QA_Set_2_170405.pdf

SPEAR Family of Tactical Headborne Systems Q&A Set 2

5 April 2017

Q1: In section 3.4.1, is there any reference number for the “tan” color?

A1: Tan 499. The Performance Specification has been updated to reflect this. In addition, Pigments and water transfer films shall be free of lead and hexavalent chromium and shall contain no Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), benzol (benzene), chlorinated compounds, hydrolysable chlorine derivatives or ethylene based glycol ethers and their acetates.

Q2: In section 3.4.1, is CARC required for the Tan color or all five colors/coatings listed?

A2: CARC is only required for Tan but all colors must have the ability to pass all requirements of the Performance Specification.

Q3: In section 3.8.2.1, it is listed that the “90% probability of no penetration p(n(p)) with 90% confidence” criteria will be applied to passing BTD results as well. Is a UTL going to be calculated for BTD? Can you please provide more information on how 90/90 for penetration will be applied to BTD?

A3: This is described in Appendix C.

For a four-size suite in order to meet a minimum 90/90 across all sizes, locations and environments, 1 failure (high BTD or a complete penetration) per size, 1 failure per environment, and 1 failure per location is allowed. Taken across the entire 200 shots laid out in the FAT test matrix, this would allow for 3 failures broken up as stated above.

For a five-size suite in order to meet a minimum 90/90 across all sizes, locations and environments, 1 failure (high BTD or a complete penetration) per size, 1 failure per environment, and 1 failure per location is allowed. Taken across the entire 250 shots laid out in the FAT test matrix, this would allow for 3 failures broken up as stated above.

Section 3.8.2.1 of the Performance Specification will be updated to reduce confusion with release of the final RFP.

Q4: In Table 6, the threshold weight for the Non-Ballistic helmet cannot be calculated with the provided equation. Additionally, the equation provided in Appendix F for the non-ballistic helmet is different. Can you please verify that the equation in Table 6 is wrong?

A4: The correct Equation is in Appendix F:

Weight=1.009*[(3.102E-4*PPAH1.674)+1.091]. Table 6 has been adjusted to reflect this and will be released with the final RFP.

Q5: In section 3.10, is there no statistical evaluation model going to be applied to accelerations during blunt impact?

A5: Correct. The blunt impact will not be evaluated statistically. Any individual acceleration value exceeding 150G or any deformation exceeding 0.023” in any location in any of the environments constitutes failure of the test.

Q6: In section 3.15.1, the minimum PPAH in the smallest size is listed as 81.0 in2, but there is no clear direction if this needs to be accomplished on the small PPAH headform. When looking at the minimum Head Circumference size in Table 7 (53.0 in), this coincides with the MD size PPAH headform, so is using this headform for the smallest offered helmet size acceptable?

A6: The fitting guidelines in Appendix A shall be used to determine the properly sized headform. If the helmet can fit on the size MD headform according to the procedure in Appendix A and the correct standoff can be maintained, the size MD headform may be used.

Q7: In section 3.19.3, it states that the ballistic and non-ballistic helmets “shall have a service life of 3 years”, but in section 3.25.1, in reference to the legibility of the helmet label, the operational use life is listed as 5 years. Can you please explain the discrepancy?

A7: The Service life shall be 5 years. The Performance Specification will be updated to reflect this information and will be released with the final RFP.

Q8: In section 3.19.3, the only condition listed that would void the operational capabilities of the helmet is an impact by ballistic projectiles. Does this mean that a significant blunt impact to the helmet is never considered a helmet end of life event?

A8: Depending on the severity or type of blunt impact event it is possible that such an event may be considered a helmet end of life event but this requires a case-by-case analysis. Helmets must meet the blunt impact requirements in the Performance Specification.

Q9: In Appendix B second paragraph, inspection level A1 is listed at 1,000 helmets, but in Table 1 it is listed as 2,000 helmets. Which one is accurate?

A9: The value of 2,000 in Table 1 is correct. The Performance Specification will be updated to reflect this information and will be released with the final RFP.

