Helmets_RFP_FA8003-19-R-A007_Questions_and_Answers_Round_2.pdf

RFP FA8003-19-R-A007

Questions & Answers Round 2

Next Gen Ballistic Helmets Request for Proposal (RFP) FA8003-19-R-A007

Questions & Answers (Q&As) Round 2 / 29 Aug 2019

1. Question: The RFP Attachment 1: Salient Characteristics #6A requires the following:

Feature a dial retention system and a single action quick release capability utilizing high strength materials that are resistant to weather and perspiration degradation. (a) The retention system must be boltless (i.e. not have its own bolts) in order to reduce the size and quantity of holes in the ballistic shell.

On June 25, 2019, we requested a similar clarification when we provided information pursuant to the RFI posted by the Air Force. In that correspondence we received the following response:

“After speaking with my PM, I can clarify the boltless question a bit more. The Government understands that bolts are necessary in order to assure that various components can be attached to the helmet, but in order to minimize bolts as effectively as possible, we are requiring that the chinstrap not be attached to the helmet via a bolting system.”

Can you explain or provide an answer why the Government understands that bolts are required, but not with respect to the chinstrap?

Answer: The only requirement regarding the chinstrap is that it have a locking mechanism, per item #6.b. at RFP Attachment 1, Salient Characteristics (Tech Subfactor 1) Update 1. The boltless issue has to do with the retention system, per item #6.a. at RFP Attachment 1. This question was also addressed during the market research phase as part of the Questions and Answers (Q&As) posted following the Request for Information (RFI), in which the Air Force’s response was: “There is no requirement for a “boltless helmet.” The retention system is required to not have its own bolts. The spirit of this requirement is to ensure that there are as few bolts as possible because the bolts degrade the local structure integrity of the helmet at the bolt location(s).”

2. Question: Why is the boltless system a salient characteristic when the Government on August 23, 2019, lowered the safety spec to Level II?

Answer: After further research, it was determined that the helmet should meet industry standards (Level IIIA). Item #1 in RFP Attachment 1 Update #2 (via RFP Amendment 0003) has been updated to reflect NIJ Level IIIA instead of Level II. Additionally, NIJ STD

0108.01 has been re-added (was part of the initial RFP Attachment 1) and AR-PD 10-02 has been added to item #1 since all three of these references are tied together in terms of ballistic protection and blunt impact protection.

3. Question: What test or data has the Government collected indicating a boltless system has more ballistic capability or integrity in comparison to a bolted suspension system?

Answer: The U.S. Army has done extensive research into ballistic helmets and the effects of adding additional holes into the ballistic material. Additionally, it is commonly accepted knowledge that the more any material is drilled through or altered (via holes), the more it is degraded.

4. Question: How many bolts in the helmet is the Government seeking? Is there a specific number? Why does it make a difference in the integrity of the shell as to the location of the bolts in the helmet?

Answer: The Air Force is not seeking a specific number of bolts/holes. Per the salient characteristics, the only mention of bolts is in item #6.a. which states that the retention system must be boltless. As stated previously, drilling into the helmet will degrade the overall ballistic protection.

5. Question: Currently, only one ballistic helmet on the AUL can eliminate all holes and bolts from the helmet which would exceed the salient technical objective in 6.A (to reduce the size and quantity of holes in the ballistic shell). This helmet has no drill through holes and is 100% boltless. However, this helmet is manufactured by a large business. All the other ballistic helmets have either 7 or 9 holes to accommodate accessory rails and a night vision goggle shroud. Will the USAF remove the set aside small business requirement and make the solicitation full and open to allow this helmet to be evaluated? If not, will the USAF waive the non-manufacturer rules IAW FAR 19.102(f) and 19.502-2(c) to allow this helmet to be evaluated?

Answer: Regarding the AUL, helmets not currently on the Approved for Use List (AUL) may be proposed and evaluated for this effort. Please see RFP Amendment 0001 which was released on 21 Aug 2019. The RFP now allows for the parachute evaluation (required in order to be recommended for approval to be added to the AUL) to be done after contract award, if the successful Offeror’s helmet is not already on the current AUL or has not been evaluated/recommended for approval to be added to the AUL.

Regarding the number of bolts/holes, please see the responses to Questions #1 and #4 above.

Based on market research conducted for this effort, there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns offering the products of different small business concerns in accordance with FAR 19.502-2(b) and (c);

therefore, the Contracting Officer cannot justify not setting aside this acquisition as a total small business set-aside.

6. Question: Salient Characteristic #7 has been changed. What is the Government’s definition of “built-in?” Does it not include through bolts? Is a “built-in” NVG shroud now a requirement?

Answer: The helmet must come with the NVG shroud already attached. The NVG shroud can be built-in or attached via through bolts. Item #7 in RFP Attachment 1 has been updated (via RFP Amendment 0003) to clarify that the NVG shroud can be built-in or attached via through bolts.

7. Question: Does the USAF realize that by changing Salient Characteristic #1 to, “Meet or exceed National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Level II ballistic protection in accordance with NIJ STD 0106.01” you have reduced the ballistic requirement below to 200ft/sec, less than the standard Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) specification and industry standard Level IIIA threat levels? Common industry practice is to test to NIJ STD 0106.01 to the IIIA threat level referenced in NIJ STD 0108.01, which is in line with AR-PD 10-02. Will the Government revise this characteristic to Level IIIA to be in alignment with the ACH Helmet standard

(AR-PD 10-02)?

Answer: Please see response to Question #2 above.

8. Question: In question 5 [on the first round of Questions and Answers], does the Air Force realize that back face deformation as the result of blunt impact is not the same as ballistic hit back face deformation? Will the USAF consider a ballistic hit back face deformation requirement not to exceed 1.0-inch (25.4 mm) that is in alignment with the ACH Helmet standard (AR/PD 10-02)?

Answer: As it relates to blunt impact, the helmet must meet or exceed ACH helmet standards (AR-PD 10-02). Item #1 in RFP Attachment 1 has been updated (via RFP Amendment 0003) to add AR-PD 10-02.

9. Question: Please tell me if you can the state way the Air Force will make payment for these helmets each year and would they want a certain quantity each month or 8,100 units up front.

I could not find method of payment on the bid.

Answer: Regarding payment, please refer to the following clauses included in the RFP in the “Provisions and Clauses” section: FAR Clause 52.212-4(g), FAR Clause 52.232-33, and DFARS 252.232-7006. Regarding the estimated quantity of 8,100 helmets per year, as stated in the RFP on page 3 under the “Delivery/Shipping/FOB Point/Acceptance” section, the helmets will be shipped/delivered directly to SF Squadrons at various CONUS/OCONUS Air Force Bases and the addresses (and corresponding quantity of helmets to be sent to each location) will be identified on the delivery orders. Additionally, on page 8 of the RFP under the “Offeror Information” section, the Offeror is to indicate their estimated delivery, e.g. 500 helmets per month, 2,000 helmets per month, etc.

10. Question: Also our manufacturer is not a small business. Will this negate our bid automatically.

Answer: Please refer to the RFP’s Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-1 Section II.1.b. and Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-2 Section I.C.1. Specifically, the Addendum to FAR

Provision 52.212-2 Section I.C.1.i. states that, “Offerors who propose a helmet manufactured by a large business will be determined not to be in compliance with the non-manufacturer rule and their proposal will not be evaluated further than Step 1.”

11. Question: Can the sample be black in color for the submission with the technical?

Answer: Per item #9 in RFP Attachment 1, the helmet submitted with the bid sample must be in the color Coyote Brown or Tan with helmet covers available in Tactical Black and Operational Camouflage Pattern.