2 Dec 2024 Question and Answers.pdf
PDF 143 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS) Hardware Procurement Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8523-24-R-0007
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document dated December 2, 2024, for the ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System procurement. The document addresses nine questions covering technical and procedural aspects of the contract requirements.
Key details include clarification that the Sequencer Fire Source CCA requires an ATP but will not be separately purchased under this contract, confirmation that separate ATPs are required for each LRU and SRU rather than allowing SRU testing while installed in GFE LRUs, and specification that Distribution Statement E should be used for Proposal Submission Volumes 1-5. The document confirms that electronic submission is acceptable for Volume III Past Performance Information, which must be submitted 10 days prior to the proposal due date. It clarifies exhibit structures for Acceptance Test Procedures across multiple production years and ESS Procedures. The government also addresses drawing availability requests, confirming three of four requested drawings can be provided.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System (CMDS) Hardware Procurement has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ALE-47 Questions and Answers
2 December 2024
Question 1
Is the Sequencer Fire Source CCA to be supplied as an SRU and does it require an ATP?
Government response: – No, this item is not planned to be separately purchase on this contract, but does require an ATP to be developed.
Note 1 of the SOW ATTACHMENT 2 indicates the Sequencer Fire Source CCA requires an ATP but may not be listed as procurable, is this correct?
Government response: Correct
Is it correct to assume that the Fire Source CCA will only be procured in an LRU?
Government response: Correct this item will not be separately purchased on this contract, but it may separately purchase them via a separate contract vehicle once the contractor becomes a qualified source.
Question 2
The Programmer Motherboard No. 2 is not listed in the SOW ATTACHMENT 2 SRU list or CDRL items, but is part of the Programmer 2, and Programmer Enclosure Assembly, 2A1, is Motherboard No. 2 to be supplied as a separate SRU and does it require an ATP? –
Government Response: Correct these items will not be separately purchased on this contract, but may be purchase them via a separately managed contract vehicle once the contractor becomes a qualified source.
Is it correct to assume that the Fire Source CCA will only be procured in an LRU or as part of the
Programmer Electronic Enclosure?
Government Responses: – The Fire Source CCA and Programmer Electronics Enclosure are not part of the same LRU or SRU.
Question 3
In the SOW there are several references to "0", to what should these "0"s be referenced?
• Page 6, 2.1, last paragraph: "The Contractor shall fabricate, integrate, test and deliver LRUs listed in 0“
• Page 6, 2.1.1, first paragraph: "The Contractor shall prepare a Reliability Test Plan (subtitle
Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) Procedures) for each LRU listed in 0,...
• Page 7, 2.1.2, first paragraph: "The Contractor shall then conduct Acceptance Test on each First
Article LRU (and quantities) listed in 0.“
• Page 8, 2.1.2.1, first sentence: "The Contractor shall prepare and submit for Government approval an ATP for each LRU listed in 0.“
• Page 11, 2.2, first paragraph: "The Contractor shall fabricate, integrate, test, and deliver LRUs listed in 0...“
• Page 12, 2.2.1, first sentence: "The Contractor shall prepare a Reliability Test Plan (subtitle
Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) Procedures) for each LRU listed in 0,..."
Government Response: References to “in 0” have been corrected to show “Attachment 1”
Question 4
In SOW paragraph 2.1.3, there is an exclusion:
"The Contractor shall perform Interchangeability Test on one each of its First Article LRUs (Attachment 1) excluding Programmer PN 179730-0005, Sequencer PN 179250-0012, and Safety Switch PN 179720-
0001.“
Should the Dispenser be excluded as well from Interchangeability testing since the testing would require the GFE and Mnemonics produced Dispenser Housing to be physically disassembled from the
Breechplate?
There does not seem to be a good reason to swap the Dispenser Housings other than to ensure fit, which can be ascertained from the required FAI data without disassembly of the GFE and Mnemonics produced Dispenser.
Government Response: No, the Dispenser is not exempted.
Question 5
Is it correct the Acceptance Test Procedure Exhibits are structured as follows?
• Exhibit A: Acceptance Test Reports, First Article and Production
• Exhibit D: Acceptance Test Procedures, First Article Year 1
• Exhibit DA: Acceptance Test Procedures, Production Year 1
• Exhibit H: Acceptance Test Procedures, Production Year 2
• Exhibit M: Acceptance Test Procedures, Production Year 3
• Exhibit R: Acceptance Test Procedures, Production Year 4
• Exhibit V: Acceptance Test Procedures, Production Year 5
Govt response: Correct for Exhibit DA, H, M, R, and V. For exhibit A and D, this only applies to the first article period.
Exhibit BA, CA, DA, EA are for qualified vendors in production year 1 (CLINs 100X)
Is this the same structure for the FA vs Production ESS Procedures and reports?
• B: ESS Procedure, Year First Articl
• BA: ESS Procedure, Production Year 1
• F: ESS Procedure, Production Year 2
• K: ESS Procedure, Production Year
• P: ESS Procedure, Production Year 4
• T: ESS Procedure, Production Year 5
Government response: Correct Exhibit B would apply to the first article period. Exhibit BA would apply to production year 1 for currently qualified vendors. Exhibit F- Production Year 2; Exhibit K:
Production Year 3; Exhibit P: Production Year 4; and Exhibit T: Production Year 5 is also correct.
Question 6
For contract FA8540-06-D-0002 Symetrics/Extant was able to build and ship the SRUs by allowing the
SRU to have an ATP run while installed in a GFE LRU for initial acceptance, could this approach be adopted on this contract to speed up the time to production of the SRUs and LRUs?
This approach is similar to the interchangeability test and would mitigate SRU and LRU delivery risks.
The FA8540-06-D-0002 timeline to complete SRU ATPs was about 425 days from contract award and this approach would lessen the risk of discontinuous SRU and LRU deliveries.
Government response: The process was changed in later years for separate ATP of the SRU to accommodate changes in the Government ordering processes. It was determined, and implemented, in following efforts to have separate ATPs for the SRUs and the Government has determined that it is in it’s the best interest to continue following the processes of separate ATPs for each LRU and SRU.
Question 7
What Distribution, Control, and Destruction notices should be used for Proposal Submission Volumes 1 to 5?
Government response: Distribution statement E
Question
Section L, Page 1, reads, “… offerors are requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received 10 calendar days prior to the date of receipt of proposals. Failure to submit Volume
III by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.”
Is electronic submission adequate for this request?
Government response: Yes
Question 9
Please provide the following documents:
• PL201218584-0001_cage 98752; - Government response: This drawing number could not be found.
• 201218593_cage 98752; - Government response: Drawing can be provided
• 26556-0157_cage 19397; and – Government response: Drawing can be provided
• 201752934_cage 98752. – Government response: Drawing can be provided
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .