OI_System_Solicitation_QAs_Amendment_0001_Attch_002_MCE.doc

M67854-13-R-1040 Questions & Answers Amendment 0001 Attch 002 Question 1. The components of the OI System defined in Table 3.1.1-1 of OI-PRF-0001 v2.0 define a soft carrying pouch as an element of the system. Each of the OI System CLINS (1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001) define a requirement for a “hard case (transportation case)”, not previously mentioned. Is a “hard case” a requirement for each system delivered?

Answer 1. Yes, each system will have a reusable hard case and a soft carrying case, each of which will be able to hold all components. The hard case will also fit the carrying case and all other components for transportation and storage when the system is not in use. Performance Specification 3.1.1 is revised to include a hard case as correctly required by the CLINS.

Question 2. In OI-PRF-0001 v2.0 section 3.4.1.1 & 3.4.1.2, (a) do these sections define additional modes of operation (i.e. 3.4.3), (b) or are these power level requirements for the stated distances?

Answer 2. (a) No, the 3.4.1.1 & 3.4.1.2 sections do not define additional modes of operation. (b) 3.4.1.1 & 3.4.1.2 do address irradiance levels at specified distances for spot mode.

Question 3. In OI-PRF-0001 v2.0 section 3.3, the pistol grip is defined as providing an “aiming capability”. In M67854-13-R-1040, CLIN 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001 & 5001 each define a deliverable that includes “pistol grip with sighting device and rail offset”. In OI-PRF-0001 v2.0 Section 4.6.3.1 defines testing to confirm “an optical sight can be simultaneously attached to the pistol grip”. (a) What is the configuration of the pistol grip, (b) what are we expected to deliver and (c) how will it be evaluated?

Answer 3. (a) The pistol grip will include an aiming capability, per Performance Specification 3.3.1. (b) Performer is expected to deliver a pistol grip, to which the OI device shall be attached for handheld use. The pistol grip shall provide an aiming capability for the attached OI device and position for the remote fire switch. The pistol grip with aiming capability shall weigh no more than 340g (12oz) and should weigh no more than 255g (9oz). The CLINs are revised to state “… pistol grip with aiming capability.” The words “and offset” are deleted.

Question 4. In M67854-13-R-1040, ADDEMDUM to FAR 52.212-1, Section L-3.4 VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE, a 10 page limit is placed on this volume. Does the submission of five completed ATTACHMENT 2: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE Section I, II & III (2 pages each) count against the page limit for Volume II?

Answer 4. No, only sections 1 & II, not III, of the Past Performance Questionnaire are included in the page count, not to exceed two pages per each of the maximum five relevant submissions. Refer to instructions on the questionnaire and RFP section L-3.2 Proposal Volume Requirements.

Question 5. From the solicitation notice M67854-13-R-1040, after submission of the response, (a) is the current timeline for Delivery Order 0001 “on or about Q2 FY’14” which results in delivery of 5 systems 180 days ARO? (b) Are there any timeframes for delivery of CLIN 10002 elements (100201, 100202, 100203, 100204, 100205, 1002AA, 1002AB)? (c) Is there a timeframe for Delivery Order 0002 with CLIN 2001, 2002 sub-CLIN and 3001?

Answer 5. (a) Yes, the timeline for Delivery Order 0001 is 2QFY14. (b) Yes, refer to each CLIN associated Contract Data Requirement List, attached to the RFP. (c) Delivery Order 2 (CLIN 2001) is anticipated in 4QFY15 after system verification testing and final single performer down select. Delivery Order 3 (CLIN 3001) is anticipated in 2QFY16; however, Delivery Orders two, three, and follow-on delivery orders will only be issued to the final, single down selected performer within a five year FFP IDIQ from initial contract award date on or about 2QFY14.

Question 6. From the solicitation notice M67854-13-R-1040, Delivery Order 0001 and CLIN 1001 call out delivery of 5 systems 180 days ARO. (a) Is early delivery of CLIN 1001 authorized? (b) If so, how early?

Answer 6. (a) Yes, early delivery is authorized by each awardee. (b) Early delivery cannot be prior to Post Award Conference, and products cannot be shipped until performer receives Government provided Military Exempt Notification Letter, as applicable.

Question 7. In M67854-13-R-1040, ADDEMDUM to FAR 52.212-1, PROPOSAL EVALUATION, B. EVALUATION FACTORS, paragraph B.1 Initial IDIQ Awards and Delivery Order 0001 Awards it states that “Delivery Order 0001 will be made based on paper evaluations”. Is there any opportunity to provide physical candidate OI Systems for evaluation prior to the Delivery Order 0001 CLIN 1001 due date?

Answer 7. Yes, early delivery is authorized by each awardee. Early delivery cannot be prior to Post Award Conference, and products cannot be shipped until performer receives Government provided Military Exempt Notification Letter, as applicable.

Question 8. Regarding sections §3.3.1 and §4.6.3.1 of the PSPEC, (a) can the optical sight be a type of iron sight, (b) or is this requirement for a 1913 rail-mounted sight such as the ACOG?

