Questions_and_Answers_3_for_H92222-17-R-0011.pdf

SURG QUESTIONS

H92222-17-R-0011 As of 05 June 2017

168. Can you please put me into contact with the Test Engineer who is responsible for the SPL measurement system on SURG testing?

Answer 168.

A specific Government employee will not be provided during an ongoing source selection.

Please route all questions through Mrs. Amy Strother at amy.strother@socom.mil

169. In regards to Solicitation H92222-17-R-0011 Suppress Upper Receiver Group; it is our understanding that an OEM is permitted to team with two different partners in order to submit two different bids, offering two different products. Can you please confirm if our understanding is correct, and if that OEM is permitted to serve as either the Prime or the Subcontractor on either contract.

Answer 169. This is correct.

170. Can you please put me into contact with the Test/Measurement Engineer who configured the sound recording equipment to be used in the SURG solicitation testing, I need to be able to match measurement methodologies in order to move forward with our program.

Answer 170. Reference Question 168 answer. Additionally, Attachment 01 Performance Specification Sections 1.2 Test Configuration/1.3 Test Ammunition of the Performance Specification for Suppressed Upper Receiver Group (SURG) for M4A1 CARBINE speaks to the methodologies used.

171. In paragraph [Attachment 01 Performance Specification] 3.4.3c it states, "The SURG forend shall accommodate three (3) inches or nine (9) slots of MIL-STD-1913 in the three (3) and nine (9) o'clock positions at the muzzle end of the forend (T)". The question I have is does this 3" portion of Picatinny rail have to be a permanent piece of the hand guard? It doesn't state that it should be Mlok or removable like the following paragraph does for the 6" piece for the 3 and 9 o'clock and the 9" piece at the 6 o'clock.

Answer 171. The offeror must determine their own solution to be in accordance with 3.4.3(c)

172. Regarding [Attachment 01 Performance Specification] item 3.4.3 SURG Rail Configuration. 3.4.3(A) states that there needs to be a minimum of 9.5 inches of slotted area on the forend of MIL-STD-1913 rail. How many slots does this equate to? We ask as the standard measurement is in mm, not inches, which can lead to differences (for all the 1913 rail measurements actually) and therefore number of required slots would be a better guide/standard.

Answer 172. The minimum number of MIL-STD 1913 slots is 24. Slot definition used: any location along the MIL-STD 1913 rail that a cross-bolt on an accessory can utilize.

173. What color(s) specifically is meant when the statement "Dull, non- reflective surface is mentioned?

Answer 173. Attachment 01 Performance Specification Color Coyote 498 (20150) not lighter than 481 (20220) Light Coyote in FED-STD-595C surface finish (T). If SURG unit utilizes an external debris mitigation cover then bolt carrier group is not required to have a Coyote finish between 498 and 481 per FED-STD-595C

174. Can a hard chrome plated (silver) surface be used on internal parts such as the bolt, bolt carrier, barrel extension, and extractor if it has been dulled?

Answer 174. Attachment 01 Performance Specification Section 3.4.8(f) specifies request bolt carrier assembly be Coyote 498 (20150) not lighter than 481 (20220) Light Coyote in FED0STD 595C.

175. Can the surface towards the barrel on heat shields around the barrel be unfinished or left dull silver to increase effectiveness?

Answer 175. Attachment 01 Performance Specification Section 3.4.8(d) states that all external and visible surfaces shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective surface finish that retains paint.

176. Can parts mostly covered by exterior parts like the barrel and gas block be black or a color other than coyote? (Due to the of these parts during sustained fire, they do not retain color finishes)

Answer176. Attachment 01 Performance Specification Section 3.4.8(d) states that all external and visible surfaces shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective surface finish that retains paint.

177. Can certain markings on the exterior (address markings on rail interfaces, sight adjustments, and serial numbers) be a color other than coyote 498?

Answer 177. Yes, Attachment 01 Performance Specification Section 3.4.8(d) states that all external and visible surfaces shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective surface finish that retains paint.

178. Can the sight's rear aperture and front post be left black?

Answer 178. Yes, Attachment 01 Performance Specification Section 3.4.8(d) states that all external and visible surfaces shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective surface finish that retains paint.

