QA_Set_4_170426.pdf

SPEAR Family of Tactical Headborne Systems Q&A Set 4

26 April 2017

Q1: Do components such as velcro, rails, hardware, shrouds, etc., have to be serialized?

A1: Velcro, rails, hardware, shrouds do not have to be serialized.

Q2: Are there quantitative limits to fraying or delamination around attachment holes?

A2: There shall be zero fraying or delamination whatsoever.

Q3: Are there quantitative limits to delaminations on shell body?

A3: There shall be zero delamination whatsoever.

Q4: Prior to Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) inspection and blunt impact testing, are any exterior Velcro patches and texturing aggregate to be removed to improve the accuracy of the measurements?

A4: Velcro and any texturing present at the impact location may be removed prior to CMM inspection.

Q5: What would be considered similar technology to a CMM? If we were able to devise a method using hand tools and a digital micrometer, would that be acceptable?

A5: The measurement must be made by CMM. The Performance Specification will be updated to reflect this and will be released with the final RFP.

Q6: Regarding Performance Specification 3.23, will thickness be a 100% inspection requirement or will sampled lot results for thickness be sufficient for evidence of conformance?

A6: The Contractor shall keep 100% inspection records.

Q7: Should the operational environment requirements and verification methods for the shell interior be specified elsewhere in this document?

A7: No. The interior of the shell shall be subjected to the same operational environments and requirements as all other parts/accessories of the helmet.

Q8: Is there a definition of raised, i.e., an acceptable tolerance?

A8: There shall be zero detectable raised portion. There is no acceptable tolerance.

Q9: Does contractor have option to perform either visual inspection OR Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI)? What is the pass / fail criteria for NDI? Are the criteria from Table 8 applicable to this section?

A9: The contractor can conduct whatever inspection(s) are necessary to deliver a helmet that complies with the Performance Specification requirements.

The Government may perform a combination of visual inspection and NDI to determine whether an item is compliant. The Performance Specification Section 3.30 has been updated to reflect this and will be released with the final RFP.

Q10: Are the starting velocities defined based on V-50 requirements or in accordance with Mil-Std 662 procedures? Is this to speed up testing on poor or exceptional performing helmets?

A10: The starting velocities are based on the requirements of the Performance Specification and the guidance in Section 5.3.3 of MIL-STD-662F.

Q11: Please define the durations for each exposure, specifically hot conditioning at 160F and 130F.

A11: Please see Performance Specification section 3.1.2.

Q12: There are no tests specified for rust/corrosion, dry rot, mold and mildew, fungus, and ultraviolet radiation called out in table 5. How will these be verified?

A12: These requirements will be subject to warranty action. Contracts must warrant that the helmets are free from rust/corrosion, dry rot, mold and mildew, fungus, and ultraviolet radiation and must meet the minimum shelf and service life requirements in the Performance Specification.

Q13: Please define component parts that cannot be used if a lot fails.

A13: Any component/part directly involved in the failure of the LAT may not be used. For example, if a helmet fails 9mm RTP/BTD, the chinstrap lot may still be used, however if the failure was caused by a defect in the suspension system, the suspension system lot may not be used to fulfil delivery.

Q14: We noticed that First Article Testing (FAT) clauses 52.209-3 and 52.209-4 are not included in the draft RFP. Is it the intent that the Phase III Government Ballistic/Non-Ballistic Testing identified in paragraph L.2.3 will satisfy FAT qualification and that FAT will not take place after contract award?

Through amendment’s #1-#3, it has become clear that FAT is during the solicitation phase but it would seem appropriate to have the previously mentioned clauses in the contract.

A14: FAR Clauses 52.209-3 and 52.209-4 will be included within the final version of the RFP.

Q15: Section 3.25.1 Marking of Helmet Shell states, “The non-ballistic helmet shell shall be marked on the inside surface at the crown area with the applicable size lettering using the letters SM, MD, LG, XL, XXL (or other sizing scheme as applicable) using a “molded-in” process and shall be visually legible.”

With regard to the bump shell only, is it acceptable to perform a secondary operation that produces a permanent legible marking, so long as the shell performance characteristics are not adversely affected and retains the same expected durability requirements?

A15: The Government is amenable to this if the process does not adversely affect the helmet performance.

Q16: In accordance with Q&A set #2, Question 20, we feel that the approach listed in Appendix C with regards to the ‘Ballistic Helmet 9mm RTP/BTD’ 90/90 favors the 4 size helmet methodology. The 4-size suite is allowed 3 failures in 200 shots (1.5% failure rate) and the 5 size suite is held to the same 3 failures in 250 shots (1.2% failure rate). For testing the 5-size suite, each bin (5 sizes, 5 conditions, and 5 locations) includes 50 shots (assuming left & right sides are separated), 1 CP per bin yields a 92.4% LCL.

If the sides are combined, there are 100 shots in the “sides bin”, meaning that 2 CPs would yield a 94.8% LCL. As it is possible to have a total of 5 CPs spread over the respective sizes, environments, and locations, without exceeding 90/90 in any bin, why is the 5-size suite, held to a lower observed failure rate than the 4-size suite?

A16: A Failure is defined as a complete penetration (CP) or a BTD in excess of the limits set in the Performance Specification.

4- and 5-size helmet suites must provide a minimum of 96/90 statistics across total number of shots while providing a minimum of 90/90 statistics for each size, shot location, and environment.

For a four-size suite, a maximum of 4 failures are allowed out of the total 200 shots. These 4 failures are limited to 1 per size, 1 per shot location, and 1 per environment to ensure 90/90 statistics for each of these bins.

For a five-size suite, a maximum of 5 failures are allowed out of the total 250 shots. These 5 failures are limited to 1 per size, 1 per shot location, and 1 per environment to ensure 90/90 statistics for each of these bins.

