Amendment 001_ Attachment 5_ Quetions and Answers for RFP 15F06726R0000147_2026-06-08.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) 15F06726R0000147

Suppressors - 5.56 NATO

ATTACHMENT 5- QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

AMENDMENT 001

Posted to SAM.gov on June 8, 2026

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:

Does the FBI still use the 64gr Federal T3 for duty ammo?

ANSWER 1:

THE SOLICITATION MAKES MULTIPLE REFERENCES TO CURRENT FBI SERVICE AMMUNITION. THIS

INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO FOOTNOTE #4 ON PAGE 10.

QUESTION 2:

What training ammunition does the agency use?

ANSWER 2:

THE SOLICITATION MAKES MULTIPLE REFERENCES TO CURRENT FBI TRAINING AMMUNITION. THIS

INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO FOOTNOTE #12 ON PAGE 11.

QUESTION 3:

Can you provide specifics on the upper receiver components so we can source parts and build uppers to match the FBI's for development testing?

ANSWER 3:

SECTION C.3.1, AS AMENDED, OF THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE BUREAU

PATTERN CARBINE (BPC).

QUESTION 4:

Section C.4.1.2 states that removable components may only be removable/interchangeable during depot-level or manufacturer-level maintenance, and not by the end user. Please define what the Government considers “removable by the end user” versus depot-level or manufacturer-level maintenance.

ANSWER 4:

DEPOT-LEVEL OR MANUFACTURER-LEVEL MAINTENANCE MAY INVOLVE A MORE EXTENSIVE

INSPECTION AND DISASSEMBLY OF THE PRODUCT. THIS LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE SHOULD ONLY BE DONE BY SPECIALIZED TECHNICIANS / GUNSMITHS AT CENTRALIZED FACILITIES OR BY THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER OF THE PRODUCT. DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE MAY REQUIRE USE OF SPECIALIZED

EQUIPMENT, COMPLETE DISASSEMBLY OF THE PRODUCT, THOROUGH CLEANING AND

REFURBISHMENT OF THE PRODUCT. BY CONTRAST, END USER MAINTENANCE REFERS TO BASIC CARE OR PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PERFORMED BY THE OFFICER / AGENT WHO USES THE PRODUCT.

THIS LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE IS ROUTINE AND INVOLVES SIMPLE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES TO

ENSURE THE EQUIPMENT REMAINS FUNCTIONAL.

QUESTION 5:

In reference to Section C.4.1.2, if a QD mount can only be removed from the suppressor body using manufacturer-specific tools, specified torque, thread-locking compound, witness marks, or similar controls, would that be acceptable under C.4.1.2? Or must the mount be permanently welded, pinned, or otherwise permanently affixed?

Please note that the suppressor’s overall length is not modular. The mounting hardware is the only removable section of the suppressor.

ANSWER 5:

A PRODUCT THAT REQUIRES MANUFACTURER-SPECIFIC TOOLS TO DISASSEMBLE THE SUPPRESSOR

WOULD BE CONSIDERED DEPOT-LEVEL OR MANUFACTURER-LEVEL MAINTENANCE.

QUESTION 6:

For a suppressor proposed and delivered only in a QD configuration, will the existence of commercially available direct-thread mounts/adapters for the same suppressor family/platform render the suppressor non-compliant with C.4.1.2? Assume that those direct-thread parts are not proposed, delivered, supported, or authorized for use under this contract. These are third-party components that the manufacturer has not tested and does not support.

ANSWER 6:

THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE ONLY PRODUCTS RECEIVED BY OFFERORS.

QUESTION 7:

Section C.4.1.2 permits removable components when they are removable/interchangeable only during depot-level or manufacturer-level maintenance and not removable by the end user. For purposes of this requirement, would a suppressor with a factory-installed QD mount satisfy C.4.1.2 if the mount is not intended, authorized, or supported for end-user removal or conversion, and any mount service or replacement is performed only at the depot/manufacturer level?

ANSWER 7:

THIS DEPENDS ON THE MECHANISM OR PROCESS TO DISASSEMBLE THE QD MOUNT. IF REMOVABLE COMPONENTS ARE PRESENT, THEY SHALL ONLY BE REMOVABLE / INTERCHANGEABLE DURING DEPOT-

LEVEL OR MANUFACTURER-LEVEL MAINTENANCE, AND NOT REMOVABLE BY THE END USER.

QUESTION 8:

Flash Hider with Incidental Recoil or Muzzle Rise Reduction - If a muzzle adaptor is designed and marketed as a flash hider but has geometry that incidentally reduces recoil or muzzle rise, how will the Government classify it for purposes of C.4.2.1 and C.4.2.2?