179. Can you provide STANAG chamber drawings and/or specifications?

Answer 179. Yes. The STANAG chamber drawings and specifications will be provided as an attachment to this response.

180. What is the block duration in milliseconds or time steps? I also want to confirm, the sampling rate you will be using is 131 kHz correct?

Answer 180. Section 5.7.5 SURG Attach 1

181. Is the Upper Receiver Cartridge just the Upper receiver? What is the "cartridge" aspect of the upper receiver? If we have the suppressor sleeve and the upper receiver body both with matching serial number does that meet the requirement?

Answer 181. The Upper Receiver Cartridge detail is found in Attachment 01 - Performance Specification, Suppressor Configuration is in Section 3.4.4, Major components is in Section 3.4.1.

182. Will we have expedited ATF processing when we transfer the 3 SURG samples to SOCOM? What have you discussed with ATF and is there anything we need to know about when transferring to ATF for the samples?

Answer 182. The contractor is responsible for accomplishing the required task to ensure success. The solicitation does not dictate how they are to accomplish this task.

183. Table L-1 of the RFP references a 20-page written proposal that must be submitted for Phase I, in addition to the three product samples. However, Section L does not contain detailed instructions for what is required in this written proposal. Please provide the detailed instructions for the written proposal for Phase I.

Answer 183. See Solicitation H92222-17-R-0011 section L.2.1.1 Volume 1 – GO/NO-GO Product Sample (PS)

184. In Table L-1, in Phase I, under the Number of Pages column, it states, “20 (Response to Table1: Phase 1 Testing)”. Is the contractor required to perform the Go/No Go testing prior to delivery of the product samples and report the results of this testing in the Phase I written proposal?

Answer 184. In reference to Table L-1, in Phase I, an offeror is requested to provide an operator’s manual or quick reference guide. See Solicitation H92222-17-R-0011 section L.2.1.1 Volume 1 – GO/NO-GO Product Sample (PS).

185. When testing the temperature of the rail and of the suppressor, what environmental conditions are allowed during this testing (air temp, wind velocity)?

Answer 185. SURG Attach 1 section 5.7.8 (d).

186. Please verify that the weight listed is without optics/sights, magazine, and rounds.

Answer 186. See Attachment 01 Performance Specification Section 3.4.2 and 5.5.2.

187. The method of measuring the length of the rail section is not clearly defined. Is there a standard on how they should be measured?

Answer 187. See Attachment 01 Performance Specification Section 3.4.2 and 3.4.3.

188. Section 3.7 describes a number of environmental requirements that the weapon must meet.

Is the contractor required to perform these tests?

Answer 188. No, the tests will be conducted by NSWC Crane.

189. In Section 3.6.6 is there a conflict with 140 dB being marked both (T) in part a, and (O) in part b? Further, in section 5.7.5 is mentions greater than 140 dB resulting in failure, suggesting that 140 dB is the threshold measurement, not the objective measurement.

Answer 189. The requirement in Section 3.6.6.a specifically calls out the shooters ear position.

In section 3.6.6.b the TOP 3-2-045 measurement positions are addressed and not the shooters ear position.

190. Section 3.6.6.b mentions “tested per TOP 3-2-045 multi positional testing configuration”.

After a review of TOP 3-2-045, we see no mention of a “multi positional configuration”.

Answer 190. Refer to Attachment 1, Section is updated 3.6.6. (b).

191. What wind conditions are acceptable during the firing sequence outlined in Section 3.6.8.c?

Answer 191. Refer to Attachment 1, Section 3.7.

192. 3.6.8. E says, “Average firing rate over 7 minutes shall be 1 round per 2 seconds +/-0.2 seconds.” Because the word average is included in the sentence, technically one could fire all 210 rounds in the first 60 seconds, let the gun rest and cool for 6 minutes then take the measurement. In that case, the average of 210 rounds over 7 minutes is satisfied. The verbiage differs from 3.6.8.c, but assuming the intent is the same, the wording should be tightened up.

Answer 192. Section 3.6.8. covers heat control/mirage reduction. Therefore, the sections in questions are in line with their perspective topics.

193. Section 3.7.2 has an objective drain time of zero seconds. Please explain how this is possible.

Answer 193. Weapon drain time has to do with when the weapon will be fired after removal from the water. The threshold at 3 seconds will be fired first and the weapon will be inspected for damage or missing parts. Weapon then be reset assuming screening proved that it passed the threshold requirements verification. Weapon will then be removed from water and immediately fired (zero seconds).