The Performance Specification will be updated to reflect this change and will be released with the final

RFP.

Q17: The solicitation requires accessory rails, are there any specific functions or accessories the rail must support?

A17: The accessory rails shall accept the mounting of typical SOF accessories including but not limited to the Parachutist Oxygen Mask (POM) and 3M Peltor rail connector.

Q18: Will the helmet system be evaluated for the ability to attach other accessories in the future, such as visors or mandible protection?

A18: This solicitation will not include accessories such as visors or mandible protection systems.

Q19: The solicitation requires exterior hook and loop, is there any requirement for size or placement of hook and loop panels, or interface requirements/accessories which must be compatible?

A19: There is no defined requirement for size, placement, or interface requirements, but the hook and loop effectiveness will be determined during operational user evaluation.

Q20: Given that ballistic and non-ballistic shells may have different material properties, can they use different suspension systems (for example liners made from different density foams) to optimize performance in each?

A20: No. The liners/suspension systems must be common for both helmet systems.

Q21: 3.7.2, Retention System Dynamic Strength, requires a 25 ft/sec drop of the helmet onto a hemispherical anvil to assess the strength of the retention system – it also states the helmet shall be mounted to the apparatus specified in 3.7.1. However, the pull strength apparatus of 3.7.1 (with cylindrical rollers to simulate the chin and attach the chinstrap) is not part of the DOT FMVSS 218 drop test apparatus. The DOT headforms specified for drop testing in FMVSS 218 are half headforms with no chin. How should the retention system be mounted/secured to the headform when conducting the 25ft/s drops?

A21: The Helmet shall be mounted to the apparatus as specified in 3.10. The Performance specification will be updated to reflect this change and will be released with the final RFP.

Q22: The short timeline and large quantities of PDMs required, as well as the changes in scope and requirements from those initially outlined in both the BAA for USSOCOM Family of Tactical Headborne Systems (USSOCOMBAASSES-2016) and at the 15 NOV 2016 FTHS Industry day, provides little time to conduct further R&D/optimization, thereby potentially compromising industry’s ability to provide the Operator with the best solution. Recognizing the importance of delivering the best solutions for the Operator, will the government consider either: (a) extending the submission deadline to allow for more adequate industry development and optimization testing, or (b) requiring only 1 size be submitted against the current timeline for down-select purposes, acknowledging all sizes will ultimately be required to meet the stated specs? Alternatively, is the Government’s intent to solicit COTS solutions?

A22: At this time, the Government is not amenable to changing the submission deadline or the required number of PDMs. The Government does not intend to solicit a COTS solution.

Q23: The RFP requires submission of details of a fully developed system(s), 340 PDMs, and test results of over 70 helmets by 29 Jun 17. This is a very tight schedule, as the deadline is only 104 days after the Performance Specification was revealed with the draft RFP on 17 Mar 17. The short turn could, in effect, reduce the pool of potential offerors able and willing to provide the best solution. Has the government balanced its desire for a rapid response against the risk of reducing competition?

A23: The Government does not consider the response time to be rapid.

Q24: Is the Government willing to extend the due date by 75 days to allow broader and more beneficial competition?

A24: No, at this time the Government is not willing to extend the proposal due date.

Q25: Would the Government consider modifying the language in L.2.2.4.6 to reflect wording in other similar solicitations for ballistic and non-ballistic helmets (ref. ACH Gen 2, ECH, etc.) and associated products in which the Small Business Participation levels are not mandatory, but rather Goals, and make an allowance for an Offeror to explain in detail any variances from the SBP Goals?

A25: This will be revised with release of the final RFP.

Q26: Is it required to have the Tool Inspection Ballistic Testing conducted by a 3rd party test facility? If so, is a laboratory specified for the Inspection (Including PDM/FAT build) and is Government witnessing required for the inspection?

A26: Tool inspection testing is not required to be conducted at a 3rd party facility. The PDM/FAT build is required to be tested at a 3rd party facility and this facility is identified in the RFP document.

Government witnessing is not required for tool qualification but is required for FAT/LAT.

Q27: Please confirm that a different configuration is acceptable for the ballistic and non-ballistic cover and hardware? Is it a requirement that the ballistic and non-ballistic hardware and cover be compatible/interoperable?

A27: A different configuration for ballistic and non-ballistic cover and hardware is acceptable. It is not required that the ballistic and non-ballistic hardware or cover be compatible/interoperable.

Q28: Please clarify the color of the retention systems for CLIN 1005 & 1006?

A28: Tan 499. Attachment 05 Price Matrix will be updated to reflect this information and will be released with the final RFP.

Q29: Please provide further clarification from Questions Set #2 , A47 - Is a helmet cover quantity of one

(1) acceptable for representation, or does the government expect helmet covers representing each size, each color, and each pattern for the "ballistic" and "non-ballistic" helmet"?

A29: One helmet cover is acceptable for representation.

Q30: Please confirm the following test protocol will be utilized: IOP ATC-MMTB-029 Rev E, effective Nov 15, 2013, entitled “Blunt Impact Test Procedure for Combat Helmets”. If so, please include this test protocol in the applicable documents section 2.2 of the FTHS Performance Specification, Attachment 01.

A30: ATC-MMTB-IOP-029 REV E will be utilized for headform impact angle orientations.

Q31: Is it possible the 0.023 inch indentation depth for non-ballistic impact (in section 3.10 and discussed in QA set 2) is a typo, since the ACH specification has utilized a 0.15 inch limit since 2010 (AR/PD 10-02, 14 DEC 2010, superseding CO/PD 05-04, 30 OCT 2007), and more recently a 0.2 inch limit?

A31: No this is not a typo, the limit is 0.023 inches.