ANSWER 8:

PLEASE SEE FOOTNOTE #16 FOR THE GOVERNMENT’S DEFINITION OF “MUZZLE BREAK” STYLE DEVICES.

QUESTION 9:

Correct Forms for Non-Manufacturer Offerors - For non-OEM offerors, must the manufacturer authorization letter specifically identify the exact contract configuration, muzzle adaptor, color options, training suppressor, warranty, technical support, delivery capacity, and agreement not to alter the product without Contracting Officer authorization?

Is there a desired form the Government would prefer for purposes of authorizing resellers?

ANSWER 9:

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION L.7, “NON-OEM OFFERORS SHALL INCLUDE STATEMENTS

DOCUMENTING THAT THE MANUFACTURER AGREES TO SUPPLY THE OFFEROR WITH SUFFICIENT

QUANTITIES AS TO MEET THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE (SECTION F.2); THAT THE MANUFACTURER SHALL

HONOR THE WARRANTY (SECTIONS C.4 AND E.2); THAT THE MANUFACTURER SHALL PROVIDE

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (SECTION E.1.2); AND THAT THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT MAKE ALTERATIONS

TO THE PRODUCT WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CONTRACTING OFFICER (SECTION

C.4.3).”

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE A PREFERRED FORM, PROVIDED THE SUBMISSION MEETS THE

REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE RFP.

QUESTION 10:

Section C.3.3 states that no component of the suppressors, muzzle adaptors, or training suppressors shall have been previously used. Recycled or refurbished suppressors, muzzle adaptors, and training suppressors will not be accepted.

Part of our QC/QA program consists of shooting 3-5 “proof shots”, which is firing the FBI Duty ammunition through each suppressor prior to final inspection. Is this acceptable? If so, what is the maximum number of proofing rounds that can fired through each suppressor?

ANSWER 10:

PROOFING SHOTS AS PART OF THE MANUFACTURING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROTOCOL ARE

PERMITTED. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT TELL A MANUFACTURER THE CORRECT OR ACCEPTABLE

VOLUME OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING NECESSARY.

QUESTION 11:

L.6 states “Limit on number of submissions: Offerors are limited to one (1) submission for consideration.”

Please clarify whether offerors are limited to submitting a single suppressor model or if multiple models may be proposed. If multiple models are permitted, is there a maximum number that may be included in a submission?

ANSWER 11:

ONE SUBMISSION MEANS ONE SINGLE SUPPRESSOR MODEL. MULTIPLE MODELS SUBMITTED BY AN

OFFEROR WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR CONSIDERED.

QUESTION 12:

For suppressors requiring specialized cleaning supplies, Section L.10 requires adequate supplies for cleaning six suppressors firing a total of 28,000 rounds. Please confirm whether this means 28,000 total rounds across all six suppressors, or 28,000 rounds per suppressor.

ANSWER 12:

28,000 ACROSS ALL SIX SUPPRESSORS.

QUESTION 13:

Section M.3.7 Phase IV Factor B states that two of the six suppressors from Functional Reliability will continue to 10,000 total rounds. Please confirm whether the round count from Functional Reliability carries forward toward the 10,000-round endurance total, or whether endurance testing begins at zero on those suppressors.

ANSWER 13:

THE ROUND COUNT FROM FUNCTIONAL RELIABILITY CARRIES FORWARD.

QUESTION 14:

Section M.3.5 Factor 9 appears to reuse suppressed groups from Factor 8. Please confirm whether the suppressor will be removed and reinstalled between each suppressed group for group repeatability evaluation, or whether it will remain installed throughout the firing sequence.

ANSWER 14:

PHASE 2, FACTOR 8 – SUPPRESSOR SHIFT (RFP PAGE 55) DETAILS THE SEQUENCE OF GROUPS FIRED AND

THE STATUS OF THE FIREARM AS SUPPRESSOR OR UNSUPPRESSED.

PHASE 2, FACTOR 9 – GROUP REPEATABILITY (RFP PAGE 56) NOTES THAT “GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 AND

12” WILL BE UTILIZED.

QUESTION 15:

ORI Number and NFA Sample Transfer - As suppressors are regulated under the National Firearms Act, we anticipate needing to initiate ATF Form 5 transfer paperwork to ship evaluation samples to the FBI. Please provide the FBI's Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) number for this purpose and advise on the FBI's preferred process for coordinating NFA-compliant sample shipments to Building 6315, Redstone Arsenal.

Are there specific carrier restrictions, security protocols, or advance notification requirements for delivering regulated items to that facility? Should offerors coordinate directly with Patrick M. Boone regarding delivery logistics?

