QA for HAARP.docx

1. Is the table of contents included in the page count?

they are excluded.

1. Are there specific CAD standards for the drawings?

No, just normal practice

1. Quicklook report: one for each barrier tested?

yes

1. Final Report: Will there be one report for Phase I and then a Final Report incorporating both Phase 1 and 2.

The information Final report for Phase 1 would not need to be re-written for phase 2. They can be separate and Phase 2 can reference Phase 1.

1. The RFP lists an Engineering Services NAICS. Are other NAICS categories allowed to apply? I would allow it, up to CO

1. For the 2000 lbs NEW TNT charge, are substitutions for explosive material allowed? Is there a preference for higher vs lower TNT equivalent, i.e. C4 vs ANFO. Yes you can use ANFO

1. Do specific test sites need to be identified, or will general area topography work? If you have a specific site in mind to do the testing please list it. We want a definitive elocution identified where the testing will occur

1. With the short submission time, is it possible to get the submittal date pushed back? Yes 1 week

Blast testing SPO: Can you provide the blast testing SPO for DS/PSP/PSD?

• Physical Security Handbook: Can you provide the Physical Security Handbook (“Red Book”)? It should be in the appendix I believe I was an attachment but I will ask Dan Duke to send in a reply to this email.

• Explosive charge: Is the test charge required to be TNT, or would an ANFO charge with a 2,000-lb TNT-equivalent yield be an acceptable surrogate? Yes you can use ANFO

• Blast pressure measurements: Is there interest in measuring blast pressure in addition to the debris hazards, or should the testing focus solely on debris? We believe blast pressure represents an important component of the overall hazard and recommend including pressure gauges in the test program. Main focus is debris, we already have free field data on blast.

• Phase 2 pricing: Does the proposal need to include detailed pricing for Phase 2? Developing a reliable Phase 2 cost estimate may be difficult at this stage, as the scope and testing requirements will be better understood during and following Phase 1. Richard you may know better but I believe we need prices to compare acceptable bids against.

• Debris hazard metric: The SOW indicates that Phase 1 will rank systems based on the “level of hazardous debris produced,” but it does not explicitly define the hazard metric—for example, kinetic energy, momentum, areal density/flux, probability of impact, or some combination of these. What metric is envisioned for this ranking? We can characterize the debris field in terms of fragment mass, velocity, count, and spatial distribution around the barrier system. Would that level of characterization be sufficient? We want to measure the debris field in terms of fragment mass, velocity, count, and spatial distribution around the barrier system.

• Test lengths / number of tests: Should we provide a cost option for each base and optional test sample at each specified test length, or are we encouraged to propose approaches that reduce the number of tests and/or identify the most informative test lengths? For example, we believe simulation may demonstrate that only one or two representative lengths are necessary to adequately characterize variability in the debris field, potentially reducing the number of walls that must be constructed and tested. The RFP is set up to allow the vendor to determine if they can characterize two wall/fences debris fields in one test if they believe it will reduce costs and time. The goal is to get all the date as efficiently as possible. The RFP was for live testing and we had not considered doing some live testing then using that data to make a simulation. Of allows by the CO then please provide a quote for the live testing requested and an alternative price for the simulation.

• Proposal extension: Would it be possible to receive a one-week extension to the proposal submission deadline? Yes I would support.