194. Attach 03 Phase Three Testing Details refers to an “MUA” in the first paragraph of 5.19.1

pg. 2; can you please define what is meant by MUA?

Answer 194. MUA is a military user assessment. An MUA is considered operational testing by end users of the system.

195. Can we refurbish and submit the three Product Samples as part of our ten SURG Validation Units under CLIN 0001?

Answer 195. No, the ten SURG Validation Units shall be new production.

196. L.2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: (1) Technical Approach requires the Offeror to submit written verification that the proposed system meets all requirements of the Performance Spec. If the Government is going to perform a Go/No-Go test & verification on the three submitted Product Samples, which are submitted two months ahead of the written proposal, why is a written technical proposal necessary for this SF necessary?

Answer 196. A complete and responsive proposal is required for contract award which includes a written Technical Proposal.

197. The RFP states that only those passing the Go/No-Go testing will have their written proposal evaluated. However, it appears that we are required to submit a written proposal regardless of whether the proposal will be evaluated, or not, based on submission of the Product Samples. Do we understand this correctly? If not, please explain further the process for conducting the Go/No-Go test on the Product Samples and when the written proposal will be required?

Answer 197. All Product Samples are due on June 14, 2017 2:00 pm and written proposals are due on July 31, 2017 at 2:00 pm.

198. CLIN 0003 Would the USG please clarify if the training materials to include: all manuals, Training Support Packages (TSPs), Periods of Instruction (POIs), lesson plans, and other referenced necessary documents are to be provided by the Contractor at time of proposal submission?

Answer 198. Yes, see Attachment 1 Performance Specification section 3.5.3 (f).

199. CLIN 0006 Would the USG please clarify if the Provisioning Parts List (PPL), also Exhibit B, shall be submitted with the proposal? If so, which volume should it be included?

Answer 199. Yes, it shall be submitted with the proposal in Volume 3.

200. CLIN 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003 would the USG please clarify the standards for the Train the Trainer Course? Will SOCOM provide a syllabus or training outline after contract award?

Answer 200. An offeror is to provide their solution in its entirety in response to Attachment 1 Performance Specification section 3.5.3 (f).

201. CLIN 0005, Attachment 1 Reference 4.1.3.1.14 (pg. 23) in Attachment 1. Would the USG please explain how CLIN 0005 NTE dollar amount was determined? If needed, would contractors be allowed to modify this CLIN to exceed the NTE amount stated within? And if, needed, would contractors be allowed to modify this CLIN to exceed the NTE amount stated within?

Answer 201. This amount is established as the requirement. No. No.

202. 52.211-9/Section A references that contractors are to provide 68,575 units over lifetime of the contract; which is 13,715/year, and 1,142/month. Table A on page 17 references the contractor delivering 200 per month equating to 2,400/year. Would the USG please clarify if contractors are to adhere to delivery schedule (a) [2,400/year] or if we are to delivery, the max quantity of 1,142/month.

Answer 202. Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.211-9 details the desired and required delivery rate and ship to address. The desired rate and time of delivery is as follows;

the first 200 due 60 days ARO, then 200 every 30 days thereafter until delivery order is complete. The required rate and time of delivery is as follows; the first 200 due 90 days ARO, then 200 every 30 days thereafter until delivery order is complete.

203. Unique Item Identifier: “Contractor shall provide a unique item identifier for the following:” however there is nothing following. What is the "following"?

Answer 203.

Delivered items for which the Government's unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more.

204. Table is empty. Would the USG please populate the table on page 31?

Answer 204. Delivered items for which the Government's unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more.

205. Offerors shall complete the Reps and Certs and Other Statements of Offer in Section K.

Section K is blank. Would the USG please provide Section K, or guidance on how to obtain it?

Answer 205. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations clause 4.1201 prospective contractors shall complete electronic annual representations and certifications in SAM accessed via https://www.acquisition.gov. and submit it in their written proposal.

206. 5652.216-9003(a): (a) All multiple award contractors shall be considered for each order over $3,500, unless the Contracting Officer determines that … Q&A 113: Multiple ID/IQ contracts will be awarded, but only one vendor will be in service. Will the USG explain how all multiple award contractors shall be considered for each order if only one contractor is in service, per Q&A 113?

