Questions and Answers.docx

Questions and Answers

Question:

Could you please clarify the basis for structuring the solicitation in this manner? Specifically, we would appreciate understanding whether the requirement is intended to be brand-specific and, if so, whether the Government has determined that no other comparable products can satisfy its needs.

Answer:

Disregard anything that says "BATT-X" references. It should have been listed as generic Ballistic Armored Response Vehicles (BARVs). Bottom line, we're not looking for a specific manufacturer/product, we're interested in all platforms that would qualify as BARVs and are similar to BATT-Xs.

Question:

Please clarify whether “BATT-X” is being referenced as the Government’s existing platform for descriptive purposes only, or whether the Government intends this procurement to be limited to the BATT-X make/model.

Answer: Disregard anything that says "BATT-X" references. It should have been listed as generic Ballistic Armored Response Vehicles (BARVs). Bottom line, we're not looking for a specific manufacturer/product, we're interested in all platforms that would qualify as BARVs and are similar to BATT-Xs.

Question:

Please also confirm whether the Government will consider alternate commercially available Ballistic Armored Response Vehicle (BARV) platforms from other manufacturers, provided the proposed vehicle meets or exceeds all stated salient characteristics, ballistic protection requirements, performance specifications, and operational capabilities identified within the RFQ and Attachment A.

Answer:

Bottom line, we're not looking for a specific manufacturer/product, we're interested in all platforms that would qualify as BARVs and are similar to BATT-Xs.

If alternate makes/models will be considered, please confirm that evaluation will be based on demonstrated compliance with the stated technical and performance requirements rather than manufacturer or platform name alone.

Answer:

Yes, evaluation will be based on technical and performance requirements.

More questions:

Question:

Please clarify whether “BATT-X” is being referenced as the Government’s existing platform for descriptive purposes only, or whether the Government intends this procurement to be limited to the BATT-X make/model.

Please also confirm whether the Government will consider alternate commercially available Ballistic Armored Response Vehicle (BARV) platforms from other manufacturers, provided the proposed vehicle meets or exceeds all stated salient characteristics, ballistic protection requirements, performance specifications, and operational capabilities identified within the RFQ and Attachment A.

If alternate makes/models will be considered, please confirm that evaluation will be based on demonstrated compliance with the stated technical and performance requirements rather than manufacturer or platform name alone.

Answer:

CBP currently has BATT-X units, all references to "BATT-X" in the RFQ should be treated as "BARV", we're not looking for a specific manufacturer/product as long as the stated technical and performance requirements listed are met, we're interested in all platforms that would qualify as BARVs and are similar to BATT-Xs.

Question:

The RFQ states that vehicles “not already in production will not be considered.”

Please clarify the Government’s definition of “currently in production,” including whether this requirement may be satisfied through:

1. active serial production

1. prior production history

1. currently available commercial offerings

1. previously delivered units to government customers

1. or other criteria Please also clarify whether modifications to an existing production platform would be considered acceptable.

Answer: Clarification: CBP will consider any BARV with production history and prior delivery history to federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies/departments. BARVs should have undergone testing and must meet all the stated technical and performance requirements listed. "Prototype" or "Concept" vehicles will not be considered.

Question:

The RFQ states that vendors “must be able to provide documentation of past sales of BARVs.”

Please clarify whether the Government has a minimum prior sales threshold, minimum fleet size, or minimum government end-user requirement for determining technical acceptability.

Answer:

No minimum threshold/fleet size, as long as there's prior production and sales/delivery history of the BARV.

Question:

Please confirm whether functionally equivalent vehicle features, equipment configurations, and armor system designs will be considered acceptable where they meet or exceed the operational intent and performance requirements identified in Attachment A.

Answer:

Yes, they will be considered acceptable as long as requirements are met.

Question:

Please clarify the Government’s intended evaluation methodology for this procurement, including whether award will be based on:

1. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

1. best value tradeoff

1. or another evaluation approach Please also clarify whether technical compliance will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis or through comparative evaluation criteria.

Answer:

I.1 Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) (as long as all requirements are met) – See attached revised SECTION - GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION (OCT 2008), c(1).

Question:

The RFQ requires the vehicle to withstand “a blast from a DM51 Grenade and a blast from a DM31.”