Q10: In Appendix B second to last paragraph, it is stated that “if the above conditions are not met then the tool shall start over at Level A1”. Does this mean that the tool inspection will be repeated? Can you please clarify this statement?

A10: It will be repeated when the qty manufactured is equal to that required of the A1 level in Table 1.

If the Above Conditions are not met, the tool inspection reverts to tightened A1 Level.

Q11: In Appendix B, given the statement that the inspection plan described “should be incorporated into the manufacturer’s quality assurance plan”, is it safe to assume that the cost of this inspection plan is expected to be carried by the manufacturer?

A11: Yes

Q12: In Appendix D, it is stated that “the contractor is responsible for scheduling all ballistic testing” for LAT. Does this mean that the contractor is responsible for procuring and paying for LAT at the outside lab? Also, is the contractor responsible for the cost of the helmets used for LAT?

A12: Yes, the price proposed for items under this RFP shall include the cost of LAT – both the test cost and the helmet cost.

Q13: Section 5.2.2.04-8 2 C (1) states “The following representations or certifications in SAM are applicable to this solicitation as included.” Is it required that all of suppliers for this contract be registered in the SAM database?

A13: Yes.

Q14: Section I of the RFP contains clause 52.216-27, Single or Multiple Awards (page 25 of 61). The FAR prescribes this clause for solicitations for indefinite-quantity contracts that may result in multiple contract awards (FAR 16.506(f)). Section M, M1.1 states “The Government intends to award a single five year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Items …” (page 56 of 61). Please confirm that multiple awards are not anticipated and that 52.216- 7 is not applicable.

A14: Section M.1. of the solicitation will be revised to identify that the Government reserves the right to make multiple contract awards.

Q15: Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire was not included in the attachments. Please provide.

A15: Attachment 4 will be posted to FBO.

Q16: We understand that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required from Small Businesses (Paragraph L.2.2.4.4). Paragraph L.2.2.4.6, Small Business and Socio-Economic Program Participation, states “The offeror shall describe how their subcontracting plan meets or exceeds mandatory small business participation minimum of 30% of total estimated contract dollars.” Because this paragraph refers to the subcontracting plan, it is assumed that it does not apply to small businesses. Please confirm or clarify.

A16: Small Business Subcontracting Plans and Small Business and Socio-Economic Program Participation do not apply to small businesses.

Q17: The following sections refer to National Stock Numbers to be provided by the government:

3.25.1 Marking of Helmet Shell

3.25.2 Marking of Retention System Components

3.25.3 Marking of Liner/Suspension System Components

4.1 Packaging

5. Delivery Report

Is it the government’s intention to provide these NSNs to the vendors prior so Submission, and if so, when?

A17: PDMs for proposal do not need to be marked with actual NSNs but it is recommended that the Vendor use “XXXX …” in place of NSN to demonstrate their ability to print on the items. The Government will provide NSNs after contract award.

Q18: Section 3.25.3 Marking of Liner/Suspension System Components states, “Each individual component in the helmet liner/suspension system (i.e. impact absorbing pad(s) and all liner materials) shall be clearly marked by a permanent means. The label shall indicate the size, thickness, NSN (government provided), manufacturing date and lot traceability information.” Is the intention that the permanent marking and the label are the same? If not, what information is required on the permanent marking?

A18: The permanent marking and label are the same.

Q19: Appendix C - First Article Test (FAT) Plan, Tables 14 and 15 list Total PDMs Required for 5-Size Suite. Are the PDMs for the Limited User Evaluation included in these totals? Is it acceptable that all PDMs be configured in the CARC Tan color scheme with the 3-Hole VAS Shroud?

A19: Yes, the LUE helmets are included in these totals. Yes, Carc Tan and 3-hole is acceptable but the Vendor should understand that any other paint/color scheme must pass ALL test requirements including storage and durability.

