Industry Day QA.pdf

20mm Ammunition Transfer System (ATS) Virtual Industry Day (04 Nov 2024)

Questions and Answers

Q1: Is a DCMA approved accounting system still required if we do not require progress payments?

A1: No, an approved accounting system will not be required if an offeror elects to forgo the use of progress payments. Further, the use or non-use of progress payments will not be a factor in the selection of an awardee.

Q2: It appears that Hydraulics International Incorporated (HII) may have an inherent competitive advantage since they made the recent redesign. Any comments on this issue?

A2: To clarify, HII has not manufactured or produced the current configuration that the USG’s requirement. It is not uncommon for an OEM to have an inherent advantage on an item they have produced that is the same or similar. However, there is no unfair competitive advantage for this effort as all offerors will receive the same information and instruction on the requirement for the redesigned ATS.

Q3: Is there some flexibility to modify/streamline the Statement of Work (SOW)?

A3: Yes, there may be some flexibility to modify the SOW, within reason. The USG cannot make changes that would risk providing an offeror with an unfair competitive advantage or that otherwise change the overall scope of the requirement itself. The USG is willing to take redlined feedback from industry after the draft RFP is released on the draft requirements documentation (SOW, Technical Data Package (TDP), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) items, etc.) to correct any obvious errors or omissions as well as other recommendations that will reasonably streamline the Government requirement documents.

Q4: Has the current configuration completed qualification?

A4: While a prototype was built off of the current specifications, there is no current qualified source that has produced the current configuration. The successful offeror will be expected to pass the First Article Testing (FAT) requirement that will be in the RFP and resulting contract. The Contractor will also support Compatibility and Operational Testing.

Q5: Has the latest design that is submitted for production been tested? This unit still has the planetary gearbox as well as the old top guide on the load tray, along with the wrong slip clutch being used.

A5: Of note is that the ATS in the video is using a part number prior to the current TDP and does not incorporate the engineering changes made in 2018. Although a prototype was developed and thoroughly tested from one of these models, it was never put into production and was not available for the team to demonstrate. Do not rely on the video as a production representative sample of the solicited specification. While reviewing the TDP, if you find glaring errors or omissions please notify the USG immediately for disposition and correction. There are deficiencies that may not be caught until the build of the units begins, but identifying issues early on will not only save time during the RFP and selection process but also reduce the risk of unexpected delays that could have been avoided during the execution of the contract.

Q6: Will the Government consider quantity breaks in its pricing versus one price for a set quantity? Also referred to as “stepladder” or “ranged” pricing.

A6: The Government will take this into consideration. What will be useful to know from potential respondents is where those natural quantity breaks fall (1-10, 11-20, etc.)

versus setting a single quantity or quantity ranges that may not be representative of the material costs that would be impacted by volume.

Q7: Were the 3D models and drawings made by Mercer Engineering Research Center (MERC) and can it be confirmed whether the drawings were ever tested?

A7: The Government can confirm that the drawings were thoroughly tested by running over 500,000 rounds through the redesign in 2018. The ATS that was reengineered in 2018 was done so by using a previously fielded unit. The engineering firm used the Government-owned TDP that it acquired from the US Navy in 2015 to create a prototype and a revised TDP package. The Navy did not create the original TDP, it simply bought the design from another OEM.

Q8: Drawings may be subject to errors and need to be confirmed later. Is there any flexibility to this?

A8: Please see related response to Q5 regarding notifying the USG immediately upon a current deficiency found. Note that the USG is not looking for any type of modernization since it is a “build to print” effort. While the evaluation criteria is being developed, offerors should reasonably anticipate a scenario-type sub-factor or traditional sub-factor to get an offeror’s plan for how they would address an issue with the drawings after award. The solicitation will contain CLINs and scope for Engineering Change Proposals, Notice of Revision, and Request for Variance to account for changes that could and typically may occur.

Q9: Concerning the backorders, is the USG expecting them soon after FAT or is the intent to spread over a set number of years?

