110504 Q A H92222-11-R-0012.doc

Questions & Answers

Special Operations Forces Personal Equipment Advanced Requirements (SPEAR)

Soft Armor Ballistic Inserts

Solicitation Number: H92222-11-R-0012

04 May 2011 8 pages

ANSWER: The areal density of the production ballistic material, to include stitching and all construction materials (e.g., tape), but excluding the outer protective cover (Section 3.5), shall be no greater than 0.80 pounds per square foot (objective), and no greater than 0.86 pounds per square foot (threshold). To verify (by the Government), the ballistic material shall be removed from the finished soft armor insert and areal density shall be measured in accordance with ASTM D-3776 and units shall be expressed in pounds per square foot. The area of coverage shall be measured to the nearest .03 inches using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) or steel ruler. The Go/No-Go Matrix is the controlling document.

• Does this mean that only those manufactures that are currently producing items listed below will be able to submit a proposal? Please clarify

1. SPEAR, RBAV Ballistic Fillers

2. SPEAR, Modular Body Armor Vest (MBAV), Ballistic Inserts

3. SPEAR MSAP 6x9 Inserts

4. SPEAR-Simulant/Surrogate Shoot Pack 15"x15"

5. SPEAR Plate Shaped Soft Armor Inserts

ANSWER: No, only those vendors that are currently producing body armor inserts will be considered for award.

ANSWER: Pending

Question 5

Please confirm that all testing and analysis will be done with the ballistics in the 200 denier nylon panel cover material and without any 500 denier cordura carrier material.

ANSWER: All ballistic testing will be conducted with the ballistics in the 200 denier nylon panel cover material. No test data with Cordura® carrier material will be accepted.

Question 6

Under Cost/Schedule/Past Performance of the RFI, the government states, "Please provide actual or expected production unit costs for the system on a 15" X 15" shootpack and/or Size Large Releasable Body Armor Vest." Please clarify whether vendors shall provide actual costs for both the shootpacks and Releasable Body Armor Vest.

ANSWER: This no longer applicable as the RFP has been released. Vendors shall propose prices on all line items in accordance with the RFP requirements.

Question 7

Will there be detailed requirements in the specification regarding the Configuration Management (CM) Plan, i.e., what is expected to be contained in the CM Plan and at what level of detail?

ANSWER: Yes - paragraph 3.16.0 of the performance specification discusses the requirements of the Configuration Management Plan.

Question 8

Will the higher fragmentation velocity that includes the “safety margin” be the minimum requirements for both SPEAR FAT and LAT testing or will the standards only be applicable to the technical evaluation?

Question 9

Do you want the data of an armor model performance based on the armor and 200 denier panel cover only, or do you want it with armor, 200 denier panel cover, and 500 denier Cordura carrier material.

ANSWER: All ballistic data submitted by the vendor shall be based on the armor and 200 denier panel cover only. No ballistic data shall be accepted that includes Cordura carrier material.

ANSWER: Amendment 03 to the solicitation extends the proposal due date to 4:30 local time, 08 June 2011.

Question 12

RESERVED

ANSWER: Amendment 02 clarified the due date for Notice of Intent as 15 April 2011. The content of the NOI is covered on page 49 of 90. The excerpt is as follows: “The NOI must include the following: cage code number, DUNS number, state of incorporation, corporate license number, identify if foreign owned or a controlled company with full identification of the parent corporation, country of affiliation, identify whether subcontractors are foreign, identify vendor, foreign country of affiliation and what physically constitutes the foreign content of their product(s). Only those offerors who submit a Notice of Intent may submit a proposal which shall be considered by the agency. This is not an R&D contract. Offerors must be the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and have an existing U.S. verifiable production line for any product proposed under this solicitation. The government reserves the right to verify the OEM prior to an award.”

Question 15

The solicitation lists “Attachment 04 – Past Performance Questionnaire” as a requirement for the proposal. This attachment isn’t posted with the solicitation, and was not included with the NOI response documentation. Can this document be provided?

ANSWER: This will be provided to offerors with Amendment 03.

Question 16

Will you please provide both the pdf and word copy of the official solicitation.

Question 17

RESERVED

Question 18

The drawings included in Attachment 5 seem to be very simplistic. There are no tolerances or radii noted and not all dimensions are called out. These drawings are insufficient to develop a PDM that is a form, fit, function replacement. Are more detailed drawings available?

Question 19

Page 45 of the RFP states that 100 shootpacks shall be delivered within 30 days from the date of “this contract;” which would mean a due date of 4/29. However, on page 50 of the RFP, the PDM requirements state that amongst other samples, 100 shootpacks are required by the due date of the proposal submission; which is a date of 5/12. Are there 2 separate shootpack requirements? If not, what is the date in which the shootpacks are required.