Q20: Appendix C - Ballistic Helmet 9mm RTP/BTD test plan for the 4 Helmet Suite requires 200 Shots on 40 Ballistic Helmets, and allows for 3 failures, whereas the Ballistic Helmet 9mm RTP/BTD test plan for the 5 Helmet Suite requires 250 Shots on 50 Ballistic Helmets yet still allows for only 3 failures. Since the 90% probability of no penetration p(n(p)) with 90% confidence can be achieved with a 2 % failure rate, it is suggested that the 4 Helmet Suite be allowed 4 failures per 200 shots, and that the 5 Helmet Suite be allowed 5 Failures per 250 shots. Is the government amenable to this approach?

A20: No. For a 4-size suite, if 4 failures are allowed, either the size, environment, or location bin will not meet the 90/90 criteria. The same for the 5-size suite. If another failure is allowed either per size, per environment, or per location these criteria won’t meet the 90/90 criteria. The maximum 3 failures requirements remains.

Q21: Attachment 3 Test Plan Table 1 Performance Criteria, item 2 states “Be compatible with Wilcox L4 and Ops Core skeleton, three-hole VAS shrouds and the supplied shroud shall accept the Wilcox G24 mount arm.” Item 3 states “Be compatible with Wilcox four-hole VAS shrouds and the supplied shroud shall accept the Wilcox GSGM mount arm.” Typically, a helmet is either configured with the 3-hole configuration, or the 4-hole configuration. Will the Limited User Evaluation PDMs be supplied with these 2 separate configurations, and if so in what quantities per size?

A21: PDMs may be submitted only in the 3-hole configuration.

Q22: Attachment 3 Test Plan Table 1 Performance Criteria, item 4 states “Not provide a significant increase to the detectable signature (i.e., IR, visible, audible) of the operator/platform (reduction of signatures is OBJ) as a result of the helmet system.” How will the IR, visible, and audible signatures be measured?

A22: This is based on the assessment of the users conducting the evaluation and will be evaluated based on the identified strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of the proposal using the rating scale identified in Attachment 3.

Q23: In Attachment 3 Test Plan, immediately following Table 1 Performance Criteria, it is stated, “In order to determine the extent to which the systems meet the criteria identified in Table 1 above, the evaluators will utilize the questions identified in Tables 2 and 3 below, as they relate to Measures of Operational Suitability (MOS) and Measures of Operational Effectiveness (MOE) in operational scenarios.” How will the Findings reported in Tables 2 and 3 be evaluated? Will the vendors selected for the LUE be allowed to be present for the LUE? Will the Findings of Tables 2 and 3 be made available to the vendors selected for the LUE?

A23: The findings will be evaluated according to the rating scale in the Test plan. Vendors will not be present for the LUE. If an immediate award decision is not made and a Competitive Range Determination is made, notable findings, including Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies will be identified in an Evaluation Notice to those offerors remaining in the Competitive Range.

Q24: Please clarify which shroud listed in 3.16 should be used when determining finished helmet weights per paragraph 3.9.

A24: The PDMS shall include the offeror's proposed 3-hole shroud that is compatible with the Wilcox G24 Arm. The helmet shell must still be compatible with the shrouds listed in Section 3.16.

Q25: Can the Government please provide a copy or link to the referenced ACH specification dated 07 Jan 05?

A25: The Performance Specification should Reference ACH Purchase Description, CO/PD 05-04, dated 30 Oct 2007, and will be updated accordingly with release of the final RFP.

Q26: Can the gov't provide the test procedure to be used to conduct the CMM or similar technology measurements to determine whether any denting from non-ballistic impact exceeds 0.023"?

A26: Helmets will be measured using a CMM prior to blunt impact testing and will again be measured after impact testing to determine the depth of any indentation.

Q27: How does the Government intend to take measurement variance into account for determination of depth of dent?

A27: Measurement variance is included in the 0.023" requirement.

Q28: Can the Government confirm that the relevant Advanced Combat Helmet Performance Specification reference is CO/PD 05-04?

A28: The Performance Specification should Reference ACH Purchase Description, CO/PD 05-04, dated 30 Oct 2007, and will be updated accordingly with release of the final RFP.