Answer 206. In accordance with Clause 5652.216-9003.

207. 5652.243-9000 after contract award, the USG may "solicit", or independently the Contractor may propose, technology improvements to the equipment, software specifications, or other requirements of the contract. If a contractor is not awarded on this contract, can the USG still solicit our technology/TDP?

Answer 207. Not through this solicitation.

208. The original RFP includes subcontracting information in Volume I, and the Amendment moves this portion of the response to Volume IV. This is a significant reordering of the proposal, given that it involves the way the proposal will be evaluated; would the USG please release a volume that is current and reflects all recent changes?

Answer 208. Yes.

209. Table L-1 The Pricing Volume/Electronic Copies cell in this table is blank. How many copies of the Pricing Volume are required?

https://www.acquisition.gov/

Answer 209. One copy.

210. Table L-1 and M.2.1.1 Vol I - Go/No-Go PS Volume I is divided into two phases, Go/No- Go and Technical, each phase allowing a 20 page allocation. Section M references a "Go/No-Go proposal" indicating that this proposal is due at time of product sample delivery. Would the USG please confirm: Whether or not Volume I consists of 2 phases, with a 40 page allocation, due NLT 31 July (both phases)?

Answer 210. Correct Volume I consist of two phases with a 40 page allocation. 20 page limit for Phase I and 20 page limit for Phase II.

211. Table L-1 and M.2.1.1 Vol I - Go/No-Go PS: See above. If a Go/No-Go proposal is due with the product samples 31 May, with a 20 page allocation, leaving the Volume I due on 31 July with a 20 page allocation?

Answer 211. Product Samples (PS) are due by 2:00 PM June 14th, 2017 with an operator’s manual or quick reference guide explaining operation of the SURG, see Solicitation H92222-17- R-0011 section L.2.1.1 VOLUME 1 – GO/NO-GO Product Sample.

212. Table L-1 and M.2.1.1 Vol I - Go/No-Go PS See above. Given the scenario that the PS Proposal is due 31 May, where is the point of delivery for the proposals?

Answer 212. Product Samples are due 14 June 2017 at 2:00pm Eastern Standard Time.

COMMANDER

Attn: JXNL – JOHN MUSCATELL

BLDG: 2522

300 Highway 361 Crane, IN 47522-5001

DODAAC: N00164

213. L.1.3 Instructions say PSs shall be delivered and provides an address for delivery. Would the USG please confirm if the PSs are to be hand carried or mailed?

Answer 213. Either method of delivery is acceptable.

214. L.2.1.1 Volume I - Go/No-Go Product Samples allows for a 20 page allocation. Per Section L.2.1.1 would the USG please confirm if the "operator's manual or quick reference guide explaining operation of the SURG, not limited to assembly/disassembly and cleaning procedures" are in fact the only required information to be evaluated in this Volume?

Answer 214. No, Volume I consist of two phases with a 40 page allocation. 20 page limit for Phase I (Go/No-Go Product Samples) due on due by 2:00 PM June 14th, 2017 and 20 page limit for Phase II (Technical) due by 2:00 PM July 31st, 2017.

215. L.2.2.1.1, 1. Technical Approach: The solicitation states the offeror MAY propose to the objective specification and describe how the solution demonstrates its capabilities as advantageous to the Government. Would the USG please clarify if Contractors are to address objective specifications in this section?

Answer 215. Offerors shall provide responses to the performance specification and demonstrate how the solution intends to meet all requirements thresholds and objectives if applicable, identify areas of noncompliance and risk for the performance specification.

216. L.2.2.1.1, 2. Configuration Management Approach Table L-1 states the Configuration Management Plan is not included within the page count; however, it is addressed in Section L.2.2.1.1 as part of this section. Would the USG clarify if contractors are to attach the Configuration Management Plan, AND write to it as in Section L.2.2.1.1?

Answer 216. Offerors shall provide responses as indicated in Section L.2.2.1.1.

217. L.2.2.1.1, 3. Quality Assurance/Table L-1: Table L-1 states that "quality assurance" is not included in the page count. Please confirm that table L-1 should state "Quality Assurance Plan".

Answer 217. Table L-1 will be updated in a Solicitation H92222-17-R-0011 Amendment to read “Quality Assurance Plan”.