ANSWER 15:

SECTION L.10 OF THE RFP (PAGE 42) INSTRUCTS OFFERORS TO CONTACT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER

TO REQUEST THE FBI’S ORIGINATING AGENCY IDENTIFIER (ORI) NUMBER.

DELIVERY DETAILS CAN BE PROVIDED BY THE CO ALONG WITH THE ORI.

QUESTION 16:

Past Performance: Commercial References - Section L.9 states that references from the law enforcement community are "preferred" and that the Government reserves the right to consider performance information for commercial customers if deemed relevant. If an offeror has no prior law enforcement or military contracts but has a documented record of commercial suppressor and precision component sales with verifiable on-time delivery, quality control, and warranty performance, will those commercial references be evaluated substantively, or will the offeror automatically receive a Neutral rating regardless of reference quality?

ANSWER 16:

PAST PERFORMANCE WILL BE EVALUATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION M.3.2. THE DEFINITIONS

FOR PASS, FAIL, AND NEUTRAL RATINGS ARE DEFINED ON PAGE 46 OF THE SOLICITATION.

QUESTION 17:

Subcontractor Disclosure at Proposal Stage - Section C.3.4 requires CO notification and written approval for the introduction of subcontractors and material changes to manufacturing processes post-award.

Please clarify: (a) Does this disclosure obligation also apply at the proposal stage, such that offerors are expected to identify all manufacturing subcontractors — including specialty process providers such as DMLS/additive manufacturing partners and surface treatment providers — in Volume 1 of their technical proposal? (b) May an offeror identify pre-approved alternate subcontractors in their proposal for supply continuity purposes? (c) Are surge-capacity machine shops used only when primary capacity is exceeded considered subcontractors requiring CO approval under C.3.4?

ANSWER 17:

A) SECTION C.3.4 SPECIFIES POST-AWARD ALTERATIONS TO THE AWARDED PRODUCTS. OFFERORS

MAY DISCLOSE THE USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS IN VOLUME #1 THEIR PROPOSAL.

B) NO.

C) YES.

QUESTION 18:

COTS Component Suppliers - Does the subcontractor disclosure requirement in C.3.4 apply to suppliers of standard commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware components such as springs, ball bearings, and fasteners incorporated into the suppressor assembly, or does it apply only to entities performing manufacturing or processing operations on suppressor components?

ANSWER 18:

PROVIDED THERE IS NO MATERIAL CHANGE AND THE PRODUCTS MEET ALL QUALITY CONTROL

REQUIREMENTS.

QUESTION 19:

Barrel Length and Gas System Length of BPC Variants - Section C.3.1 describes the three Bureau Pattern Carbine variants with gas port sizes but does not specify barrel length or gas system length. Please provide the barrel length and gas system length (pistol, carbine, or mid-length) for each of the three BPC variants that will be used during evaluation testing.

ANSWER 19:

ALL BUREAU PATTERN CARBINES UTILIZE A CARBINE LENGTH GAS SYSTEM AND ALL BARREL LENGTHS

ARE 11.5”. PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT #001.

QUESTION 20:

Accuracy Testing Methodology - For Factor 6 (Accuracy), please confirm: (a) Will the baseline precision of the BPC and service ammunition system be independently established unsuppressed prior to the suppressed accuracy assessment, and if so, will that baseline be considered when evaluating a suppressor's contribution to the measured group size? (b) Will accuracy groups be fired by a single designated shooter or multiple shooters, and if multiple, will the same shooter fire all groups for a given offeror's samples?

ANSWER 20:

A. NO.

B. THE GOVERNMENT WILL STRIVE TO ENSURE THAT ALL OFFERORS ARE TREATED EQUALLY.

QUESTION 21:

Muzzle Flash Evaluation: Ammunition and Baseline Conditions - For Factor 5 (Muzzle Flash / Spark), please confirm: (a) Which specific FBI service ammunition product — Federal Z556T64XFBI, Z556T64FBI, or Z223T3FBISBC — will be used for both the baseline recordings and each offeror's flash evaluation? Will the same ammunition lot be used for the A2 Birdcage baseline, the HUXWRX suppressed baseline, and all offeror evaluations? (b) Will the HUXWRX Flow 556k and 556 Flash Hider used to establish the suppressed baseline be a new unfired unit, or a previously-fired unit with accumulated carbon buildup? (c) Will all flash evaluations — including both baselines and all offeror samples — be conducted on the same day under identical lighting conditions?"

ANSWER 21:

A. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO USE ANY OF THE LISTED FBI SERVICE

AMMUNITIONS. THE GOVERNMENT WILL ENSURE THAT ALL TEST SHOTS CONDUCTED

FOR SECTION M.3.5 PHASE II, FACTOR 5 – MUZZLE FLASH / SPARK WILL BE CONDUCTED

WITH THE SAME MAKE, MODEL, AND LOT OF AMMUNITION.

B. THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO USE A NEW A2 “BIRDCAGE” FLASH HIDER, A NEW

MUZZLE ADAPTER AND A NEW SUPPRESSOR FOR THIS EVALUATION.

C. YES.

QUESTION 22:

Muzzle Adaptor Pin and Weld Provision - Section C.4.2.3 specifies the muzzle adaptor shall be threaded 1/2-28 TPI but does not address whether any BPC configurations used by the FBI or authorized buyers require the muzzle adaptor to be permanently attached (pinned and welded) to the barrel. Please confirm:

(a) Will the muzzle adaptor always be used as a removable threaded device, or will some authorized buyer applications require permanent attachment? (b) If permanent attachment is required for any configuration, should offerors design the muzzle adaptor to accommodate pinning, and will that requirement be specified in individual delivery orders?

ANSWER 22:

A. THE MUZZLE ADAPTOR WILL NOT BE PERMANENTLY ATTACHED.

B. NOT APPLICABLE.

QUESTION 23:

Decibel Reduction Reference Point - Attachment 4 (Manufacturer Data Sheet) requests “Suppressor decibel reduction compared to Flash Hider alone.” Please confirm whether this figure should be reported relative to the A2 Birdcage flash hider baseline used in Factor 4, or relative to the offeror's own muzzle adaptor, so that reported data is consistent across offerors and aligned with the evaluation methodology.

ANSWER 23:

THE OFFEROR-PROVIDED DATA INCLUDED IN SECTION J - ATTACHMENT 4 IS NOT USED FOR THE DECIBEL

REDUCTION EVALUATION OUTLINED IN SECTION M.

QUESTION 24:

Muzzle Adaptor Weight: Evaluation Relevance - Attachment 4 (Manufacturer Data Sheet) requests the muzzle adaptor weight, but no specification threshold or scoring criterion in Section C or Section M directly addresses muzzle adaptor weight. Please confirm whether muzzle adaptor weight will be considered in any evaluation factor not explicitly described in Section M, or whether it is collected for informational and record-keeping purposes only.

ANSWER 24:

THE OFFEROR-PROVIDED DATA INCLUDED IN SECTION J - ATTACHMENT 4 IS NOT USED FOR THE

SUPPRESSOR WEIGHT EVALUATION OUTLINED IN SECTION M.

QUESTION 25:

Cleaning Equipment CLIN Placement - If an offeror's suppressor requires specialized cleaning equipment, Section C.4.1.14 requires that equipment be made available as a contract line item. Should this be priced under optional CLINs 004–006 in the Attachment 1 pricing matrix, or elsewhere? Please confirm whether cleaning equipment pricing will be factored into the evaluated price calculation or treated as an optional item outside the evaluation formula.

ANSWER 25:

SECTION M.3.1 OF THE SOLICITATION STATES, “THE EVALUATED PRICE SHALL BE BASED ON THE AVERAGE PROPOSED PRICE FOR THE SUPPRESSOR 5.56 NATO, MUZZLE ADAPTOR, AND TRAINING SUPPRESSOR (NON-LETHAL TRAINING AID) (E.G., CLIN 001, 002, AND 003). THE REMAINING CLIN NUMBERS WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE EVALUATION BUT MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE CO IN

THE BEST VALUE DETERMINATION.” (RFP, PAGE 45)

QUESTION 26:

Economic Price Adjustment Without a Published Catalog - FAR 52.216-2 (Section L.3) ties price adjustments to the offeror's "established catalog or market price." If an offeror does not publish a publicly available price catalog, will they be eligible for price adjustment requests under this clause over the 66-month contract period? If not, how should offerors without a published catalog structure their long-term pricing to account for potential material cost increases?

ANSWER 26:

THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROVIDE DIRECTION TO OFFERORS ON HOW THEY SHOULD STRUCTURE

THEIR PRICE PROPOSALS.

QUESTION 27:

Estimated Quantities and Historical Usage - The solicitation establishes a $45,000,000 maximum and a $2,000 guaranteed minimum but does not provide estimated quantities. To support accurate pricing and production capacity planning, please provide any available estimated annual or total quantities for CLINs 001, 002, and 003, or historical usage data from prior suppressor procurements. If estimates cannot be provided, please confirm whether the Government anticipates a large initial deployment order following award versus steady ordering across the period of performance.

ANSWER 27:

THE GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OR COMMIT TO ANY ORDERS

BEYOND THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM.

QUESTION 28:

RFP Number Discrepancy in Attachment 2 - Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire, pages 5 and 6 display RFP number 15F06725R0000117 in the header rather than the correct RFP number 15F06726R0000147. Please confirm whether this is a typographical error and advise whether a corrected version will be issued by amendment, or whether references should submit the form as-is.