Q29: Please provide the environmental conditioning duration that should be used prior to impact testing of Non-Ballistic Protection (bump) Helmets.

A29: All are to be conditioned for a minimum 12 hours and tested within 5 minutes. Following this, the helmets are reconditioned for at least 15 minutes. The Performance Specification will be updated to reflect this information and will be released with the final RFP.

Q30: Are there technical specifications and/or adjectival definitions of "good/pass" and "bad/fail" integration ability or compatibility? Are there objective criteria for evaluation of integration and/or compatibility of the individual system components listed in 3.16 with the ballistic and/or non-ballistic protection helmet? What is the methodology for determining the overall integration/compatibility rating for the overall proposal score?

A30: Evaluations will be completed according to Attachment 3 test plan.

Q31: Will the Government provide engineering drawings and/or representative samples of all of the Integration/compatibility items as GFI/GFE to enable contractor verification of integration and compatibility?

A31: No.

Q32: Will the Government specify the baseline performance and test methodology for IR or other signatures listed for the ballistic and non-ballistic (bump) helmets? What is the criteria for determining that an increase in signature is a significant increase?

A32: This is based on the assessment of the users conducting the evaluation and will be evaluated based on the identified strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of the proposal using the rating scale identified in Attachment 3.

Q33: Can the Government clarify under what circumstances a FAT may be required, performed on an item submitted on another contract, or waived?

A33: FAT must be completed according to the Performance Specification Appendix C. For purposes of this solicitation, FAT will not be waived nor will data submitted for another contract be accepted as FAT data.

Q34: Is a FAT level production data set required to be submitted with the PDM samples?

A34: Yes. In addition, required test data set and requirements is in Performance Specification Appendix E. Pay particular attention to the margins required for this data submission.

Q35: The gov't lists any evidence of metallic fasteners as a failure per Table 8: End Item visual defects.

Does the gov't intend to eliminate all hardware for attaching the retention, VAS shroud and rails? If not, can the gov't clarify what is meant by the reference to metallic fasteners in this context?

A35: No. The metallic fasteners referenced in this section of Table 8 apply to the helmet shell only.

Meaning the use of said metallic fasteners as a structural aid for the shell itself. Metallic fasteners are permissible for suspension or retention of the Shroud and Rails.

Q36: How does the government intend to protect the IP of the contractor if the proprietary design features are released via CAD models to other contractors and/or competitors?

A36: This will be removed from the Performance Specification, which will be released with the final RFP.

Q37: Will the Government provide additional guidance on packaging and labeling or a SPI for the helmet system and/or each individual deliverable component?

A37: Packaging shall be labelled to identify CLINs and ELINs that are included in the package.

Q38: Can the Government clarify the non-ballistic helmet environmental storage and altitude requirements?

A38: The requirements are the same as for the ballistic helmet however, in accordance with Appendix C they are not tested as part of the FAT plan.

Q39: Please clarify whether damage due to significant non-ballistic impact will be considered to be an exception to the Warranty.

A39: If a blunt impact that exceeds the requirements of the Performance Specification is imparted to the helmet it may cause an exception to the warranty, however if an impact within the requirements of the Performance Specification is imparted to the helmet this will not cause an exception to the warranty.

Q40: Does the Government intend that the marking requirement extend beyond the user end-item (e.g., pad or liner or retention assembly ) down to the subassembly or subcomponent level (e.g.. screws, washers, etc.) in the user end-item?

A40: No. Marking requirement does not extend to the hardware level.

Q41: Does the gov't intend to require texturing aggregate in the exterior coating on the ballistic and/or non-ballistic helmet? If so, can the gov't provide a requirement or reference for desired mix ratio?

A41: The Government does not to intend to require texturing but the vendor should ensure that the helmet in any of the required paint/color configurations can meet all requirements of the Performance Specification.

Q42: Please clarify whether pass/fail of the 9mm BTD for FAT will be determined employing a 90/90

UTL?

A42: There will not be a UTL but there will be a pass fail with 90/90 statistical analysis. Please see Performance Specification Appendix C and D.