218. L.2.2.1.1, 3. Quality Assurance: Will the USG accept the newest version, ISO 9001:2015 certifications?

Answer 218. Yes.

219. This question states that the ISO certifications is NOT required to submit for SURG, only that contractors can pass QA Inspections or equivalent quality control standards. Section L states that contractors ARE to submit copies of ISO certifications. Would the USG please clarify if ISO certifications are required to be submitted for the Prime and Subcontractor(s)?

Answer 219. ISO are required as part of Quality Assurance for significant partners or subcontractors.

220. L.2.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Subcontracting Approach The contractor assumes since we are a small business we are not to submit a small business subcontracting plan…. Therefore, would the USG please confirm if small businesses are to address the subsequent sections 1-5?

Answer 220. If you are a Small business you do not submit a Subcontracting plan, nor are you required to address the subsequent sections 1-5.

221. L.2.2.1.2 Section 3. If the answer to Line 17 above is "yes". Would the USG please confirm if the listing of small businesses and those companies socio-economic statuses, should include be included for subcontractors only, or subcontracts and vendors.

Answer 221. L.2.2.1.2 Section 3 applies to Large businesses.

222. L.2.2.1.2 Section 5. "Offeror CAN submit their commercial small business contracting plan…. Please confirm if contracts MUST submit their commercial small business contracting plan.

Answer 222. Large business offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan In Accordance With FAR 52.219-9.

223. L.2.3.2 (does not include organizational history and any Organizational Structure Change History, SF 294, Subcontracting Report for individual Contracts, SF 295, Summary Subcontract Report, or audit data.) Please confirm that contractors should not submit this information anywhere in our proposal response to the USG.

Answer 223. L.2.3.2 parentheses refers to these items being exempt from page count.

224. L.2.3.2 PPI sheets do not include email addresses as written on page 49. Would the USG please update the Attachment 6 PPI to include "email address,” or may the contractor update the sheet to include this requirement?

Answer 224. E-mail address has been added to Attachment 6.

225. L.2.3.4 Relevancy is defined as past and present performance over the past 3 years. Does this need to be a contract awarded within the last three years or can it be an active contract within the last three years?

Answer 225. Contracts within the three year period which may include active contracts.

226. M.1.1 "If multiple awards are made, contractors will be provided a fair opportunity to compete for delivery orders". "Only one vendor will be in service" Would the USG please clarify, if only one contractor is in service, how can we fairly compete for delivery orders?

Answer 226. Task/Delivery Orders will be awarded In Accordance With Clause 5652.216- 9003.

227. M.2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1 - 1. Technical Approach "The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical volume …" Although this CRM is to be only in the Technical Volume, should it encompass a cross reference for every volume, as in a "Master" CRM for the entire proposal?

Answer 227. A Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) is requested for the Technical Volume exclusively.

228. M.2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1 - 2 Configuration Management "providing supporting documentation regarding proposed solutions/actions to avoid high risk areas/actions to minimize performance risk" would the USG please clarify what "supporting documentation" is acceptable?

Answer 228. Refer to SURG Solicitation M.2.2.1.1.

229. M.2.4.6 "Where duplicate data are desired, the Government will ensure the contract price includes the costs of duplication, but not of preparation, of such duplicate data" Would the USG please explain what "duplicate data" is?

Answer 229. This section has been removed from the solicitation.

230. RFP/Amendment 0001 Price Volume, M.2.4.2-M.2.4.6, "Note" Sections have been removed from Amendment 0001, Section M. Would the USG please confirm that these sections were intentionally removed from Section M in Amendment 0001?

Answer 230. It is confirmed that these sections have been removed from the solicitation.

231. Multiple IDIQs will be awarded, but only one vendor will be in service. Would the USG please clarify if 2nd and 3rd tier awardees (not in service) are required to provide TDPs of their SURG to the USG?

Answer 231. Yes

232. NSWC Crane is currently working to provide manufacturing drawings to the vendors of the new test fixture Crane is currently building for SURG 2.0 testing. Can USG provide industry with test fixture drawings?

Answer 232. At this time it is unlikely that the drawings will be releasable prior to sample delivery date.

233. States that it will send out a back brief to all vendors after industry day is completed.

Can USG provide industry with back brief?

