RFP - 19AQMM24R0106 QAv2 dated 03 Sep 24.pdf

VERIFICATION OF WINGARD EVALUATION AND TESTING (WET) at REDUCED SETBACKS RFP - 19AQMM24R0106 Question and Answers dated through 26 Aug 24 – Response 03 Sep 24

Question: Would DOS accept a proposal in which proposed costs are split between private and Government performers? The portions of the RFP that the private performers will do would have FFP proposed costs but the portions of the RFP that the Government performers will do would only have rough order of magnitude costs that would need to be verified following award given the short RFP submission timeline. (Implicit in this approach is that DOS would need to be able to fund Government performers directly instead of sending that funding through a private performer.) Or will DOS only accept proposals that include FFP proposed costs for the entire RFP scope of work?

Response: DOS will review and evaluate all costs and funding plans included in the offeror's proposal.

Funding other USG entities would depend upon the entity being referred to and if an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) is in place. All recommendations/options included in the offeror’s proposal will be reviewed and evaluated.

Question: What is the desired timeline for the completion of this testing?

Response: The offeror will determine the period of performance and schedules and include them min the proposal for review and evaluation.

Question: Based on parameters documented in the SOW, our team needs to finalize the estimated work to support the analytical evaluations and design/test matrix development, coordinate with suppliers for estimation on materials and fixturing setup costs and package the offer submittal per the provided instructions. As such, the offeror requests the government to extend the offer submission deadline for an additional two weeks, in which the new due date will be September 17, 2024, 01:00 pm EDT. DOS to advise.

Response: Submission for Proposals have been extended until October 03, 2024, at 1 PM, EST.

Question: Based on the scope of work stated and estimated timeframe we have computed- the offeror proposes an overall a Period of Performance between 18 and 24 months to execute the SOW. DOS to confirm the proposed period of performance is acceptable.

Response: The POP is to be proposed by the offeror and will be reviewed and considered against the entirety of the proposal, to include scheduling.

Question: For the development of the proposal, execution plan and associated costs, the offeror will assume the following parameters listed below. Modifications to these parameters could result in modifications to the proposed timeframes and budget to complete the SOW. DOS to advise if any/some of these assumed parameters are not in-line with the current process.

Response: PSD/RD is not sure of what the question is or if it is a question and not a statement. All proposals shall be reviewed and assessed against the requirements set forth in the SOW.

Question: Budget will be estimated based on operations to execute the SOW – occurring within the 2025 and 2026 calendar years. This assumes the program is awarded in Q4 of 2024 and initiated in Q1 of 2025 timeframe. DOS confirm.

Response: PSD/RD is looking to award in a phased approach (based upon the CLINs) beginning in Q1 FY25.

Question:

Assessment and Validation with the WINGARD Software Tool: o Based on the offeror’s understanding of the SOW, the offeror would like DOS to confirm that the scope of work is limited to using the current operating version of the WINGARD tool that is available to the blast consulting community to conduct the blast evaluation and design tasks within the scope parameters summarized below:

• Evaluating blast performance of FE/BBR and Blast-resistant glazing rectangular profiles with pressure and impulse loading conditions outside the validated blast loading ranges/parameters applicable to WINGARD, with deliverables that provide comparisons with the testing data and findings that can either validate the current software- as is for these new blast loading conditions and/or provide guidance recommendations, best practices and further interpretation of analytical results generated by WINGARD when dealing with these new blast loading conditions. As such, the offeror would like the government to confirm that the SOW is correctly interpreted as described and does not include modeling and/or source code enhancements to the WINGARD software tool incorporated within the scope execution and/or its deliverables.

• Response: As modeling enhancements and/or source code enhancements to the WINGARD software tool are not included in the SOW it is not a deliverable.

• Evaluating blast performance of Blast-resistant irregular triangular glazing profiles with pressure and impulse loading conditions outside the validated blast loading ranges/parameters applicable to WINGARD. This will require a Design philosophy and procedure established with DS for assessment and design procedure to develop blast-resistant glazing profile with WINGARD, and to be based on parameters and examples provided by the government to bound the glazing shapes due to limitations with the existing WINGARD software. Comparisons with the testing data and findings that can either validate the design philosophy and new blast loading conditions and/or provide guidance recommendations, best practices and further interpretation of analytical results generated by WINGARD when dealing with these bound triangular shapes and new blast loading conditions. As such, the offeror would like the government to confirm that the SOW is correctly interpreted as described and does not include modeling and/or source code enhancements to the WINGARD software tool incorporated within the scope execution and/or its deliverables.

• Response: As modeling enhancements and/or source code enhancements to the WINGARD software tool are not included in the SOW it is not a deliverable.

Question: DOS to advise on general parameters and assumptions taken for ground surface area underneath the explosive charge. Would the addition of stiff steel pad on top of the existing soil be the selected approach for this SOW?

o Based on previous test data and standard practices, does DOS have guidance to the offeror on recommended range of thickness and size for the steel plate, and associated grade- for budget assumption considerations.

Response: No, the blast pad is for the offeror to design. The offeror may also suggest/support a blast pad not being needed or practicable.

o Based on previous test data and/or common practices used by other test sites, DOS to advise on estimated blast shots should the stiff plate be expected to survive before being replaced?

Response: No, the test plan is for the offeror to develop, including the quantity of shot the blast pad will be able to resist based upon the offeror’s design. The offeror may also suggest/support a blast pad not being needed or practicable.

o DOS to advise if there is a defined criteria for when the stiff steel plate should be replaced? Response:

If a blast pad is used, the pad will be required to support and maintain the table used to support the charge at the appropriate height. If the pad begins to deform shims and/or other methods may be used to ensure a consistent table height. Further, no perforations should be allowed.

Based on SOW, there are three test matrices listed including:

o Test Matrix 1- Total of 30 Blast Tests on Rectangularly- Shaped Blast-Resistant Glazing Layup Designs, utilizing the W3 and ¼ W3 charge Weight. The Glazing Layup designs for the test specimens will need to be generated based on the performance requirements noted in the SOW.

o DOS to advise if the W3 charge weight is equivalent to the charge weight utilized to generate the High Blast Load scenario from VBIED attack.

Response: The following loadings may be assumed:

• 42 psi/298 psi-msec/14.1 msec

• 98 psi/426 psi-msec/8.7 msec

• 83 psi/251 psi-msec/6 msec

DOS to advise if 1/3 of the W3 charge is estimated simply reducing the charge size of the W3 charge as we understand it, or should we be developing a charge that mimics ¼ of the pressure/impulse output of the W3 charge?

Response: The SOW requires ¼*W3 NOT 1/3*W3. Please see the previous question.

o Test Matrix 2- Total of 9 Blast Tests on Rectangularly- Shaped FE/BBR Glazing Layup Designs, in which the charge weight will be estimated for the three layups and associated three aspect ratios. For budgeting purposes, the assumed charge weight is equivalent to the charge weight utilized to generate the High Blast Load scenario from VBIED attack. DOS to confirm. Response: Yes.

o Test Matrix 3- Total of 12 Blast Tests on Irregular Triangular- Shaped Blast-Resistant Glazing Layup Designs, utilizing the W3 and ¼ W3 charge Weight. The size of the W3 charge weight assumed for Test Matrix 1 will be adopted for Test Matrix 3. DOS to confirm.

Response: Yes.

Question:

Other Explosive material parameters:

• Explosive Material: ANFO explosive material will be proposed for the three test matrices in the SOW. Please confirm this is acceptable.

Response: Yes. TNT equivalence shall be used to meet the loading requirements. Ensure calculations adjust for altitude/elevation at the test location.

• Booster Material: DOS to advise if precast cylindrical PETN booster is acceptable for this

SOW:

Response: PSD/RD prefers C-4 boosters and is in line with previous testing. However, PSD/RD is open to recommendations contained in the proposal.

• ANFO Characterization: DOS to advise if measurement data for the fuel/oxidizer and water content of the ANFO material is required for this SOW, and associated methods, standards, and specifications to follow- if needed.

Response: Yes.

Question:

Glazing Layup Parameters: o For Test Matrix 1: Per SOW, the Glazing Layup designs for the test specimens will need to be generated based on the performance requirements noted in the SOW. The SOW, however, did not provide guidance on preliminary blast-resistant glazing layups for budgeting considerations.

Offeror requests DOS to provide prelim layup guidance, based on historical data of blast-resistant layups utilized in OBO installations or layups tested in previous programs.

Response: Per SOW, Task 1.A: “Develop glazing layups for aspect ratios, sizes, and glazing types using WINGARD software for all Rectangular and Irregular Shaped Windows.” Further, per the SOW, “the performer shall provide a presentation to DS/PSP/RD of the proposed design philosophy to be used to develop non-rectangular, blast-resistant glazing layups for approval prior to designing with WINGARD.

DS/PSD/RD can provide examples of design methodology to bound the window shapes due to the limitations existing in the WIGNARD software” (post award)

• For Test Matrix 2: Per SOW, the Glazing Layup design cost estimates will be based on the provided FE/BBR layups provided in the SOW. DOS to confirm.

Response: The assumptions for the estimate must be made by the offeror and will be reviewed in the proposal.