Q43: Please clarify that requirement is 90/90 LCL and confirm method to be used for calculating (Clopper-Pearson or other)?

A43: Requirement is 90/90 LCL for probability of no penetration and passing BTD as well. Clopper- Pearson methodology will be used.

Q44: Appendix B note 1 references a ballistic mandible test setup. Is it the gov'ts intent to procure ballistic mandible?

A44: No. This will be omitted and the Performance Specification will be updated with release of the final RFP.

Q45: If the PDM's are intended to be FAT units, do all quality control, production, tool qualification, and design records need to be submitted as well per FAT requirements?

A45: Yes, data in accordance with Performance Specification 3.23, 3.26 3.27 shall be provided with PDMs.

Q46: Are FAT units to be delivered with the RFP submission?

A46: Yes, in accordance with Appendix C.

Q47: Please define PDM configuration(s) to be delivered?

A47: Each PDM shall be configured as a complete helmet according to Performance Specification Table

3. Color for all PDMs shall be CARC Tan, all shall have 3-hole shrouds and a right eye dominant chinstrap. A representative helmet cover shall be provided in a representative size/color/pattern.

Q48: Please provide a performance specification or other relevant requirements regarding the CLIN 1014 Bump Helmet Cover?

A48: There is not a Performance Specification for the helmet cover, but covers shall meet all integration compatibility and use requirements of the helmet itself.

Q49: Please confirm that the cumulative page limit for the Phase I Proposal Go/No-Go Documentation and the Phase II Proposal Technical/Management Volume is 60 pages?

A49: Correct. Phase I Go/No-Go Documentation and Phase II Technical/Management have a combined 60 page limit.

Q50: Are the PDMs (paragraph L.2.1) delivered with the proposal going to be used for FAT [based on the definitions in RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS, Appendix C-First Article Testing]?

A50: Assuming a vendor makes it into the Competitive Range, the PDMs will be used for FAT.

Q51: What UNIT PRICE is to be inserted in the Section B CLIN Item? Is it the calculated CLIN TEP as described in Section M.2.2.3.1?

A51: Pricing for the CLINs identified in Section B should be included within Attachment 5-Price Matrix.

Q52: Please define the MAX QUANTITY that offerors should base their calculation on for MAX NET

AMT?

A52: Please fill out Attachment 5-Price Matrix with a QTY of 1 for each item.

Q53: What is the implication of PPAH (paragraph M.2.2.1.1.2) for evaluation [based on RFP Attachment 1, Performance Specification FTHS-Ballistic and Non-Ballistic Helmets, section 3.15.1, and Appendix A]?

A53: Please see Performance Specification section 3.9, Table 6 and Appendix F. In addition, the PPAH requirements of 3.15.1 must be met.

Q54: How will Heat Stress be evaluated since there are no questions related to this topic in Table 3?

A54: Heat stress may be evaluated as part of many factors including but not limited to user comfort.

Q55: Are there Classified or /Operational Security requirements on the program?

A55: The Government does not anticipate any classified data.

Q56: Section M.2.1 states any proposal not meeting all Go/No Go characteristics may be eliminated for Phase II consideration. However later it states any single failure of a Go/No Go characteristic results in immediate elimination from future consideration. Does failure of a single characteristic result in automatic elimination or does the Government have the discretion of allowing the proposal to move forward into Phase II?

A56: A single failure in the Go/No-Go Phase will constitute failure of the entire proposal and will be removed from further consideration of award without Phase II and Phase III Government evaluation.

The language will be updated with release of the final RFP.

Q57: The FTHS Performance Specification calls out the ACH Performance Specification for non ballistic impact protection of the ballistic and non ballistic helmet. Comparing the two documents, there is a difference in the maximum G requirements and the maximum allowable deformation/indentation.

Please clarify the required maximum G and maximum allowable deformation/indentation requirements.

A57: 10 ft/s drop velocity with any individual acceleration <= 150g. Drop indentation must be less <= 0.023"