ANSWER 28:

RFP 15F06726R0000147 IS CORRECT. PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT #001. THE ATTACHEMENT 2 PAST

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRRE HAS NOW BEEN AMENDED. *NOTE ANY PAST PERFORMANCE

QUETIONAIRRES RECEIVED BY THE CO WITH CONTAINING THIS ERROR WILL BE ACCEPTED.

QUESTION 29:

Section C.4.1.19 specifies a minimum functional reliability standard. Section M, Phase IV outlines related functional reliability and endurance testing. Will the Government provide a test matrix?

ANSWER 29:

NO.

QUESTION 30:

Can we get a list of the BPC upper receiver specific components?

ANSWER 30:

PLEASE REFER TO SECTION C.3.1 OF THE SOLICITATION, AS AMENDED IN AMENDMENT #001.

QUESTION 31:

Specific formats on Quality Control Plan? Any DID references? / Any other CDRLs other than QCC & quarterly report?

ANSWER 31:

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE A REQUIRED FORMAT FOR THE QUALITY CONTROL PLAN. PLEASE

SEE THE SOLICITATION FOR REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO QUALITY CONTROL.

QUESTION 32:

Specific LAT procedures?

ANSWER 32:

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE ARE DISCUSSED IN SECTION E OF THE SOLICITATION.

QUESTION 33:

Will a DCMA be involved?

ANSWER 33:

THIS SOLICITATION MAKES NO REFERENCE TO DCMA.

QUESTION 34:

Qty per DO? How often will Deliveries be requested?

ANSWER 34:

BEYOND THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT COMMIT TO

QUANTITIES OR FREQUENCY OF ORDERS.

QUESTION 35:

Can we be provided with this office’s ORI number?

ANSWER 35:

YES. SECTION L.10 OF THE RFP (PAGE 42) INSTRUCTS OFFERORS TO CONTACT THE CONTRACTING

OFFICER TO REQUEST THE FBI’S ORIGINATING AGENCY IDENTIFIER (ORI) NUMBER.

QUESTION 36:

What is considered a specialized tool or cleaning/maintenance equipment?

ANSWER 36:

SPECIALIZED TOOLS PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER MAY BE PURPOSE-MADE TOOLS DESIGNED TO ENGAGE WITH THE SUPPRESSOR. THE SPECIALIZED TOOL MAY BE SPECIFICALLY SHAPED TO FIT OR

INTEGRATE WITH THE SUPPRESSOR.

SPECIALIZED CLEANING EQUIPMENT REFERS TO TOOLS, DEVICES, AND MATERIALS DESIGNED TO CLEAN

AND MAINTAIN A SUPPRESSOR BEYOND GENERAL-PURPOSE CLEANING EQUIPMENT.

QUESTION 37:

Background Check Timeline How long does it typically take to process security background checks for employees who may require access to FBI facilities? (Section H.4)

ANSWER 37:

THE FBI DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THAT CONTRACTORS WILL REQUIRE ACCESS TO FBI FACILITIES.

QUESTION 38:

C.4.1.10 requires a “visible indicator.” What is a visible indicator? Will a lock / unlock pictogram on the suppressor be sufficient?

ANSWER 38:

A VISIBLE INDICATOR MAY BE A MARK OR FEATURE THAT CONVEYS INFORMATION BY BEING SEEN. IN PRACTICE, A VISUAL INDICATOR ON A SUPPRESSOR SHALL VISUALLY INFORM THE USER THAT THE

SUPPRESSOR IS LOCKED OR UNLOCKED.

A LOCK / UNLOCK PICTOGRAM WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF C.4.1.10.

QUESTION 39:

C.4.1.2 states that suppressors shall not be modular in design and that removable components shall only be removable during depot-level maintenance. How is this being interpreted? Example: will typical hex head screws need to be safety or tamper proof screws?

ANSWER 39:

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT MODULAR SUPPRESSORS. THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING

SUPPRESSORS THAT CANNOT EASILY BE DISASSEMBLED OR MODIFIED BY AN END USER.

QUESTION 40:

Will sound measurement be weighted?

ANSWER 40:

THE EVALUATION PROCESS IS DETAILED IN SECTION M.

QUESTION 41:

Does the FBI have already prescribed suppressor cleaning methods?

ANSWER 41:

SECTION L.7 – PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, ITEM #7 REQUIRES THAT OFFERORS PROVIDE, “DETAIL

CLEANING INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDING A MANUAL DETAILING THE CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE

SCHEDULE FOR THE SUPPRESSOR AND MUZZLE ADAPTOR.”

