Contractor Feedback and Governemnt Response (002).docx

RATO Draft RFP Contractor Feedback and Government Responses:

Contractor Question #1:

How Many days from ATP would a first article be required? In other words, what is the timeline for development and qualification of the motor solution?

Government Response #1:

Per CLIN 1001 through 1006, 30 days post award First Article Test Plan and 548 calendar days submit First Article test report (See First Article and CDRL’s for respective timelines to completion)

Contractor Question #2:

How should (contractor) include development and qualification pricing in the included pricing matrix? Is the USG willing to fund the development and qualification program for these RATO Motors?

Government Response #2:

Only flight certification effort will be funded by the USG.

Contractor Question #3:

It is listed that potential offeror will incur unique an estimated $5M of testing and evaluation costs (Attach 14, Paragraph 6). To clarify, are these costs related to and in service of qualifying the motor solution for the BQM-167A? Or are these independent costs incurred solely to become a qualified offeror?

· Must the qualification requirements that must be satisfied to become a qualified source required prior to contract award? Yes, contractor must meet all requirements of the JQR and must be determined qualified by the USG prior to contract award in order to considered for award, Or is this an ongoing process that can be satisfied once a contract is awarded? No, contractor must be qualified by time of award. If contractor is not qualified by the time the Gov is ready to award, the non-qualified contractor will not be considered for award.

· Is supplier qualification required to be considered for an RFP bid? No, however an offeror must be qualified in order to be awarded

· Will the supplier qualification process include on-site inspections? No Government Response #3:

Contractor Question #4:

Are there any requirements for ignition train? Interlocks, arming/safing, environment sensing, MIL-STD-1901A, etc?

Government Response #4:

The performance requirements are those in the attached SP201308358D and its referenced documents.

Contractor Question #5:

Are detailed drawings available for the RATO Attachment Kit? Is this assumed to be CFM/GFM?

Government Response #5:

The attachment kit is procured separately and is not part of this effort, and will not be provided as CFM/GFM. Drawing may be available upon request.

Contractor Question #6:

If a RATO motor design was previously qualified per the First Article Acceptance Test (FAAT) requirements defined in Performance Specification SP201308357 Rev. D Section 4, is a repeat of FAAT required? Or, are the Delta FAAT requirements per Section 4.1.2 sufficient?

Government Response #6:

The USG is willing to consider waiving FAAT requirements in section 4 of SP201308358D upon contractor request. This will be done through the RFV CDRL.

Contractor Question #7:

If a Delta FAAT is acceptable, confirmation of Delta FAAT requirements is necessary. Per Section 4.1.2 of SP201308357 Rev. D, Delta FAAT requirements are noted to be tests per Table 2. The only omitted tests compared to FAAT of Section 4.1.1 is flight testing (Section 4.2.8). Is this the desired Delta FAAT? Additional comments regarding Delta FAAT are provided in subsequent questions 8, 9, and 10.

Government Response #7:

The USG is willing to consider waiving FAAT requirements in section 4 of SP201308358D upon contractor request. This will be done through the RFV CDRL.

Contractor Question #8:

If prior to manufacturing RATO motors for the Government, a contractor has been in production to supply other Customers within 180 days, is Delta FAAT required?

Government Response #8:

The USG is willing to consider waiving FAAT requirements in section 4 of SP201308358D upon contractor request. This will be done through the RFV CDRL.

Contractor Question #9:

If prior to manufacturing RATO motors for the Government, a contractor has not been in production, but not within 180 days, are all Delta FAAT requirements of Table 2 required?

Government Response #9:

The USG is willing to consider waiving FAAT requirements in section 4 of SP201308358D upon contractor request. This will be done through the RFV CDRL.

Contractor Question #10:

If the design of the RATO motor is unchanged or, if modifications incorporated since a previous Government contract was completed do not result in risk to form, fit, function, performance, reliability or safe use of the booster motor, are all Delta FAAT requirements of Table 2 required?

Government Response #10:

The USG is willing to consider waiving FAAT requirements in section 4 of SP201308358D upon contractor request. This will be done through the RFV CDRL.

Contractor Question #11:

Attachment 8 Paragraph (f) notes a 90-day period for lapse in production compared to 180 days defined in SP201308357 Rev. D Section 4. It is presumed SP201308357 Rev D takes precedence. If this is incorrect, please provide Clarification.

Government Response #11:

The requirement is 180 days for lapse in production.

Contractor Question #12:

Attachment 8 Paragraph (e) notes many inspection data requirements for inclusion in the First Article Test Report. The amount of data requested possibly constitutes 1000’s of pages of date (i.e certifications keyed to each drawing, individual QAP requirements, supplier’s and vendor’s inspection records, etc.) All of this data is retained/stored in the contractor’s quality data management system and available for review by the Government QAR during audit or Scheduled Inspections. It is presumed availability of this data is sufficient for the purposes of a Government QAR review and not necessary for inclusion in the FATR. If this is incorrect please provide clarification.

Government Response #12:

This is incorrect. All data submissions required by the FAT CDRL must be submitted to the government.