ANSWER: Yes, there are potentially two sets of shootpacks required. One hundred (100) shoot-packs shall be delivered by the closing date and time indicated in block 8 of the Form 1449, page 1 of the RFP. In the event the Government conducts additional FAT after contract award, 100 shoot-packs would be required within 30 calendar days after contract award.

Question 20

Please provide drawings for the MSAP 6"x9" and MSAP 6"x6".

Question 21

How are the 100 PDM shootpacks going to be evaluated? What rounds, conditions and velocities? Same question for the First Article shootpacks; what rounds, conditions and velocities? What is the Government's estimate on how many shootpacks will be consumed during each evaluation?

Question 22

Page 15, Table V of the Performance Specification discusses the number of ballistic samples for lot acceptance of the modular components. Please confirm that the Govt does require the shooting of 6" x 6" samples as well as a 6"x 9" samples if the lot consists of modular components. If required, please confirm how these samples are to be mounted, clamped and shot.

Question 23

Is the Use and Care pamphlet a separate stand alone document, or is it a section inserted in to a larger manual which covers the entire body armor system? If it is a section in a larger manual, would the Government release the manual so the pamphlet can be designed to easily drop in?

Answer: Pending

Question 24

Please clarify the requirement for vendor generated First Article Test (FAT) data as well as vendor generated Lot Testing Data (LAT) as outlined in the Contract Data Requirements List.

In order to properly utilize the drawing provided, additional measurements are required. Please provide:

RBAV:

Front chest measurement

Center front length

Back and Front neck width and drop

MBAV:

Top measurement

Curve measurement

Answer: Pending

Question 25

The drawing package submitted with the NOI response includes hard armor plate dimensions for all sizes, but only one pattern for soft armor (size Medium-Long). Do the flat patterns for the plates match the soft armor dimensions? If not, can soft armor drawings be provided for all sizes?

Question 26

Will the higher fragmentation velocity that includes the “safety margin” be the minimum requirements for both SPEAR FAT and LAT testing or will the standards only be applicable to the technical evaluation?

Question 27

Please confirm that all testing and analysis will be done with the ballistics in the 200 denier nylon panel cover material and without any 500 denier cordura carrier material.

ANSWER: Refer to Question # 9

Question 28

Where can vendors request a copy of the latest performance specifications for the Body Armor Load Carriage System?

ANSWER: The performance specification for the SPEAR Soft Armor Ballistic Inserts was provided to potential offers who submitted a valid Notice of Intent to the contracting office.

Question 29

The solicitation shows “Desired Delivery” as 1,800 sets per month, and “Required Delivery” as 1,200 sets per month. Are these values associated with each individual CLIN (1,800 units of each item and size per month), or do they represent the “total combined delivery” for all CLINs (for example; 900 units of CLIN 1100 plus 900 units of CLIN 1101, totaling 1,800 units)?

ANSWER: These values could be a combination of any CLINs that are listed in the RFP.

Question 30

Regarding Solicitation Number: H92222-11-R-0012, could you please provide us with the performance criteria and the anticipated quantities for the upcoming solicitation? Any information would be greatly appreciated!

ANSWER: All interested parties who submitted an NOI have received the specification and associated documents as of 18 April 2011.

Question 31

Reference pg 45, Proposal Submission paragraph, ….”Offerors shall notify the contract specialist, and provide a complete NOI for each proposal package to be submitted.” Since the information required in the NOI is the same for any proposals we submit, we are unclear regarding the statement. In addition, although we anticipate submitting multiple proposal packages, we have not yet decided exactly how many proposals we will be submitting and expect not to make that decision for several weeks. Is only one NOI required for submittal?

ANSWER: While only one NOI is required per vendor, it is beneficial to submit an NOI for each proposal you plan to submit.

ANSWER: No, all changes to between amendments are highlighted in the text of the amendment. For the specific changes in Amendment 01, please review the Amendment 01 docuemnts on FBO.

Any clarification you can provide would be very helpful in allowing me to determine our proposed pricing. Furthermore, is there any consideration on the Government’s behalf to remove such a requirement? If the overall RFP is unrestricted with regard to business size, why then would price evaluation preference be afforded to a HUBZone?

I understand that price is not the only distinguishing factor, but a factor for basis of award nonetheless. I am respectfully requesting your guidance/clarification as to why such a term and condition would be included? The inclusion of such a term and condition could in turn make for an uneven price comparison (all other factors being equal).

ANSWER: As required by FAR 19.1309(b), FAR 52.219-4 is mandatory for all Full and Open Competition RFPs. Therefore, yes, the government will increase all non-HUBZone offeror’s prices by 10% as instructed by the clause.