Answer 233. No additional back brief required. The Question and Answer responses qualify as the back brief.

234. Data regarding the MK18 Thermal data will be provided following Q&A document. Can USG provide industry with information about the MK18 Thermal data?

Answer 234. Yes data from the MK18 thermal testing will be provided.

235. All equipment being used for SURG testing will be provided to industry including nomenclature and part numbers concerning the specification for the Ozzie Juice cleaning fluid.

Would the USG please provide industry with nomenclature and part numbers?

Answer 235. Yes.

236. The SURG precision fixture has yet to be evaluated concerning what optics will be used for precision. Q&A states that the information will be provided to the industry. Would the USG please provide industry with information regarding what optics will be used for precision or advice when this evaluation is to be conducted?

Answer 236. Refer to Attach 1, Section 5.5.1.

237. The SURG precision fixture has yet to be evaluated concerning what optic mount will be used for precision. Q&A states that the information will be provided to the industry. Would the USG please provide industry with information regarding what optic mount will be used for precision or advice when this evaluation is to be conducted?

Answer 237. Refer to Attach 1, Section 5.5.1.

238. The SURG precision fixture has yet to be evaluated concerning how the USG plans on mounting MK18 in the new SURG accuracy fixture. Q&A states that information will be provided to the industry. Would the USG please provide industry with information regarding how government plans on mounting MK18 in the new SURG accuracy fixture will be used for precision or advise when this evaluation is to be conducted?

Answer 238. Refer to Attach 1, Section 5.5.1.

239. The SURG precision fixture has yet to be evaluated concerning the how the SURG will be aimed for testing. Q&A states the procedure will be provided to the industry. Would the USG please provide industry with information about how the SURG accuracy fixture will be aimed for testing?

Answer 239. Refer to Attach 1, Section 5.5.1.

240. The SURG precision fixture has yet to be evaluated concerning if there will be a camera or a human aiming the SURG accuracy fixture for testing. Q&A states that the information will be provided to industry. Would the USG please provide industry with information regarding camera or human aiming the SURG accuracy fixture for testing?

Answer 240. Refer to Attach 1, Section 5.5.1.

Attachment 1

241. Attachment 1 3.4.3 C/D. SURG Rail Configuration C - "The SURG forend shall accommodate three (3) inches or nine (9) slots of MIL-STD-1913 in the three (3) and nine (9) o'clock positions at the muzzle end of the forend (T)." D - The SURG forend shall accommodate removable MIL-STD-1913 rail sections at the 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions that are configurable at locations along the forend for no less than 9.0 inches in the (6) o'clock position and six (6) inches in the three (3) and nine (9) o'clock positions. MLOK rail sections shall attach with point of aim (POA) repeatability of 1.0 minute of Angle (MOA) (T), 0.5 or less MOA (O). Must the SURG forend be removable, or does it need to be part of the rail system?

Answer 241. Refer to Attach 1, Section 5.5.3.

242. Attachment 1, 3.1, Phase I (Go/No-Go): Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.2. Would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.2?

Answer 242. Attachment 1 contains section 5.2 referenced.

243. Attachment 1,3.1, Phase II Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.8,. Would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.8?

Answer 243. Refer to Attachment II, section 5.10.

244. Attachment 1, 3.1, Phase III: Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.19 . Would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.19?

Answer 244. Attachment III contains section 5.19 referenced.

245. Attachment 1, 3.2, Phase I (Go/No-Go): Reference Attachment V Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.3 would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.3?

Answer 245. Attachment I contains section 5.3 referenced.

246. Attachment 1, 3.2, Phase II Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.11. Would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.11?

Answer 246. Attachment II contains section 5.11 referenced.

247. Attachment 1, 3.2, Phase III: Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.20. Would the USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.20?

Answer 247. Attachment III contains section 5.20 referenced.

248. Attachment 1, 3.3, Phase I (Go/No-Go): Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.4. Would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.4?

Answer 248. Attachment I contains section 5.4 referenced.

249. Attachment 1, 3.3, Phase II Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.12. Would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.12?

Answer 249. Attachment II contains section 5.12 referenced.

250. Attachment 1, 3.3, Phase III: Table I: Requirement Verification Cross Reference Matrix and section 5.21. Would USG clarify which attachment contains this referenced 5.21?