Contractor Question #13:

The delivery schedule for CLIN 1002 and 1004 (First Article Rocket Motors and Initiators – Contractor Tested) is noted as being 548 calendar days after contract award. The delivery schedule for OP1 is noted to commence 180 days after approval of First Article. If a circumstances exists justifying a reduced Delta FAAT based on scenarios such as those noted in questions 7-10 is the delivery schedules noted for First Article rocket motors and initiators and OP1 delivery commencement valid? If reduced Delta FAAT based on previous qualification of the motor design, or a motor in recent production is justified, Contractor testing of First Article Motors and commencing OP1 deliveries could occur in a shorter time period.

Government Response #13:

Pending answer Contractor Question #14:

If a RATO motor has previously been qualified and in production, does the Government want the contractor’s current/up to date TDP of the booster motor in Contractor document format to be provided, or a current list of active TDP documents and revision level? There is no CLIN or CDRL noted for delivery of Contractor TDP information Government Response #14:

Correct, there is no specific CLIN or CDRL for delivery of a Contractor TDP. However, if Contractor TDP or related drawings are referenced in a CDRL (i.e. FAAT Plan), then those specific drawings should be included as part of that submission.

Contractor Question #15:

If a RATO motor has previously been qualified and in production, does the Government want a summary of design amendments since the motor was last manufactured? This information could support Government Delta FAAT clarification (i.e. provide justification for decision on Contractor Specific Delta FAAT requirements).

Government Response #15:

The USG is not asking for a specific CDRL for this information. However, the USG concurs that this information could be used in support of Delta FAAT RFV, FAAT Plan CDRL, or other CDRLs required on this contract.

Contractor Question #16:

Should paragraph 3.1.1 of attachment 20 reference attachment 19 (pricing Table) instead of “pricing table found in Section J, Attachments”.

Government Response #16:

The USG has noted this.

Contractor Question #17:

SPI No. F01-522-6689 (Attachment 13) confirms the packaging requirements for the RATO motor have been amended. A UN POP Marking is defined. Therefore, the amended packaging configuration has been tested and approved by the U.S. DOT, and CDRL A002 (Performance Oriented Packaging Test Report) is not applicable since Contractor testing of the packaging configuration is not required. If this is incorrect, please provide clarification.

Government Response #17:

Pending Answer Contractor Question #18:

SPI No. F00-280-0272 (Attachment 11) and F01-344-8642 (Attachment 12) define initiator and power device cartridges packaging. These packaging configurations may be different than the tested/qualified/approved packaging configurations that already exist and in use by the manufacturers of these items. Is it acceptable that these devices are supplied to the Government in the original manufacturer’s U.S. DOT qualified/approved packaging configuration if established packaging configurations do not meet the SPI definition?

Government Response #18:

the packaging needs to be IAW the assigned SPI for each NSN, as is reflected in SPIRES and the AFMC Form 158 in the contract package Contractor Question #19:

Does the Contractor need to provide the information noted in Attachments 15 and 16 (Justification for Qualification Requirements), or the noted waiver data requirements referenced in the Attachments, if the Contractor has previously been deemed a qualified source of supply and has delivered RATO motors and initiators to the Government for the BQM-167A Aerial Drone?

Government Response #19:

The “Justification for Qualification Requirements” is only for sources not on the Qualified Vendors List.

Contractor Question #20:

The Air Munition Specification (Attachment 1) paragraph 3 states that “Each energetic ingredient and component used in production lot(s) shall be from a single material lot.” Would it be acceptable to establish a list of ingredients/components along with noted justification for non-compliance to this requirement for review (and possible acceptance) by the Government? Although this requirement can be adhered to, it may result in unnecessary waste and increased cost.

Government Response #20:

The USG is willing to consider waiving energetic requirements upon contractor request. This will be done through the RFV CDRL.

Contractor Question #21:

The Air Munition Specification (Attachment 1) paragraph 11 notes the requirement to submit Explosive Hazard Classification Data. It is interpreted if a RATO motor is already qualified, this paragraph is not applicable (i.e. no information is required as the existing RATO motor already has an established/approved Hazard Classification)

Government Response #21:

If the contractor proposal includes an already qualified motor that has not deviated from its baseline, then the USG would be willing to waive this requirement.

Contractor Question #22:

The Air Munition Specification (attachment 1) paragraph 19 states all energetic material components must be traceable to the original DoD qualified manufacturer. Does the Government desire/require the Contractor to submit a list of suppliers for these items in the proposal?

Government Response #22:

The USG desires the contractor to submit a list of the suppliers for the energetic materials and components that were used in response to this RFP.

Contractor Question #23:

(Contractor) acknowledges the US Government desire for this contract to be a FFP IDIQ. Will the US Government entertain FFP for the first two years of the IDIQ and NTE or ROM pricing for the subsequent three years based on the volatility in material costs, inflation, suppliers unable to support 5 year pricing, and other economic factors?

Government Response #23:

The USG intends to keep any future requirement as a 5 Year FFP IDIQ.

Contractor Question #24:

Is it acceptable for all freight to be FOB Origin due to the volatility of hazardous freight shipment costs?

Government Response #24:

Pending Answer