Please clarify:

1. required standoff distance

1. detonation location

1. acceptable damage criteria

1. occupant survivability criteria

1. the testing or certification standard the Government intends to use for evaluating compliance with these blast requirements

Answer:

Detonated under driver/passenger floorboards and near gas tanks/rear passengers' floorboard at 0-meter standoff distance. Zero cabin perforation, zero primary spall (no internal shrapnel), Doors / hatch must remain shut after blast wave. Survivability: Blast wave should remain below the threshold that ruptures eardrums/causes lung trauma, low probability of spine compression/damage, floorboard deformation cannot cause lower limb bone shattering or inability to walk.

Question:

The RFQ references “Department of State Armor Level E” in conjunction with B7/NIJ IV and “.50 caliber multi-hit” requirements.

Please clarify the specific ballistic standard, testing protocol, and threat matrix the Government intends offerors to use in demonstrating compliance with the referenced “Department of State Armor Level E” requirement.

Please also identify whether the Government intends equivalency to be demonstrated through NIJ, UL 752, VPAM, STANAG, MIL-DTL-46100, or another recognized ballistic testing standard.

Answer:

Full mitigation of armor-piercing .30-06 and 7.62 (no penetration) required, in addition to multi-hit, minimum 3 rounds of .50Cal BMG (M2 AP and M33 Ball) rounds (no penetration).

Testing .50cal: Shot at 15 meters from panel - 2800 ft/s (+ or - 50ft/s) at time of impact. Shot at 90 degree/perpendicular angle to armor.

Question:

The RFQ states that the vehicle armor must include “Mil Spec Steel A46100 armor to exceed B7/NIJ IV and .50 caliber multi-hit.”

Please clarify whether A46100 steel is being identified as a mandatory armor material, or whether offerors may propose alternate armor systems that meet or exceed the required ballistic protection performance.

Please also clarify the Government’s intended ballistic testing and certification standard for the stated “.50 caliber multi-hit” requirement, including whether the requirement is intended to align with UL 752 Level 10, NIJ, VPAM, STANAG, MIL-DTL-46100, or another recognized testing standard.

Answer: Offerors may propose alternate armor systems that meet or exceed A46100 ballistic protection. The .50cal multi hit requirement is intended to align with DOS Armor Level E protocol, similar to STANAG 5469 lvl 4.

Because ballistic performance against armor-piercing threats can vary significantly depending on steel hardness & thickness tolerances, armor design, shot spacing, impact angle, and repeated-hit testing conditions, clarification of the Government’s intended performance standard would assist offerors in proposing compliant systems and ensuring consistent technical evaluation across vendors, in addition, please clarify.

Question: The specific .50 caliber threat round required for compliance (e.g., M33 Ball, M2 AP, API, etc.).

Answer: Listed above (M2 AP and M33 Ball).

Question: Projectile velocity requirements Answer: Approx. 2800 ft/s at time of impact (+ or - 50 ft/s) Question: Shot spacing requirements Answer: .50cal Opaque panels (triangle 3-shot clusters at 120mm apart each round), Glass (single shots at 300-400mm apart).

Question: angle of impact/obliquity Answer: 0-degree obliquity, Perpendicular to panel/90 degrees Question: acceptable spall or backface deformation criteria Answer: Not acceptable - zero penetration or spalling/fragmentation Question: the number of impacts required to satisfy the “multi-hit” requirement Answer: 10 on each type of panel for .50cal, 3-shot triangle on opaque 120mm spacing, 300-400m spacing on glass/transparent armor.

Question:

Please also confirm whether independently tested armor systems utilizing alternate steel configurations or armor designs that meet or exceed the required protection performance will be considered acceptable.

Answer:

Yes

Please clarify: The RFQ requires the vehicle to withstand “an impact from a 20mm fragment projectile against steel (two shots).”

1. the fragment type and mass

1. required impact velocity

1. shot spacing

1. angle of impact

1. the applicable ballistic or fragmentation testing standard associated with this requirement

1. Answer: 20mm Fragment Requirement. 2 fragment steel projectiles of about 830gr, at 3150 ft/s at time of impact, spaced 150mm apart, no penetration.