Answer 250. Attachment III contains section 5.21 referenced.

251. Attachment 1(c): The surface finish shall minimize dust attraction and contamination would the USG explain, what is the texting criteria for contamination?

Answer 251. Refer to Attachment 1, Section 5.5.7.

252. Attachment 1, 3.4.9(a): The SURG component parts to include suppressor and any associated parts removable/re buildable by operator or intermediate maintenance personnel shall be fully interchangeable with other like SURG components would the USG clarify, what are "other like SURG components"?

Answer 252. Refer to Attachment 1, Section 5.5.4.

253. Attachment 1, 3.6.3: this requirement is an objective only, and listed under functional performance requirements. And this requirement is not listed on any testing phase or found on any table. Would the USG please confirm that this will not be tested, as it is only an objective and not included on other matrices for testing.

Answer 253. Refer to Attachment 3, Section 5.19.1.

254. Attachment 1: The SURG equipped M4A1 should have less perceived recoil than the MK18 MOD1 Suppressed. How is "perceived recoil" measured?

Answer 254. Refer to Attachment 3, Section 5.19.1.

255. Attachment 1, 3.7.12: Operator acceptance shall be based on the ability of the SURG system to meet all stated threshold requirements as well as operators' subjective and objective consideration of operational suitability, effectiveness, and ergonomic acceptability. How is "Operators' subjective and objective consideration" measured?

Answer 255. Refer to Attachment 3, Section 5.19.1.

256. Attachment 1, 4.2, Reference Table CDRL Listing, also in Exhibit A. How are contractor's to price these DCRLs?

Answer 256. CDRLs A001-A008 shall be in accordance with A001 through A008. These shall not be separately priced and included in the prices of the verification and Production CLINs.

257. Attachment 1, 4.2 Reference Table CDRL Listing, also in Exhibit A. Are these Plans and Lists in the 4.2 Reference Table due at time of proposal submission, or upon award?

Answer 257. Proposal submission.

258. Attachment 1, 4.3.1.12, 4.3.1.13, 4.3.1.14, 4.3.1.15: These four referenced sections are not listed in the CDRL table or are they part of Exhibit A. Are these four referenced sections considered CDRLs?

Answer 258. The sections are not CDRLs. Each section explains what the section covers and are associated with other CLINs in the solicitation.

259. Attachment 1, 4.3.1.12, 4.3.1.13, 4.3.1.14, 4.3.1.15: These four referenced sections are not listed in the CDRL table or are they part of Exhibit A. If "yes", should they be priced or provided with proposal submission?

Answer 259. Refer to SURG Solicitation, Section 4.3.1.3 which outlines what CDRLs are listed.

260. Attachment 1: 5.1 References Attachment 6. Should this read (see Attachment 5, Table I Phase 1 Requirements Verification/References?

Answer 260. Yes, document updated to reflect the correct reference.

261. Attachment 1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4.4: All sections reference 7.2 (keyword listing in attachment 1) is this the correct reference number?

Answer 261. No, document updated to reflect the correct reference.

262. Attachment 1, 5.4.5: This section references Table III, however there is no Table III in Attachment 1. Which table are contractors to reference for this section?

Answer 262. Document updated to reflect the correct reference.

263. Attachment 1, 3.4, 5.5: We understand that 5.5 are the Verification Methods for section 3.4, System Requirements. It seems that section 3.4.7, Firing Pin, and section 3.4.9, Parts Interchangeability, are excluded from 5.5. Are Firing Pin and Parts Interchangeability mistakenly left out of 5.5 or is this intended?

Answer 263. Refer to Attachment 2, Section 5.13.4.

264. Attachment 1. 5.6.1 is titled "M4A1 Lower Receiver Group Mounting". Should 5.6.1 read "Weapons and Accessory Compatibility" as per section 3.5.1?

Answer 264. Refer to Attachment 2, Section 5.14.

265. Attachment 1. 5.6.2 is missing (c) from 3.5.2. Should (c) from 3.5.2 be added to 5.6.2?

Answer 265. Refer to Attachment 2, Section 5.14.

266. Attachment 1, 3.5. 5.6 we understand that 5.6 are the Verification Methods for section 3.5, Interface and Interoperability. It seems that section 3.5.3, Training and Support Gear Compatibility, and section 3.5.4, Ammunition Compatibility, are excluded from 5.6. Are Training and Support Gear Compatibility and Ammunition Compatibility mistakenly left out of

5.6 or is this intended?

