Contractors_Questions3_-_with_Govt_Responses.pdf

FA8213-15-R-3003

Questions with Responses (15 - 32)

Listed below are the remaining questions submitted by Potential Offerors and the applicable Government Response.

Questions which are similar in nature have been grouped together; therefore, the Government Response may cover multiple questions.

An RFP Amendment will be issued to revise the RFP, as listed below. Two RFP Amendments may be issued - depending upon when the information for the last item below is received.

- Extend the Proposal Due Date

- Revise CLINS 0003AB and 0004AB to clarify flight test coordination.

- Add CLINs for inert RATO Rocket Motors and Initiators. These inert items will be used for calibrating launch angles for the BQM-167 drone. The specific requirement/details are being worked. Delivery will be the same as the Tyndall AFB First Article Flight Test.

All correspondence regarding this RFP FA8213-15-R-3003 must be directed only to the Contracting Officer, Maxine Sena, maxine.sena@us.af.mil.

15. Contractor Question:

In the Government’s responses to contractors’ questions, Questions with Responses (1-14), it’s stated that “CLINs 0003 and 0004 list the contractors’ CAGEs and Part Numbers which the Government has determined ‘qualified’.” Are those ‘qualified’ contractors required to verify their qualification by submitting the information required by the Justification for Qualification Requirements document at the time of proposal submittal?

Government Response:

In accordance with FAR 9.2 – Qualification Requirements, and the Justification for Qualification Requirements (JQR), the JQR information does not apply to the following:

CAGE: Part Number:

RATO Rocket Motor, NSN: 1340-01-522-6689 05606 745L407 35951 689-18000-1 70272 60490A20001

Rocket Motor Initiator, NSN: 1338-01-554-8565 54181 60490E50015 70272 60490E50015 96336 60490E50015

Any other CAGEs, designs, and/or part numbers must comply with the JQR.

16. Contractor Question:

Figure 2 of the performance specification shows a maximum diameter of 8.268” at the forward end of the RATO booster motor. This diameter does not match with the RATO forward end thread mailto:maxine.sena@us.af.mil requirements defined in performance specification Section 3.2.3 (7.5-12 UNS-2AG). Please provide a copy of the drawing for RATO Kick Plate Adapter 1G355-103 (Item 8 per Table 1 of SP201308358) to clarify the interface requirements.

Government Response:

a) 8.268-inches shown in Figure 2 is a maximum diameter. The external threads described in Section

3.2.3 are less than this maximum so are within this requirement.

b) The Government does not own the rights to the RATO Kick Plate Adapter 1G355-103 drawings.

Therefore, the Government is investigating the feasibility of making the drawings (or alternatives) available to potential offerors. As information becomes available, the appropriate FedBizOpps notification will be posted.

17. Contractor Question:

In regard to the RATO Kick Plate Adaptor 1G355-103 and Figure 2 on page 7 of the RATO performance specification:

a. Can you please confirm that the overall dimensions in Figure 2 are for the RATO motor without the Kick Plate Adapter 1G355-103 installed? In particular, the diameter of 8.268 Max is the maximum outside diameter of the RATO without the adapter installed.

b. We are unclear regarding the thread configurations for the Kick Plate Adaptor 1G355-103 and the

RATO motor, i.e. what is the gender of the threads on each part. Section 3.2.3 calls out ‘Unified

Screw Threads, Standard Series, 7.5-12UNS-2AG’, for the motor, the ‘2A’ indicating male threads.

However, Figure 2 does not show any 7.5" diameter part with those threads. Are the threads located inside the front end of the motor? If so, how much clearance is required for the Kick Plate

Adapter?

c. Is the callout entitled ‘Thrust Adapter (RATO Kick Plate Adapter 1G355-103) Interface) the Thrust

Adapter itself or the interface we are to supply? Does the arrow point to the corner, the face or the side of the RATO?