• For Test Matrix 3: Triangular Glazing layups will assume similar layup configurations assumed for Test

Matrix 1 for budgeting and planning purposes. DOS to confirm.

Response: Yes

• For all the glazing layups proposed for the SOW, glazing sub-framing applicable for commercial applications is excluded. The glazing layups will be procured from the vendors, delivered to the blast test site, to be mounted within rigid steel framing inserts that accommodate the bite requirements, and integrated in the front face rigid fixturing of the reaction structure. DOS to confirm.

Response: Yes

Question: For the proposed SOW, the offeror will propose a front face fixturing with our rigid reaction structure that can integrate up to two large openings with supplemental sub-framing rigid steel elements

– thus accommodating two side-by-side glazing layups within the size range and shape configurations listed in the SOW. This configuration will also require the space inside the reaction structure to be separated into two separate observation room chambers (one interior chamber per specimen), along with fit-out of the exterior and interior instrumentation needed to accommodate two-specimen testing execution with one blast shot. With this proposed fixturing and instrumentation setup, the offeror can execute the program more efficiently. DOS to confirm the approach is acceptable. Pressure Gauge Range Requirements: DOS to confirm the expected range for incident and reflected pressure gauges required for this program.

Response: The instrumentation and test plan are for the offeror to determine based on the blast loading required per the SOW.

Question:

Ground Blocks: DOS to advise if ground blocks are required for this SOW. If so, please provide parameters and number of Ground blocks required.

Response: The instrumentation and test plan are for the offeror to determine based on the blast loading required per the SOW. Ground blocks may be part of that plan.

Question:

Number of Pressure Gauges: The SOW requires a minimum of three reflected pressure sensors per sample tested. There is no requirement on incident pressure gauge readings or interior pressure gauges within the chambers. The offeror advises that the pressure gauge layout to be symmetric on each side of the explosive charge and specimen and with some redundancy in the instrumentation. As such, the offeror recommends 2 Exterior Pencil Gauges along each side of the Reaction Structure, one interior Pressure gauge within each observation.

Response: The instrumentation and test plan are for the offeror to determine based on the blast loading required per the SOW. Recommendations in the proposal will be evaluated.

Instrumentation for Specimen Blast Response: Per SOW, general statement is noted for measuring deformations of the glazing layup. Based on the offeror’s experience and historical data collected till date, it is generally recommended to utilize a combination of gauges including laser displacement gauges, accelerometers, strain gauges and interior high-speed video recording. This approach enhances the level of redundancy in the data collection and effectively monitors the dynamic deformations of the glazing layups, document potential spall/debris responses, in addition to confirming the rigidity response of the steel sub-framing inserts/rigid front face fixturing. As such, the offeror recommends the inclusion of three laser displacement gauges, two strain-gauges, one single-axis accelerometer and one interior high-speed camera per specimen setup. DOS to confirm this is acceptable.

Response: The instrumentation and test plan are for the offeror to determine based on the blast loading required per the SOW. Recommendations in the proposal will be evaluated.

Exterior High-Speed Cameras: The SOW generally notes need for high-speed camera. The offeror recommends inclusion of 2 Exterior High-Speed Cameras and 1 Drone Ariel footage per blast shot to capture the detonation event from its source to the front face with the mounted test specimen(s). The footage could also be processed to capture and/or validate blast wave parameters, as needed. DOS to confirm this is acceptable.

Response: The instrumentation and test plan are for the offeror to determine based on the blast loading required per the SOW. Recommendations in the proposal will be evaluated.

Question:

Calibration Tests: The current SOW does not include any calibration shots to capture the pressure profile with rigid steel plating mounted within the front face opening(s) to receive the glass specimens. The calibration tests will provide additional blast loading profile readings along the surface areas where glazing will be mounted (including regular and irregular opening shapes), and to calibrate/confirm close to symmetrical profile for the pressure/impulse profiles for test setups that accommodate two test specimens side by side and tested with one blast shot (the charge is centered to the fixturing setup and not the specimens). The calibration testing also confirms all instrumentation and recording being proved operational and data collection is correct and ensured. The offeror recommends a total of eight calibration shots to be included within the scope of work (the calibration test matrix will be proposed throughout the test planning), with an addition of three reflected pressure gauges with each front face opening that will receive the stiff steel cover plate. For budgeting purposes, The explosive charge weight per calibration shot will be equivalent to the charge weight utilized to generate the High Blast Load scenario from VBIED attack.

DOS to confirm if calibration testing will be incorporated in the SOW.

Response: Calibration testing is an acceptable method to prove the required blast loading can met. The instrumentation and test plan are for the offeror to determine based on the blast loading required per the SOW. Recommendations in the proposal will be evaluated.