Q&A_MJU-53B.docx

Questions and Answers

FA8213-19-R-3008

MJU-53/B

20 March 2019

1. Q: In reviewing the solicitation package, I came across the FAR 15, Contracting by Negotiation DFAR requirement. Does this mean we need to submit a FAR part 15 compliant (table 15-2) proposal including certified cost and pricing data?

A: No, Certified Cost and Pricing Data (Table 15-2) is not required to be submitted with the proposal package. Certified Cost and Pricing Data may be required at the delivery order level if only one offer is received.

2. Q: The drawings went from Rev A to Rev B in this proposal package. Please confirm if these updates were made with non-impact revisions or are there in fact material changes.

A: Offerors must send a request to the CO/Buyer in order to receive the Change Notice Engineering Order (CNEO), which describes the changes between revisions. Contractors should know that although almost all changes are documented on the respective CNEO the complete drawing package is as attached to the solicitation, we are simply using the CNEO as a communication aid.

27 March 2019

3. Q: After further review of the solicitation, I do not see anywhere in this Solicitation what the award criteria is for the Base and for the first Delivery Order (will this be a % split like the specific language the USG supplied for Delivery Order Two and beyond?) How will total evaluated price (TEP) be calculated for each Order period?

A: The criteria for the Basic Award is stated in Paragraph 1.0 of Section M. Language has been added to Section L and Section M to describe the criteria for the first delivery order. The TEP calculation is explained in the revised Fair Opportunity Ordering Procedures attached to Section J.

4. Q: The solicitation calls out for CLIN 0006 as FFP “Kick-off Meeting – CDRL C001”. Do we submit a price for this CLIN or did the USG intend for it to be Not Separately Priced?

A: The price for CLIN 0006 is set at $3,000 which will be awarded as the first delivery order to meet the minimum guarantee. Offerors do not submit a price as it is already set at $3,000 so therefore it is not Not Separately Priced.

5. Q: Document Referenced: Airmunitions Specification FD2020-18-63809 & Attachment 3 Quality Requirement: Inspection, Acceptance, Quality Assurance, and Reliability Airmunitions Specification: 4. reads “Each energetic ingredient and component used in production lot(s) shall be from a single material lot.” This appears to be practically impossible, especially for the grain and ignition material compositions, because the formulation changes from lot to lot of the ingredients (magnesium’s & PTFE) due to differences in the particle size distributions. Clarification/more information is needed.

A: The phrase “Each energetic ingredient and component used in production lot(s) shall be from a single material lot” has been removed from the Airmunitions Specification, reference V2. This phrase is applicable to many other munitions programs however, as stated, is not reasonable for expendable countermeasures such as MJU-53.

6. Q: Document Referenced: Airmunitions Specification FD2020-18-63809 & Attachment 3 Quality Requirement: Inspection, Acceptance, Quality Assurance, and Reliability Airmunitions Specification: 20. Requires compliance with MIL-STD-1171 A and Attachment 3 lists MIL-STD-1171 B. This spec appears to apply only to bulk materials supplied to the DOD. Clarification is needed.

A: MIL-STD-1171B is the correct version as called out on Attachment 3, this will be corrected in the Airmunitions Specification. This specification does not perfectly explain what is required for acceptance and description sheets. Historically we have accepted original manufacturer (e.g. DuPont, Magnesium Elektron, Chemors, Luxfer, etc) Certificate of Conformance for each energetic raw material (powdered magnesium, PTFE, Copolymer) provided each CofC is signed, dated, and clearly shows country of origin (other criteria is applicable, see DI-MGMT-81978 and MIL-STD-1171B). Note that per CDRL contractor format is allowed and the formats contained within MIL-STD-1171 are not required but could be used.

7. Q: Document Referenced: Attachment 4 Ammunition Data Cards (End Item Component Listing)

c. End Item Component Listing: Listing shows Drawing Number 200530483 Pellet, Flare. Should this be Pellet, Cast?

A: Attachment 4 has been updated change from Drawing Number 200530483 Pellet, Flare to Pellet, Cast

8. Q: Attachment 4 Ammunition Data Cards (End Item Component Listing)

d. Component listing for Drawing Number 3830AS105, Slurry Holder with Ignition Composition, lists Drawing Number 3830AS107 Magnesium Powder No. 1 and Drawing Number 3830AS140 Magnesium Powder No. 3. These are not used on the Ignition Composition, only on the Ground Grain Composition Drawing Number 3830AS122. Clarification is needed.

A: Attachment 4 has been updated to incorporate finding.

9. Q: Page 2 of SPI-F01-038-5111 Rev AB Munition Notice 6 says “PALLETIZATION AND UNIT LOADS SHALL BE IAW MIL-STD-130” whereas SPI F01-38-5111 AA’s NOTE 6 stated “PALLETIZE IAW APPLICABLE ARMY DRAWING”. Using the date the solicitation (not dated in its Block No. 5) was posted to Fed Biz Ops of 13 March 2019 to determine the applicable revision of MIL-STD-130 means “D, 08 April 2014”. Its 2.2.1 states ARDEC Dwg. 19-48-75 is the “Index of U.S. Army Unitization, Storage, and Out Loadings Drawings for Ammunition and Components.” The Technical Data Package provided thus far does not contain Dwg. 19-48-78 nor is it available from the Government website that has seemingly every other 19-48 series drawing (and appendices). Please provide Dwg. 19-48-75 Therefore, please 1) provide Dwg. 19-48-75 and 2) confirm if the following drawings are those to be used for palletization and marking/bar coding thereof:

· 19-48-4116 Rev 13

· 19-48-4116/110F Rev 5

· 12982865K

· 12999545J

· ACV00561G

· ACV00831(-)

A: The SPI F01-038-5111 will be revised and the Army drawing 19-48-4116-110f will be called out for palletization when needed. In addition Notice 6 will be removed and changed to call out 19-48-4116/110f. Until the SPI is updated, offerors are encouraged to use current SPI to propose. After contract award, an approved RFV can be used to address these concerns.

10. Q: Request the Government provide an extension to the response date of 15 April 2019 2 pm local time to 15 May 2019 2 pm local time.

A: The proposal due date will be changed to 6 May 2019 2 pm local time, which is reflected in the amendment to the solicitation.

11. Q: It was noticed that the Classified Addendum went from A to “-“. Can we get a copy for our file?

A: Sent to offeror directly via classified package on 3/25/2019

12. Q: For clarification, the DD 254 indicates a requirement for COMSEC. Is COMSEC an absolute necessity?

A: Yes, COMSEC is a requirement for the MJU-53/B.