Government Response:

a. The overall dimensions in Figure 2 are for the RATO motor only. The dimensions shown provide an envelope that the RATO motor must fit within without any of the attachment kit installed.

b. The threads defined in SP201308358 Rev C Paragraph 3.2.3 are for external threads on the RATO forward end. The thrust adapter has internal threads that interface with these RATO forward end threads. Figure 2 shows an envelope that the RATO motor only (without the thrust adapter) must fit within. The external thread diameter fits within the envelope defined by Figure 2 and is not shown. RATO motor components must not extend forward of the threaded region since this area will have the thrust adapter installed external to these threads. As stated in SP201308358

Rev C Paragraph 3.2.3 the length of this threaded region is 1.005 inches including undercut as measured from the forward end shown in Figure 2.

c. The intent of the arrow was to show that the interface is within the envelope shown in Figure 2, not the actual interface. The interface that you are to supply is the external threads defined in

SP201308358 Rev C Paragraph 3.2.3.

18. Contractor Question:

It has been interpreted that to support NNMSB certification, the list of data requirements in Section

4.3.1 is required to be submitted to the USAF. Please confirm submission of the data is required to the USAF and not another body of the US Government.

Government Response:

The preliminary data should be submitted as part of First Article Qualification Test Plan and Procedures (CDRL B002) via WAWF. The finalized data is should be submitted as part of the Test/Inspection Report (CDRL B001) via WAWF.

19. Contractor Question:

Are all HERO environments specified in MIL-STD-464C required to be assessed against or is there a specific list of HERO environments applicable for the RATO booster motor?

Government Response:

The applicable MIL-STD-464C requirements are Paragraph 5.9.3 Hazards of electromagnetic radiation to ordnance (HERO), which references Tables 9 and 10. All of Table 9 and Table 10 are required (except for ‘ship launched ordnance’ requirements).

20. Contractor Question:

Please confirm if a HERO SUSCEPTABLE or HERO UNSAFE classification would be acceptable for deviation request based on the intended service use and deployment of the RATO booster motor. It has been interpreted that HERO SUSCEPTABLE or HERO UNSAFE classifications may be given consideration based on the wording of paragraph 4.3.2 of the performance specification.

Government Response:

The only acceptable classification is ‘HERO SAFE ORDNANCE.’ The applicable requirement from SP201308353C is Paragraph 3.4.2 Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO).

21. Contractor Question:

Per paragraph 4.3.2 of the performance specification, HERO test plans, test reports, and recommended HERO classifications are to be submitted:

a. Are these items to be submitted as a part of the proposal, or as deliverables under the contract?

b. Are HERO test and/or analysis activities required to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 4.3.2 to be included in the proposal for qualification of the RATO booster motor?

c. As the requirements of FAI 91-208 apply at a system level, what is the system configuration subject to HERO testing?

Government Response:

a. These items specified in SP201308353C Paragraph 4.3.2 should be submitted as contract deliverables as part of the First Article Qualification Test Plan and Procedures (CDRL B002) and Test/Inspection Report (CDRL B001).

b. The RFP does not require submission of HERO test/analysis with the offeror’s proposal.

c. The system configuration is the BQM-167A RATO rocket motor and initiator system.

22. Contractor Question:

Performance Specification SP201308358 Rev C, section 3.2.5 requires the RATO design shall meet critical loads and environments. What are the required loads and environments the design needs to meet?

Government Response:

Critical loads and environments are driven by contractor design solutions. Government requirements are contained in the Performance Specification.

23. Contractor Question:

Performance Specification SP201308358 Rev C, section 4.1.2 states that a delta FAAT is required for a previously qualified production facility that has had a break in production of 180 days or more. Is the 180 days measured from propellant mix to propellant mix or from the end of one contract until signing the next contract?

Government Response:

The 180 day break in production is defined as the time between the production completion of one motor and the production start on another motor.

24. Contractor Question:

Our interpretation of performance specification SP201308358 Rev. C, dated September 30, 2014 requirements 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.4 is as follows:

3.3.1 Nominal thrust will be based on motor burn time.

3.3.2 Action time average thrust will be applied for a minimum of 2.4 seconds such that action time average thrust x action time meets the total impulse limits of section 3.3.3.

3.3.4 Ignition delay will be calculated as the time from fire switch (T=0) until 90% of ignition maximum thrust is achieved.