Answer 266. Refer to Attachment 2, Section 5.14.

267. Attachment 1, 3.6: 5.7 we understand that 5.7 are the Verification Methods for section 3.6, Functional Performance Requirements. It seems that section 3.6.3, Precision, Shoulder Fired,

3.6.4 Barrel Life, 3.6.5 Muzzle Velocity, 3.6.9 Cyclic Rate, are excluded from 5.7. Are Precision Shoulder Fired, Barrel Life, Muzzle Velocity and Cyclic Rate mistakenly left out of

5.7 or is this intended?

Answer 267. Refer to Attachment 2, Section 5.14.

268. Attachment 1, 3.6.2: Results are listed from 100 meters which will be translated to 300 yards. Section 3.6.2 only refers to 300 yards but does not mention the conversion from 100 meters. Is the conversion from 100 meters to be referenced in section 3.6.2 as well?

Answer 268. Refer to Attachment 1, Section 5.7.1.

269. Attachment 1, 5.8: In 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 the reference sections are wrong. Would the government please update these sections to 3.8.1 and 3.8.2?

Answer 269. Document will be updated to reflect the correct reference.

270. Attachment 1: References 6.2 which is not part of Attachment I. Will the USG please identify where 6.2 is located or if 6.2 should be removed?

Answer 270. Document will be updated to reflect the correct reference.

271. Attachment 2: Table I Row 1 Table I for Section 5 Verification Procedures states 5.9.

Can USG update row one on Table I to state 5.10 for Section 5 Verification Procedures, in order to match page 3, Design Verification Phase II, (which currently states 5.10)

Answer 271. Document updated to reflect the correct reference.

272. Attachment 2 5.14.2 Section references 3.5.2 is incorrect Can USG update section to state 3.5.1?

Answer 272. Document will be updated to reflect the correct reference.

273. In paragraph 3.4.3c it states, "The SURG forend shall accommodate three (3) inches or nine (9) slots of MIL-STD-1913 in the three (3) and nine (9) o'clock positions at the muzzle end of the forend (T)".

Answer 273. Correct.

274. Will the USG consider a SURG system to be a “failure” (out of the competition or negative marks against said submission) if during or at the completion of the eight magazine stress test firing schedule, a portion of, or the entirety of the heat mitigation system provided fails, becomes damaged or breaks as long as the SURG system is fully functional and there are no safety issues to the operator?

Answer 274. SURG Attach 1 Section 3.6.8 Heat control/mirage reduction.

275. When will the USG accept and answer questions regarding the proposal development for

SURG?

Answer 275. As publicized on Federal Business Opportunity in regards to this solicitation.

276. FERFRANS is the submitting company and manufacturer of our complete SURG upper receiver. We are using a subcontractor manufacturer for the suppressor component of the SURG. Is the CAGE code (17V) need to be the submitting manufacturer of the suppressed upper receiver group or the CAGE code of the actual subcontracted suppressor manufacturer?

Answer 276. The CAGE code should be for the submitting manufacturer.

277. Can the suppressor part number be a new created part number that designates the complete upper as a suppressed upper receiver group, or does it have to be the original suppressor part number of the subcontracted suppressor company?

Answer 277. The part number can be a newly created part number that designates the complete upper receiver group.

278. Suppressor serial number is the matching serial number on the suppressor, which also has to be a part of the UID which is on the upper receiver as well, correct?

Answer 278. See, SURG Attach 1 Section 3.8.1.

279. 5652.209-9002: Are contractors to list all vendors used for this solicitation, or subcontractors, or both?

Answer 279. Document updated to reflect the correct reference.

280. Per ATF requirements, OFFER NAME, LLC is mandated to mark the serialized ATF controlled suppressor item with our normal ATF marking requirements. This marking is per Government requirement and follows the below format:

OFFER NAME, LLC

City, State Model # Caliber

Serial Number

3.8.1 of the RFP instructions only indicates the making requirement for the upper receiver in the 2D format.

Answer 280. So long as Attachement 01 Performance Specification section 3.8.1 is met, an offeror may also mark their submission in accordance with the ATF requirement as set forth above.