BASS Question and Answers Amd 0002.pdf

BLAST ATTRIBUTE SENSITIVITY STUDY (BASS)

Solicitation #19AQMM24R0230

Amendment 0002 Question and Answers

1. Would the Department of State consider lowering the explosive weight to 500 pounds for each of these shots and adjusting the standoff accordingly? Our modeling shows the blast effects would be similar and scalable while reducing testing costs. Response: No. The SOW is clear about the requirements.

2. The revised Addendum 1 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors references WINGARD in Section 4, Subfactor 1, Item (b). WINGARD is not found in the SOW, and this appears to be a reference to the WINGARD Evaluation Testing Solicitation 19AQMM24R0106 that is also currently open. Can you please clarify this requirement? Response: The BASS SOW does not require WINGARD.

3. The SF1449 provided for this solicitation list a document on page 3 under heading “Section A- Solicitation/Contract Form” entitled AQS 19AQMM24R0230. However, this document was not provided with the solicitation. Will this document be provided post-award, or provided with solicitation? Response: The document titled ‘AQS 19AQMM24R0230.pdf’ refers to the solicitation/SF1449 document, pages 1 through 28.

4. The SOW and supporting documents are missing sufficient detail on the “reaction structure” for the test. There is discussion of past tests with implying that other contractors proposing for this work have a suitable ‘reaction structure’ already existing. We have capability and expertise to design a blast surviving structure at the standoff, but the requirements are not fully defined.

Can you please assist with any additional references or test requirements? Response: No additional information will be provided at this time. The bidder is to determine the quantity of testing, charge/material types, and charge sizes while also meeting the requirements for instrumentation, clearing effects, being as elastic (not moving under loading) to the loading as possible.

5. We will not be able to finalize a bid by Oct 3. Will there be a submission date extension?

Response: The solicitation has been extended to October 11, 2024, at 2 PM.

6. We have connections with a range in Australia and there is a possibility that we could perform the BASS testing there for a fraction of the cost we could perform this testing in the United States. Would the Department of State consider this option? Response: Yes. All recommendations contained in the proposal will be reviewed and evaluated.

7. Can the Offeror conduct the testing and analysis outside of the US (in a Five Eyes nation)?

Response: All recommendations included in the offeror's proposal will be reviewed and evaluated.

8. The SoW specifies a 60ft stand-off for the reaction structure, can we propose other stand-off distances in addition to the 60ft? Would you want this presented as an option? Response: All recommendations included in the offeror's proposal will be reviewed and evaluated.

9. Do you have an ETA on the responses for BASS and WET? Can you also confirm that you plan on extending the deadline by a minimum of (5) days per the attached email? Response: The solicitation has been extended to October 11, 2024, at 2 PM.

10. What type of sand/soil is desired? Response: Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal. This should include recommendations for surface geotech conditions that allow for repeatability and consistency from test-to-test and consider the material/refilling of post-test cratering as well as any compaction required. The consistency of the fill and compaction from test-to-test is of great importance so that it does not become a variable in the loading/data collection.

11. Does DOS have a desired density/moisture content of the sand/soil? If not addressed, this will be one of the biggest variables in the test. We advise using ASTM D6938-17 Standard Test Methods for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods. Response: Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal for review and evaluation.

12. Based on the SOW, there is mention of taking four measurements of the fuel/oxidizer and water content of the ANFO on the day of testing, the first and last test of each series. Later, within the content of the SOW document, it sounds like each charge is to be tested. DOS, please confirm which approach the offeror should select in compliance with the SOW: four samples tested or all. Response: Only four (4) measurements are required, the first and last of each test series.

13. DOS to advise if there are specific methods and/or referenced test standards to follow for the fuel/oxidizer measurements. Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal.

14. DOS to advise if there are requirements/specifications for the test kits. Response: Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal for review and evaluation.

15. Cast TNT Configuration: Within the SOW, there are several mentions of stacked cast TNT blocks to be set up in a hemisphere shape within Tasks 2 and 4 and then later in a cylindrical configuration as part of the test series within Tasks 3 and 5. The offeror proposes to procure and use homogenous 1000 lb. cast hemispherical and cylindrical shape charge quantities noted in the SOW for quality assurance, ease, and consistency and to avoid poor contact and interspersed voids throughout the charge. DOS to advise and confirm.

Response: Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal for review and evaluation.

16. Booster Material: DOS to clarify the reason for requiring spherical C4 charges as a booster material as opposed to precast cylindrical PETN boosters? Would this alternative booster material be acceptable for testing per SOW? Response: Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal for review and evaluation.

17. Number of Pressure Gauges: The SOW requires 9 Pencil Gauges, 2 Ground Blocks, and 20

Reflected Pressure Gauges. The offeror advises that the pressure gauge layout should be symmetric on each side of the explosive charge and have some redundancy in the instrumentation. As such, the offeror recommends 12 Pencil Gauges, 2 Ground Blocks (if required), and 24 Reflected Pressure Gauges. DOS to confirm. Response: Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal for review and evaluation.

18. Use of Accelerometers: Per SOW, two single-axis accelerometers are proposed by DOS

(one attached to the back of the test front and one attached to the test structure) to monitor the dynamic response of the structure to the blast loading and confirm the fixturing rigidity per the SOW and associated SOP requirements. Based on the offeror experience and historical data collected to date, it is generally recommended to utilize laser displacement gauges to effectively monitor the limited deformations of the rigid reaction structure and/or rigid test front plate/elements. Would the inclusion of laser displacement gauges preclude using the two accelerometers called out in the SOW, or are they required for other measurements, such as vibration? Response: Offeror is to provide any recommendations in their proposal for review and evaluation.

19. The SF1449 does not appear to be formatted/have enough room to allow for options (I.E., 1I) in the SOW to be input, let alone additional options. DOS to advise offeror on best path forward. Response: The Offeror can provide any recommendations (to include potential options in their proposal response).

End of Amendment 0002