Answer 8. . (a) Yes, the pistol grip will include an aiming capability, which could be an iron sight, per Performance Specification 3.3.1. (b) No, the requirement is not to specifically provide a rail mounted optic with the pistol grip. This does not preclude an offeror from presenting an optic solution to achieve the pistol grip aiming capability requirement; however, the Government will not provide an optic device to verify or complete a performer’s aiming capability solution. The pistol grip aiming capability must be organic to the offerer’s proposed pistol grip solution for hand held OI operation, without consideration of using other USMC fielded optics. Performance Specification 4.6.3.1 is revised to state “…remote fire switch, and aiming capability...” The words “optical sight” are deleted. 3.2.4 Alignment Accuracy is also changed to include alignment adjustment requirements with the pistol grip.

Question 9. Regarding sections §3.3.1 and §4.6.3.1 of the PSPEC, can the sight be mounted to the OI device directly rather than the handgrip directly?

Answer 9. Yes, a sight can be mounted to the OI device to satisfy the pistol grip aiming capability requirement, but Performance Specifications 3.3.2 for weight shall be achieved. Per RFP question #8 Performance Specification 4.6.3.1 is revised to state “aiming capability.” The words “optical sight” are deleted.

Question 10. In Section 3.2.3, which optical sights should it not interfere with? ACOG/RCO, or other?

Answer 10. The proposed OI system should not obstruct the weapon’s optical sight. Currently, optics and night vision systems are mounted on the top rail of the rifle. An OI system mounted to the M4, M16A4, and M37 rifles on the left or right (3.2.1) accessory rails will not obstruct the mounting or operation of the weapon’s optical sight. This requirement should focus on optics primarily organic to the rifle squad, such as, but not limited to, the RCO, RCO with PVS-24 attached, SDO, and PVS-17. The OI device should be able to attach to any system which includes an accessory mounting rail, per Performance Specification 3.2.

Question 11. 3.7.2 calls out “3V123”, which is an unusual callout; is this identical to CR123A (IEC standard CR17345)?

Answer 11. Yes, the UL-Listed 3V123 commercially available battery is identical in the context of rated 3 volt 123 type batteries. The requirement is commercially available UL-Listed AA or 3V123 batteries.

Question 12. For requirement 3.7.2, does the device need to accommodate the higher voltage of the newer, less-common rechargeable Lithium Ion "RCR123A" cells that have a nominal voltage of 3.6V?

Answer 12. No, there is no requirement for a rechargeable battery see 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.

Question 13. In requirement 4.6.7.4, the battery type, manufacturer, and usage history (e.g., time between 5-second engagements) could impact the fidelity of the battery gauge test procedure. (a) Can the manufacturer and model of battery be specified (AA or CR123A), (b) and rest time between 5-second engagements be specified for this item?

Answer 13. (a) No, a specific manufacturer and model of battery will not be specified/endorsed. Offeror shall use commercially available AA or 3V123 batteries. (b) No, specific rest times between engagements will not be dictated/required.

Question 14. The anticipated award date is some time in 2nd Q FY14 (Jan-Mar 2014) for the initial five (5) systems award? (a) When does MARCORSYSCOM anticipate final award? (b) Will the twenty (20) systems be part of this final award only?

Answer 14. (a) Final contract awards are anticipated in 2QFY14 for up to three FFP, 5 year, IDIQ contracts with minimum of Delivery Order 1 quantities (five OI system), per awardee. (b) Yes, Delivery Order 2, based on best value, will only be issued to a single awardee, along with all follow-on issuances of Delivery Orders up to the 5 year IDIQ levels.

Question 15. The solicitation states that a training program must be developed. (a) Will the awardee be required to deliver the New Equipment Training to individual units or will the awardee provide training to a select number of Trainers, such as a Train the Trainers Course? How many iterations of training are anticipated?

Answer 15. (a) Awardees will be required to develop and deliver a training package and train key personnel for testing (System Verification Testing and Operational testing, SOW 3.6.2 and 3.14). Use of the provided training package will be used during New Equipment Training to be performed by Government trainers, not the awardee. (b) Each awardee will provide one training session of their respective OI system to the System Verification Team. Only the best value, single, down selected awardee receiving Delivery Order 2 will provide a second training session to key personnel in preparation for and as required for operational testing.

Question 16. SOW paragraph 3.5.5.1, Laser Support: This section includes references to Military Exemption Letters for systems that are not fully compliant with 21 CFR 1040, and an FDA compliant disposal plan, etc. The contract states that all systems relevant to this Solicitation shall be deemed Military Exempt Lasers. Will MARCORSYSCOM be providing the submitters with documented Military Exemption Letters for Insurance purposes?