THE FBI IS SEEKING INPUT FROM THE OFFEROR (MANUFACTURER) OF THE PRODUCT TO INFORM

APPROPRIATE CLEANING SCHEDULES FOR THEIR PRODUCT.

QUESTION 42:

How will flash testing be conducted? How dark is the range? What are the camera positions? How used will the uppers and suppressors be during flash testing?

ANSWER 42:

PLEASE SEE SECTION M.3.5 PHASE II, FACTOR 5 FOR DETAILS ON THE MUZZLE FLASH ASSESSMENT. THE CAMERA SET UP, INCLUDING POSITION, WILL BE CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL TESTED PRODUCTS. THE UPPER RECEIVER GROUPS UTILIZED IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS WILL BE NEW AT THE BEGINNING OF

THE ASSESSMENTS; HOWEVER, THE TEST WEAPONS WILL BE FIRED BEFORE FACTOR 5.

QUESTION 43:

How will accuracy groups be measured? Calipers by hand, acoustic target system, photographic target software?

ANSWER 43:

THE EVALUATION WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION M OF THE SOLICITATION.

QUESTION 44:

What suppressor alignment rod does the FBI use?

ANSWER 44:

GEISSELE AUTOMATICS 5.56 SUPPRESSOR ALIGNMENT ROD.

QUESTION 45:

Will blowback testing be performed indoors or outdoors?

ANSWER 45:

THE GOVERNMENT WILL STRIVE TO ENSURE THAT EACH END USER PERFORMS THEIR ASSESSMENTS

FOR ALL REMAINING OFFERORS/PRODUCTS ON THE SAME RANGE.

QUESTION 46:

Is there an anticipated contract award date?

ANSWER 46:

THE GOVERNMENT ANTICIPATES CONTRACT AWARD UPON COMPLETION OF THE EVALUATION.

QUESTION 47:

Section L.7, item #2 requires that Offerors provide a list of “key personnel and relevant expertise.” So that the manufacturers can appropriately identify the required key personnel, does the government have specific labor categories that are considered key in this procurement?

ANSWER 47:

QUESTION 48:

Regarding the Past Performance evaluation (Section M.3.2), can a non-OEM Offeror submit past performance of the OEM?

ANSWER 48:

PAST PERFORMANCE FROM ANY BUSINESS ENTITY BEYOND THE OFFEROR WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

QUESTION 49:

Regarding M.3.5 PHASE II, Factor 5 – Muzzle Flash / Spark, will the Government specify a standardized flash testing methodology, such as TOP 03-2-045A, Section 4.7.1, or another recognized testing standard, for evaluation under Factor 5 – Muzzle Flash/Spark?

ANSWER 49:

NO. SECTION M.3.5 PHASE II, FACTOR 5 – MUZZLE FLASH / SPARK STANDS AS WRITTEN.

QUESTION 50:

Regarding M.3.5 PHASE II, Factor 6 – Accuracy, will the Government conduct a baseline accuracy evaluation of the test rifles and ammunition lot prior to evaluation of the vendor samples?

ANSWER 50:

QUESTION 51:

Regarding M.3.5 PHASE II, Factor 6 – Accuracy, to ensure an exact comparison across all vendors, will the same rifles and ammunition lot be utilized for all vendor samples evaluated under Factor 6 – Accuracy?

ANSWER 51:

YES.

QUESTION 52:

In reference to sections B.3, B.4, and Section F, the Government establishes an IDIQ with a $2,000 minimum and $45,000,000 maximum threshold (B.3), no unit quantities are designated for the “maximum” and Section F provides limited delivery-order guidance. To support optimal pricing and fulfillment capability for all Offerors:

a. Can the Government provide the Schedule “maximum” quantity (or quantities by CLIN) referenced in B.3?

b. If not defined, can the Government share expected or historical annual quantity ranges (or overall ranges) for the primary items across base + option years?

c. If unavailable, can non-sensitive context be provided regarding current FBI inventory scale and acquisition history for similar items (e.g., approximate number of platforms and timeframe of prior acquisitions)?

d. Are any per-order quantity caps, advance notice periods for surges, or related clauses anticipated that could facilitate competitive pricing and reliable performance?

ANSWER 52:

A. NO.

B. NO.

C. NO.

D. NO.

QUESTION 53:

In regard to the details of the Bureau Pattern Carbine (BPC) detailed in Section C.3.1, the three BPC variants are described but additional interface details would assist all Offerors in meeting the rigorous Phase II quantitative and Phase IV functional requirements:

a. What are the barrel lengths of each of the three BPC variants?

b. What are the gas-tube lengths of each of the three BPC variants?

c. Are any of the BPC gas blocks adjustable?

d. Can the Government provide detailed drawings/specifications (or key dimensions) of the three BPC muzzle ends, including threading, shoulder, crown, and current muzzle device interfaces?

e. Will Phase II accuracy/MOA and reliability testing average results across all three BPCs or utilize a representative configuration, and are there any additional protocol details (ammunition consistency, conditioning) that would aid precise preparation?