A9: Backorder fulfillment largely depends on when the contract awards, successful completion and approval of the first article, and the availability of funding.

Q10: Is the USG open to HubZone, 8(a), and/or joint venture arrangements from a timeline and value perspective? When we’ve used these contracting vehicles, we’ve been able to streamline and get to award faster.

A10: A set-aside determination in general has not been made. The Government will look at large, small, and further socioeconomic pools identified within the Sources Sought Synopsis responses as well as other Market Research methods. To make this final determination, it will not just be a question of if there are only two or more small businesses or types of further socioeconomic set-asides, but also an initial assessment of the capabilities within those respective pools. Further, in making this decision, the USG must assess if it reasonably anticipates receiving two or more capable and responsible offerors that will respond to a competitive solicitation which will also return a fair and reasonable price.

Q11: For the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), is there anything from a visual perspective that you’d like to see, like graphs, to visualize the milestones that we can incorporate into our submission?

A11: This will be specified in the final version of the CDRL’s Data Item Description (DID). If it is not clear in the draft RFP that is released, the USG’s expectation is that participants will notify it of any ambiguity or request clarification. Additionally, the IMS is being considered as a key portion of the source selection evaluation criteria to allow the USG to assess risk and an offeror’s material understanding of the requirement.

Q12: When does the Government intend to award?

A12: Tentatively the best estimate is September or October 2025. This is subject to change based on finalizing the source selection evaluation criteria, making any adjustments to the requirements documentation, and internal approvals that may be beyond the control and planning of the working-level team. The USG will attempt to update the notice as applicable with estimated timelines to allow industry sufficient time to plan as well.

Q13: Have any trouble areas aside from the gears been noted?

A13: Please see the following areas below that were noted by USAF HQACC/A4MM as being deficient. This has been updated on the Presentation from the Virtual Industry Day as well, posted to SAM.gov in this same notice. The USG does not have any additional information on deficiencies once the prototype was developed in 2018 and fielded. The Government can attest that the prototype is not serviceable at this time and is awaiting repairs at Nellis AFB.

1. Feed tray stoppage, P/N 3305AS1107-3

2. 40T/64T gear wear, P/N 3305AS1145-1 (40T), 3305AS1146-1 (64T),

3. AIU initial timing, P/N 029297-501 cage code 56529

4. Stretched elements

5. Live round chute stoppage

6. Planetary gear drive breakage, P/N 3305AS1470

7. Torque adapter calibration

8. Lubrication

9. Empty space device

10. AIU mount plunger, P/N 029242-1

11. Grounding reel retract failure, P/N SD-2050-OS cage code 82457

12. Tension blocks loosening

13. No bypass mode

14. Support bar, P/N 3305AS1263-1

15. Ammunition Can coming in contact and damaging ATS Round Counter Assembly, P/N 3305AS1103-1

Q14: What are the sustainment and obsolescence needs?

A14: The Government is looking for an ATS system with a lifespan of no shorter than twenty years. USAF is looking for a product that is field repairable and an OEM that is capable of circumventing parts obsolescence and long lead times

Q15: Are there any specific storage or transporting needs for the ATS?

A15: The USG is not aware of any at this time. The transportation and packaging requirements may be provided at with the draft RFP, but will be provided in the final

RFP.

Q16: Any TO require technical order requirements or training requirements that you want to be provided?

A16: There are no training requirements for the ATS. If configuration changes are necessary, it would drive changes to the current TO, but the Government is not looking to procure any new TOs.

Q17: Can the USG TO be shared?

A17: Not at this time. The USG may entertain this in the future.

Q18: Is there an ATS on the trailer?

A18: No, the ATS is on casters and is a sub-component to the UALS or LALS trailers.

The ATS remains in the back shop while the trailers are transported to the flight line with the use of a towbar.

Q19: Will there be criteria during test phase about jam limits?

That technical criteria is still being worked and if implemented, would be reflected in the technical requirements documentation denoting what would constitute successfully passing First Article Testing. The Government is currently looking at an acceptable failure rate of no more than one (1) jam per 750 rounds in a continuous cycle (no starts and stops), which would be stipulated in the First Article Test Procedure documentation.

