BBU-36_-_Q Av1.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFMC)

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UTAH

17 December 2015

FROM: AFLCMC/EBHKC

SUBJECT: FA8213-16-R-3003 BBU-36A/B Solicitation Q&Av1

Q1: Normally on IDIQ's we list pricing for each year in order to anticipate inflation. Will the original L-3 spreadsheet be considered the maximum ceiling for the IDIQ, or will the successful contractor be allowed to exceed the original L-3 pricing on future delivery orders?

A1: Pricing for future orders will be established at the time of each delivery order in accordance with the Ordering Procedures. Please see CLINs 0002 and 0003.

Q2: The solicitation has contradicting quantities on the guaranteed minimums. The solicitation on page 3 states 204,000 and the L-4 letter states 311,040.

A2: The guaranteed minimum order, to each awardee for the life of the IDIQ, will be at least 204,000 impulse cartridges. While the Government may order more than the guaranteed minimum, this minimum serves as the Government’s only obligation to order from the IDIQ once it is awarded. In this case, the Government intends to place an order above the guaranteed minimum quantity on the initial Delivery Order (DO) and has defined the minimum split on the DO as 311,040 cartridges.

Q3: Why is the minimum monthly quantity (under subfactor 1) 17,000 when a full lot size is 25,920?

A3: The minimum production capacity evaluated under subfactor 1 is used for the purposes of determining the awardee. Subfactor 1 does not limit the actual orders that the Government may place after award of the basic IDIQ. Offerors are reminded that although maximum capacity is not evaluated as a technical subfactor, IAW clause 52.216-19 the Government may order up to $10,000,000 worth of impulse cartridges within a 30 day period from any awardee. Therefore, offeror’s proposals must account for the ability to expand production, if necessary, to reach these ordering levels.

Questions four through six pertain to Drawing 7730680.

Q4: Items 5, 6 and 7 on the material list contain reference to Note 13. Note 13 only pertains to powder and item 7 is not a powder. Should this Note have applied to item 8 instead of 7?

A4: Note 13 applies to the three charges. We will adjust the drawing.

Q5: Should Note 4 pertain to item 9 (o-ring) instead of item 8 (output charge)?

A5: Note 4 does pertain to the O-ring. We will adjust the drawing.

Q6: Note 13 states that charge weight may be reduced to meet performance specifications. Does this mean that the weight can be reduced from nominal to meet performance but must remain within listed tolerances or does it mean that weight can be reduced below listed tolerances? If the latter, does this mean that drawing weights and tolerances are advisory?

A6: No. Charges may be adjusted within the tolerance, but any charge weights outside the specified tolerance would require an ECP.

Questions seven through nine pertain to SP7730680D

Q7: The new performance specification for the BBU-36 requires the use of the same test fixture as the new BBU-35 specification. Have legacy BBU-36 parts been tested in this configuration to establish the performance criterion?

A7: Yes. We have done our aging and surveillance testing with this fixture for several years.

Q8: The nominal velocity requirement for the BBU-35 is 125 feet per second and the listed nominal requirement for the BBU-36 is 100 feet per second despite the BBU-36 containing substantially more energetic material than the BBU-35. Has the target value for the BBU-36 been verified as the output from a cartridge produced to nominal drawing values or is it assumed that substantial deviations from the drawing will potentially be required to meet that performance specification?

A8: The legacy testing referenced in the previous question resulted in lower velocities in known acceptable lots. Significant charge weight deviations are not expected.

Q9: For purposes of efficiency, would it be possible to modify the test fixture to allow a different mechanism of coupling the test block with the cartridge retainer other than a threaded interlocking? All other requirements (dimensions, free volume, etc) would remain per the test fixture drawings.

A9: All proposals must conform to the requirements of the TDP.

Question ten pertains to Drawing 7730663 Disk-Closure.

Q10: The remaining thickness of closure disk after scoring is newly listed as being a major characteristic. Can this be considered as advisory since it does not affect fit or profile? Its only effect would be on performance which is already verified at a later step in the process. Was testing performed to verify that any deviation outside of the specification limits for this characteristic will result in functional performance failing the specification requirements in order to justify the designation as a major characteristic?

A10: This dimension is a major as scoring too shallow can affect performance, but scoring too deep (leaving material too thin) can affect durability, especially when installing the cart into a flare with a sealed IC cup.

Question eleven pertains to Drawing 7730664 Initiation Charge.

Q11: With regards to the Viton A usage in the ignition charge, the cage code associated with the required source of supply applies to a location that does not manufacture Viton A. Viton A is manufactured by a wholly-owned subsidiary of DuPont which operates under a different cage code. Can the specific Cage Code and location be removed from the drawing?

A11: Yes, we will remove the CAGE code and location.

Question twelve pertains to 7730659 Header Assembly.

Q12: With regard to the type of glass required in the header, would it be allowable to purchase glass for the header from a vendor other than Elon as long as the glass meets the same characteristic requirements?

A12: Yes.

Questions thirteen through sixteen are general questions regarding the specification documentation in the RFP.

Q13: On Pages 12 and 13 of the Request for Proposal and in the Air Munitions Specification, the DOT Hazard Class is listed as 1.4S Class C. What does the Class C represent? Typically for hazardous materials, the ‘class’ is represented by the 1.4 and the S represents a compatibility group for that class.

A13: It is a DOT classification for transportation. It is linked to the 1.4 haz class rating.

Q14: Would you be able to provide a copy of AFMAN 24-204 – “Preparing Hazardous Materials for Military Air Shipments”?

A14: AFMAN 24-204 is publically available at www.e-publishing.af.mil

Q15: #18 of the Air Munitions Spec states that MIL-STD-1171 shall be complied with for all propellants. Since the BBU-36 drawing restricts the output propellant to a singular material from a sole-source manufacturer, what recourse do we have if said manufacturer will not provide all information required by MIL-STD-1171?

A15: AF program office will evaluate on a case by case basis. Please alert the program office if a vendor cannot or will not comply with all requirements.

Q16: Per the new set of drawings, CONAP 1831 has been replaced by PLYAKROME RED LX1903 and TOPHET A has been replaced by wire per ASTM B344, however, BBU-36 Attachment 4 references the former in each case.

A16: The new drawings take precedence over attachment 4. We will update attachment 4 to reflect the new drawings.

Any questions, comments or concerns may be directed to Capt Douglas Ahlgren at douglas.ahlgren.2@us.af.mil.

JUSTIN DALTON

Contracting Officer