ANSWER 53:

A. ALL BPC BARREL LENGTHS ARE 11.5”. PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT #1.

B. ALL BPC CARBINES UTILIZE A CARBINE LENGTH GAS SYSTEM. PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT #1.

C. NO.

D. ALL BPC HAVE A MUZZLE THREADING PITCH OF 1/2x28. THE MUZZLE DEVICE INTERFACE

CONNECTS WITH THE SHOLDER OF THE BARREL AT THE END OF THE THREADS.

SPECIFIC TO THE COLT VARIANTS, THE THREAD LENGTH IS APPROXIMATELY 0.625”. THE

SHOULDER DIMENSION (OUTSIDE DIAMETER) IS APPROXIMATELY 0.614”. THE CROWN IS

APPROXIMATELY 90-DEGREES TO THE BORE WITH A MINIMAL CHAMFER INTO THE BORE.

SPECIFIC TO THE GEISSELE VARIANT, THE THREAD LENGTH IS APPROXIMATELY 0.630”. THE

SHOULDER DIMENSION (OUTSIDE DIAMETER) IS APPROXIMATELY 0.700”. THE CROWN IS

APPROXIMATELY 90-DEGREES TO THE BORE WITH A MINIMAL CHAMFER INTO THE BORE.

E. M.3.5 PHASE II, FACTOR 6 – ACCURACY STATES, “THE AVERAGE GROUP SIZE FOR EACH

OF THE THREE (3) BPCS WILL BE AVERAGED.” (RFP, PAGE 53). SECTION M.3.7 PHASE IV,

FACTOR A – FUNCTIONAL RELIABILITY CONSIDERS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF

SUPPRESSOR-RELATED STOPPAGES OBSERVED ACROSS SIX (6) WEAPONS FIRED.

FOOTNOTE 34 SPECIFIES THE AMMUNITION UTILIZED. THE COOLING, CLEANING,

LUBRICATION AS WELL AS SUPPRESSOR CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE ROUTINE IS

DESCRIBED IN THE SOLICITATION.

QUESTION 54:

Low Back-Pressure and dB Reduction Clarification (C.4.1.1 & C.4.1.3) - Regarding low back-pressure/high-flow designs (C.4.1.1) and decibel reduction baselines (C.4.1.3 vs. Attachment 4), what specific metrics, data formats, or supporting materials would best assist evaluators in confirming compliance and superiority for all Offerors?

ANSWER 54:

NOT APPLICABLE. THE GOVERNMENT’S EVALUATIONS OF BLOWBACK AND DB REDUCTION ARE

OUTLINED IN SECTION M.

QUESTION 55:

In reference to Section C.3.6, for Offerors whose unique designs are developed by the Offeror and manufactured by a third-party production partner, what specific elements or commitments in the Manufacturer Authorization Letter (and accompanying statements) would most effectively demonstrate full compliance with C.3.6, while clearly documenting design ownership, production authorization, warranty flow-down, technical support, and protection against unauthorized alterations?

ANSWER 55:

SECTION L.7, ITEM #8 DOCUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUIREMENT FOR FORMAL EVIDENCE

REQUIRED BY NON-OEM OFFERORS.

QUESTION 56:

In regard to Volume 1 (Technical Proposal) and the Manufacturer Checklist Format (L.7 and Attachment 3), is a completed checklist format with supporting exhibits acceptable, or is free-form narrative preferred? What depth or focus areas for items #3 (innovative technology) and #7 (cleaning manual) can you provide?

ANSWER 56:

THE OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL SHALL BE FULL, ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE.

QUESTION 57:

Product Samples – Logistics, Administrative, and NFA Details (L.10)

L.10 specifies the required Initial Samples and Subsequent Phase IV samples. To ensure seamless, complaint, and low-risk submission for all Offerors, can the Government provide any additional guidance on:

a. Preferred serialization/marking scheme for the multiple samples to facilitate traceability during testing and averaging?

b. Recommended packaging, shipping, or handling instructions (beyond the Redstone Arsenal address)?

c. Process, timeline, and any return-shipping details for non-destructively tested samples provided to unsuccessful Offerors?

d. Any preferred QC documentation, inspection records, or pre-shipment certifications to accompany the samples?

e. Clarification or preferred process for coordinating Form 5 paperwork and the FBI’s ORI number?

