X LED, AND MODLITE

MULTI-MODE HANDHELD PLHV2 LIGHT.

QUESTION 58:

Section C.4.5.5 requests an optional patch with a customizable name or identification number. For the identification components, please confirm if patches will be provided as standalone items or as elements integrated into the identification placards? Through which CLIN will these customizable patches be purchased?

ANSWER 58:

THE OPTIONAL CUSTOMIZABLE PATCH WAS INTENDED AS A STANDALONE PATCH.

PLEASE SEE THE UPDATED PRICE MATRIX POSTED TO SAM.GOV.

QUESTION 59:

For the Phase I submission, please specify whether ballistic-resistant accessories and the carry bag are required. If they are required, please indicate the quantities to be submitted.

ANSWER 59:

SAMPLES OF BALLISTIC-RESISTANT ACCESSORIES AND SAMPLES OF THE CARRY BAG ARE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE INITIAL SUBMISSION. SECTION L.9 PROVIDES PREPARATION INSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBMISSION OF SAMPLE OAKS. SECTION L.9 STATES, “A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) SAMPLES OF EACH

ACCESSORY THAT THE OFFEROR PLANS TO MAKE AVAILABLE ON THE CONTRACT.”

QUESTION 60:

What NAICS code will be used for small business size threshold verification?

ANSWER 60:

THE NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CODE IS 315990, OTHER APPAREL

ACCESSORIES AND OTHER APPAREL MANUFACTURING, A SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD OF 600

EMPLOYEES.

QUESTION 61:

Section C.4.3.12 requires that the OAK be available in Ranger Green (or similar), Coyote Brown (or similar), Midnight Blue16 (or similar), black, and Multicam (or similar); however, the Price Matrix does not differentiate cost by color. Will the Government provide instruction on which colorways should be priced for each specific CLIN? There will be a raw material cost difference between these colorways.

ANSWER 61:

ADDITIONAL CLINS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE PRICING MATRIX FOR EACH COLOR.

QUESTION 62:

Section C.4.5.9 lists the Cell Phone Pouch as an optional accessory; however, it is included on CLIN002 Overt Armor Kit – Standard DEA. Please confirm whether the Cell Phone Pouch is required or not

ANSWER 62:

THE CELL PHONE POUCH IS A REQUIRED ACCESSORY. PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT 001, SECTION C.4.5.8

ACCESSORIES.

QUESTION 63:

Section C.4.2.10 states, “The front and rear panel of soft armor within the overt kit, as well as any plate backer sets, shall have matching serial numbers.” Will serialization of cummerbund ballistics be required?

And if so, what format will the cummerbund serial numbers need to follow, i.e., the numbers must match the front and back panels; the 2 pieces of the cummerbund must have the same serial numbers but not match the front/back panels; or other.

ANSWER 63:

THE ARMOR PANELS ON THE CUMMERBUND, IF PRESENT, WILL NOT REQUIRE SERIALIZATION.

QUESTION 64:

On the Price Matrix, is CLIN 011 Soft Armor – Plate Backer SAPI cut Plate Backer intended for CLIN 029 Plate carrier (optional), or for the OAK?

Is the SAPI cut a requirement or will alternative Soft Armor cuts be considered as well?

ANSWER 64:

THE REQUIRED SOFT ARMOR PLATE BACKERS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OAK OR AS

REPLACEMENT PANELS FOR OAK CARRIERS. THE SOFT ARMOR PLATE BACKERS ARE FOR USE IN PLATE

CARRIERS WHICH MAY INCLUDE OPTIONAL PLATE CARRIERS PROCURED AS A RESULT OF THIS

CONTRACT AND / OR PLATE CARRIERS ALREADY IN USE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THE REQUIREMENT FOR SAPI CUT STANDS AS WRITTEN.

QUESTION 65:

Section C.4.6 references the requirements for sizing of OAK. Will the distribution of sizing kits and custom sizing guides meet the requirements for sizing out new customers across all agencies or will onsite visits by the contractor be required?

ANSWER 65:

THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING A SIZING SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE ONSITE VISITS.

SEE AMENDMENT 001, SECTION C.4.6.9.

QUESTION 66:

Section C.4.2.9 references the requirement for a label on the OAK. It reads, “The front and rear panel of soft armor within the overt kit, as well as any plate backers, shall contain a label on the interior (wear side).” Would an alternative location that is easily accessible, and enhances breathability performance of OAK be acceptable?

ANSWER 66:

END OF QUESTIONS & ANSWERS AMENDMENT 001