Is our interpretation correct?

3.3.1 Nominal thrust is based on the action time not on motor burn time. See SP201308358C 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

3.3.2 Action time is based on contractor solution to meet SP201308358C 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3 and 3.3.4.

3.3.4 Ignition delay will be within 0.25 seconds as stated in SP201308358C 3.3.4.

25. Contractor Question:

To maintain a standard Cpk of 1.33 and current RATO product performance description, Paragraph 3.3.3 of performance specification SP201308358 Rev. C should be revised as follows:

+65F 21,010 lbf-sec should be 20,950 lbf-sec for Cpk=1.33 -40F 21,520 lbf-sec should be 21,710 lbf-sec for Cpk=1.33

Will the Performance Specification be revised to reflect these values?

26. Contractor Question:

To maintain a standard Cpk of 1.33 and current RATO product performance description, Paragraph 3.3.1 of performance specification SP201308358 Rev. C should be revised from a maximum thrust of 12000 lbf to 12470 lbf:

Will the Performance Specification be revised to reflect these values?

The proposed thrust change to 12,470 lbf would exceed SP201308358 Rev C. and may have an impact on the attachment hardware and on the BQM-167 Drone.

As the Government does not have sufficient data to support revising the Performance Specification, no changes will be made.

27. Contractor Question:

Please define “flight test coordination” as stated in CLIN 3, Item 0003AB?

28. Contractor Question:

Lines 0003AB and 004AB state, "Contractor is responsible for flight test coordination with Tyndall AFB and AFLCMC/EBHC.'' Please clarify what is meant by coordination and what aspects, if any, of the government flight test will an offering be responsible for?

Government Response:

RATO Program office will facilitate coordination of flight test between contractor and Tyndall AFB.

Contractor will need to notify RATO program office 60 days prior to desired flight test window to allow adequate time for coordination. An RFP Amendment will be issued to update the CLINs 0003AB and 0004AB statements.

29. Contractor Question:

A non-expiring Classification of Explosives, Reference Number EX2014060127, exists for the RATO Rocket Motor; NSN: 1340-01-522-6689, which we believe will eliminate the requirement for RFP CLINs 0026 and 0027. If CLINs 0026 for Interim Hazard Class and 0027 for Final Hazard Class are priced “NSP” or $0 will the offer be considered non-responsive? Additionally, since a Classification of Explosives for the RATO Rocket Motor exists, are an Interim Hazard Class and/or a Final Hazard Class effort required?

Government Response:

The offeror will not be considered ‘non-responsive’ if the RFP CLINs (0026 and 0027) price contains ‘$0.00’ or ‘NSP’. A CLIN with a ‘blank’ price will be considered as ‘non-responsive’.

Regarding Interim Hazard Classification and Final Hazard Classification, any changes to the current design of NSN 1340-01-522-6689 and NSN 1138-01-554-8565 that would change or bring into question the present certifications would necessitate submission of an interim and final hazard classification.

30. Contractor Question:

Both CDRLs B003 and B004 require submission of a Hazard Classification Report (Interim for B003 and Final for B004). Please clarify what data is required for these reports.

Government Response:

Hazard Classification submittal should be in accordance with the DID (DI-SAFT-81299B) referenced on both CDRL B003 and B004, and the Airmunition Specification, paragraphs 13 and 14.

31. Contractor Question:

Is it the Government’s intention for the current RATO rocket motor design to be changed for any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation to meet the new/updated requirements of Rev. C contained in the Performance Specification?

Government Response:

Any RATO Rocket Motor, delivered as a result of RFP FA8213-15-R-3003, must comply with Performance Specifications, Rev C, (30 Sep 2014) requirements.

32. Contractor Question:

Can the Government provide a 10-year forecast for how many BQM-167 RATO booster motors could be required? We understand this would be a forecast and not a firm commitment by the Government to procure the forecasted quantity.

Government Response:

Future requirements are based on Government inventory levels, customers’ needs, and budget funding.

Historically, approximately 150 BQM-167 with RATO rocket motors are launched per year. The Government anticipates some slight fluctuation to this amount.