I am simply trying to get a full understanding of the Government’s award methodology; other than what is clearly depicted in the RFP. Essentially, if one HUBZone and one non-HUBZone participant have equal Technical, Management, and Past Performance ratings, it would suggest that a HUBZone would essentially win the award because they would have a 10% advantage on price.

ANSWER: Yes, please see the answer #34. Per FAR 19.1309(b), FAR 52.219-4 is mandatory clause as of Jan 2011. The clause specifically states in paragraph 52.219-4(b)(4), “when the two highest rated offerors are a HUBZone small business concern and a large business, and the evaluated offer of the HUBZone small business concern is equal to the evaluated offer of the large business after considering the price evaluation preference, award will be made to the HUBZone small business concern.”

Question 34

Relative to past performance, will the Government accept commercial contracts as well as Government contracts?

ANSWER: Yes. The importance element is “recent and relevant” experience. Since this a commerical FAR Part 12 solicitation, commercial experience may be considered relevent.

Question 35

Reference pg 54, Item 3. Will the year-end 2010 SSR (Summary Subcontract Report) be sufficient to demonstrate Small Business Subcontracting goals and targets have been met? The report for 2011 is not due til year-end 2011.

ANSWER: Yes. You may provide the most recent data along with any back-up explanation (such as the 2011 report not being complete yet).

Question 41

With the extension of the deadline for submissions to June 8, 2011, will the NOI date be extended to reflect the recent proposal deadline extension?

Question 42

If known, please provide your anticipated date of award.

Question 43

Please confirm whether or not SPEAR Plate Shaped Insert, 6”x6” Insert, and 6”x9” Insert will be purchased individually or as a set for each vest. RBAV and MBAV are consistently referred to as “sets” of front and rear inserts requiring one price for a set, whereas SPEAR Plate Shaped

Inserts are referred to as both “each” and “set” within the Solicitation and Attachments. The year over year quantity of CLIN’s listed in the Solicitation and Attachment 07 Price Structure Range refer to SPEAR Plate Shaped Inserts by unit size “each”. Section 1.2.3 of Attachment 01 and Table 01 on page 50 of the Solicitation describes the SPEAR Shape Plate Inserts as a “set” including a “front and rear insert.”

Question 44

Rifle Protection in Conjunction with a SPEAR Plate Section 3.9.3 of Attachment 01: “When soft armor insert is worn in conjunction with a SPEAR plate it shall provide multi-hit protection against the following threats in accordance with the SPEAR Family of Plates Performance Specification and First Article Test Plan.” As clarification, please provide response to the following questions:

4(a): Is it a requirement that offerors complete an in-conjunction test?

ANSWER: Pending 4(b): Is it a requirement that in-conjunction test be completed at an independent lab? If so, is it a requirement that the lab test results be incorporated into the bid response?

ANSWER: Pending 4(c): Please provide information as to where offerors may acquire the SPEAR Family of Plates Performance Specifications and test protocol.

ANSWER: Pending 4(d): For testing purposes, please provide the current manufacturer and place of performance for SPEAR plates.

ANSWER: Pending 4(e): Please define the meaning of “multi-hit protection” as referenced above. We presume this means no perforation without regard to backface deformation.

ANSWER: Pending 4(f): How many shots does will the in-conjunction test protocol entail? Will the shots follow NIJ STD for shot placement (i.e., 3 inches from the edge and 2 inches from another shot)?

Question 45

Section 3.12.0 of the Product Specification requires Use and Care Instruction to be included with each soft armor component or set of components. Is this requirement applicable to the

15”x15” shoot packs, 6”x9” inserts, and 6”x6” inserts?

Question 46

Section 3.13.0 of the Product Specification outlines Identification and Marking requirements including 3 sub sections of text content to be visible on the label. Given the font size mandated in the section, will there be a provision made for the accurate labeling of the 6”x9” and 6”x6” soft inserts?

Question 47

Section 4.1 of the Product Specification states “each soft armor component or set of components shall be individually wrapped in protective material. Each ballistic insert panel packaged in a plastic bag will be placed in a suitable sized, corrugated cardboard box – a maximum of four panels (2 sets) per box.” Is it the intent of USSOCOM to receive 15”x15”, 6”x9”, and 6”x9” soft armor inserts packaged in the manner stated in Section 4.1 or will a bulk pack provision be made for the listed items?

Question 48

Which party will be responsible for funding the LAT? Should the LAT cost be listed as a separate line item or incorporated in the cost of each unit?

Question 49

Attachment 01 Performance Specification Appendix B states “Ballistic testing may be conducted at a NIJ certified laboratory or Government laboratory…” Will SOCOM consider use of a manufacturer’s internal ballistic laboratory in an effort to provide a cost-effective LAT solution? If not, which party will be responsible for choosing the LAT location?