ANSWER 57:

A. THE FBI HAS NO PREFERENCE FOR A SERIALIZATION OR MARKING SCHEME.

B. DELIVERY DETAILS CAN BE PROVIDED BY THE CO WITH THE ORI.

C. AS NOTED IN SECTION L.10, THE GOVERNMENT WILL RETURN SAMPLES TO ALL UNSUCCESSFUL

OFFERORS AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD.

D. NO.

E. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION L.10 OF THE RFP (PAGE 42), PLEASE CONTACT THE

CONTRACTING OFFICER TO REQUEST THE FBI’S ORIGINATING AGENCY IDENTIFIER (ORI)

NUMBER.

QUESTION 58:

Warranty & Support Superiority (C.4.1.20, E.2) - Beyond the stated minimums, what attributes (duration, scope including performance degradation/field repair/finish, or response times) in warranty and technical support would be viewed as significantly superior in the best-value tradeoff?

ANSWER 58:

THE EVALUATION PROCESS DETAILED IN THE SOLICITATION STAND AS WRITTEN.

QUESTION 59:

M.3.5 PHASE II, Training Suppressor Expectations (C.4.3) - Are there any additional tolerances, durability expectations (e.g., UTM/Simunition compatibility), or marking requirements beyond the “nominally same” criteria for the training suppressor?

ANSWER 59:

QUESTION 60:

Evaluated Price & Optional CLINs (Attachment 1 + M.2) - In the evaluated price calculation (average of CLINs 001/002/003) and best-value determination, would tiered/volume pricing or emphasis on optional CLINs 004–006 be considered even though not part of the average? Which optionals are most likely to be exercised?

ANSWER 60:

THE EVALUATION OF PRICE IS DETAILED IN SECTION M.3.1. THE EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

STAND AS WRITTEN.

QUESTION 61:

15% In-Scope Modification Authority (B.3) - What general categories of changes does the Government anticipate the 15% in-scope modification authority covering?

ANSWER 61:

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION B.3, THE GOVERNMENT WILL EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THIS CONTRACT BY 15% OF THE CONTRACT CEILING IS REACHED BEFORE THE END OF

THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE.

QUESTION 62:

Past Performance Neutral Rating (M.3.2) - Can the Government describe how a Neutral or Fail past performance rating is weighed in the final best-value tradeoff relative to the other factors?

ANSWER 62:

THE EVALUATION PROCESS STANDS AS WRITTEN.

QUESTION 63:

Technical Proposal & Data Sheet Preferences (L.7 + Attachments 3 and 4) - L.7 and Attachment 3 outline the required content for Volume #1. To assist all Offerors in preparing a clear, concise, and evaluator-friendly technical proposal, can the Government provide any preferred guidance on overall length, format (e.g., section organization, tabbing, font/size, electronic file requirements), or best practices for aligning the submission with the evaluation factors in Section M?

ANSWER 63:

NO.

QUESTION 64:

Phase II Advancement in Case of Tie (M.3.5) - At the conclusion of Phase II, the solicitation states that “the top four (4) scoring Products will advance to Phase III.” In the event multiple distinct products achieve identical Phase II Overall Scores that affect the cutoff for the top four, how will the Government determine advancement? Will all tied products advance, or will secondary tie-breakers or Contracting Officer discretion be applied?

ANSWER 64:

IF AFTER PHASE II EVALUATIONS ARE COMPLETE, TWO OF MORE OFFERORS ARE TIED IN THE FOURTH

PLACE, THOSE 4TH-PLACE TIED OFFERORS WILL ADVANCE TO PHASE III.

QUESTION 65:

Regarding long-term field performance in Phase III (M.3.6) - The Gunsmith Evaluation and End User Assessment include categories addressing Maintenance and Serviceability as well as Cleaning and Maintenance. Can the Government provide any additional guidance on the attributes of long-term sustainment, repairability, and field maintainability that will be most highly valued by evaluators in the overall technical and best-value determination? This would assist all Offerors in addressing these factors comprehensively.

ANSWER 65:

NO.

QUESTION 66:

Anticipated Timeline - What is the anticipated timeline for Phase notifications, first delivery orders, and overall award to support planning across all Offerors?

ANSWER 66:

THE SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS ONE (1) PHASE NOTIFICATION. SPECIFICALLY, “THE OFFEROR ADVANCING TO PHASE IV WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL.”

(RPF, PAGE 62). THE TIMING OF SUCH NOTIFICATION WILL OCCUR AT THE CONCLUSION OF PHASE III

EVALUATIONS. NO OTHER PHASE NOTIFICATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED.

THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO MAKE CONTRACT AWARD UPON COMPLETION OF THE EVALUATION.

DELIVERY ORDERS WILL BE PLACED AS THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES POST AWARD.

END OF QUESTIONS & ANSWERS