Note that the ATS in the video is susceptible to jamming that our data package should largely eliminate. Our current data package was produced by an independent engineering firm in 2018 that tested over 500,000 rounds. They provided the

Government with a comprehensive report that showed passing results for previously recognized deficiencies. The Government is hopeful that the thorough testing that was completed in 2018 will greatly mitigate any deficiency reports (DRs).

Q20: Are there options for having 30mm or 25mm being used on ATS.

A20: No.

Q21: Will the participant list for those attending the meeting be published and where?

A21: Yes, the participant list will be made available to the same special notice on SAM.gov.

Q22: Are there any known obsolescence issues on the newly designed ATS?

The Government is not aware of any since only a prototype was developed in 2018, and none have been built to date by an OEM.

Q23: What is the draft RFP timeline?

The tentative timeline shown in the presentation slides currently reflects a draft by 12/24 and a final by early 2025. This is subject to change, as stated in the response to Q12.

Q24: Does the Government have criteria to evaluate OEM?

A24: All offerors will be held to the same evaluation criteria specified in the final RFP.

Q25: What is USAF currently using in the field to upload 20mm rounds into ammo loading trailers?

A25: The Government is using is using a combination of “Replenishers” that are very dated along with some ATS tables. There are numerous variations of the Replenishers and the ATS systems.

Q26: Is there a shortage of ATS in the field?

A26: Yes, the current estimate is 40 but expect some degree of increase upon contract award.

Q27: What were the specific areas that were redesigned on the previous ATS?

A27: See response to Q13 above.

Q28: Will the Government provide Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) or allow Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) for testing?

A28: The USG anticipates providing access to a UALS, LALS, 750 dummy rounds and standard accessories to facilitate production acceptance testing. The ATS FAT unit will ship to a USAF base that is TBD. The Contractor will be required to support off-site testing.

Of note is that this effort will include Government Furnished Property (GFP). Contractors are advised to be aware of the property management system compliance located in FAR 45.105, DFARS 245.105, and other applicable sections, clauses or supplements to ensure they can be determined as capable and ultimately responsible during the source selection evaluation. Potential offerors are highly encouraged to familiarize themselves with FAR Part 45 and its applicable supplements and clauses regarding the use and furnishing of GFP.

Regarding the topic of allowing the use of Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE), at this time, the USG has decided that it prefers the production acceptance testing be done at a USAF base that is TBD.

Q29: Has USAF discussed drawing updates with the US Navy that have been provided by HII.

A29: No. USAF is not aware of what those changes are. USAF plans on staying on the continued course of just the updated drawings that it obtained in 2018. The only variance would be corrections that both the OEM engineer and USAF engineer agree on.

Q30: Why are arms present on the removal frame assembly used to hang onto the LALS? The arms interfere with the gearbox.

A30: Please see related response to Q5 and Q8 regarding notifying the USG immediately upon a current deficiency found. This is being investigated by the Engineering team to discern the impacts to functionality of the ATS. Offerors are encouraged to look at this area. Please provide any additional information on this to the Contracting Officials as soon as identified so a decision can be made on if an update is needed and what that will look like in the RFP.

Q31: Will ECPs be used to capture updates?

A31: See response to Q8 which also addresses changes due to errors and updates identified during the performance of the contract.

Q32: How many ATS units will be needed during the first part of production?

A32: See response to A9 regarding backorders and the variability of when the Government may elect to order additional units. There are currently 40 on backorder, but there may be an increase of backorder requests once the contract is awarded.

There are approximately 200 authorizations of use, with around 150 currently in use.

Q33: What is the Government’s reasoning for opening the ATS to industry and a new contract?

A33: The USG now possesses a full TDP which allows us to go a competitive route, and thus leveraging the market to obtain competitive pricing as well as gaining insight on the experience on products and procedures that an open market can bring. This helps build a more robust defense industrial base, allowing other businesses to participate and prevent projects like this becoming “vendor locked”.