Answer 16. No, proposal submitters will not receive military exemption letters. ONLY awardees will be provided military exemption letters require to be received prior to shipping OI systems required to fulfill a contract Delivery Order, as applicable. See SOW 3.5.5.1, Laser products that are not fully compliant with 21 CFR Part 1040 shall be covered under a provisional military exemption letter issued by Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM), per SECNAVINST 5100.14, for the initial systems delivered. For deliveries after system verification, a military exemption letter for production systems will be issued by the Product Manager Non-Lethal Systems (PdM NLS). The contractor shall verify compliance in accordance with 21 CFR Compliance Checklist and deliver the results along with justification statements explaining why non-compliant attributes cannot be made fully compliant prior to issuance of the military exemption letter. The contractor shall be in possession of the military exemption letter, prior to transferring any laser product not fully compliant with 21 CFR Part 1040 to MARCORSYSCOM.

Question 17. SOW paragraph 3.9.2, Product Drawings/Models: Solicitation requires engineering drawings be delivered without proprietary markings/labels due to Government rights in non-commercially developed items. Requires Commercial drawings (3.9.1) with evidence (existing test data) to prove commerciality for items developed at private expense for which the Government had not acquired unlimited rights. If MARCORSYSCOM and/or US Government has not provided any funding towards product(s), does MARCORSYSCOM expect to receive such documents not marked proprietary, being that they have no official “rights” to the proprietary nature of the company’s product(s)?

Answer 17. No, proprietary markings should be used until the Government and performer have negotiated a purchase of rights. SOW 3.9.2 requires drawings of commercial items not covered by Government or nationally recognized industry association specifications and standards, which should be marked appropriately. SOW 3.9.2 covers the delivery of non-proprietary marked drawings if option is exercised by the Government, based on separate pricing for non-proprietary data per CLINs 1002AA and 1002AB, and as negotiated for the purchase of these rights. This section also covers changes and designs resulting from Government required Engineering Change Proposals.

Question 18. Delivery for the five (5) initial systems is 180 days after award. The subsequent best value order, for 20 units, is due thirty (30) days after award. Based on certain lead times for the production of all participating contractor’s systems, as well as allowing 180 days for delivery of the initial five (5) prototype systems for testing, (a) would MARCORSYSCOM be willing to allow the same time frame for delivery of the subsequent twenty (20) systems versus the thirty (30) days? (b) Does this conflict with current contract award timelines?

Answer 18. (a) No, the Government desires to have Delivery Order 2 Production Representative Articles systems (20) delivered within 30 days after receipt of Delivery Order 2, per RFP Inspection and Acceptance Terms, page 41. (b) No, this does not conflict or contradict current contract award timelines. On or about 2QFY14, up to three performers will receive a FFP, 5 year IDIQ contract with a minimal order of 5 systems (Delivery Order 1) for system verification testing based on a proposal (paper) down select. Subsequent Delivery Orders, over the 5 year IDIQ period, will be issued to a single awardee based on system verification testing results and a best value evaluation down select by the Government.

Question 19. The following question includes 252.227-7015, Technical Data—Commercial Items, and 252.227-7015, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items. The presumption is that the contractor retains all ownership rights for commercially available, off the shelf (COTS) items developed solely at the offeror’s own expense, but the Solicitation states the Government shall have Government Purpose Rights for items developed (at least partially) with Government funding. Being that Government funding has not been provided for the design, engineering, manufacturing, and/or delivery of product(s), how does the Government see stating Government Purpose Rights are applicable for this Solicitation?

Answer 19. Proprietary markings should be used until the Government and performer have negotiated a purchase of rights. SOW 3.9.2 requires drawings of commercial items not covered by Government or nationally recognized industry association specifications and standards, which should be marked appropriately. SOW 3.9.2 covers the delivery of non-proprietary marked drawings if option is exercised by the Government, based on separate pricing for non-proprietary data per CLINs 1002AA and 1002AB, and as negotiated for the purchase of these rights. This section also covers changes and designs resulting from Government required Engineering Change Proposals.

Question 20. In accordance with the Berry Amendment, Federal Trade Commission, Buy American Act and other relevant reports and laws, (a) shall contractors presume that all products submitted should be US manufactured product(s) and (b) how will the Government be enforcing this? (c) Is this applicable to this solicitation?

Answer 20. (a) Yes, per RFP Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items declarations the Government will evaluate each proposer self-certification of Buy American Act / Free Trade Agreement and other required certification statements and listings. (b) The Government evaluation will be guided by FAR Part 25 requirements. (c) Yes, these requirements are applicable to this solicitation.

Question 21. In reference to the cost per unit, the proposal states that system values are to be submitted as part of the proposal. The proposal however, is created in three stages. The first stage being the initial five (5) prototype systems, the second stage is the subsequent twenty (20) pre-production systems, and the final stage is contract award totaling 1,848 systems. Should contractors submit, in the proposal due May 24th, pricing based on each stage of the contract being that the cost to build one (1) system is different than the cost to build 1,848 systems?

Answer 21. Yes, “priced staging” can be used, refer to section L.3.5.C and CDRL specified pricing and non-pricing requirements.

Question 22. In specification section 3.1.2, Weight: solicitation states the system total weight of system, inclusive of batteries, rail attachment mechanism, lens covers and remote firing switch, shall not exceed 20 oz. and should not exceed 10 oz. (a) Does this indicate that the rail attachment mechanism should be integrated into the system as part of the system? (b) Is there a particular reason why the “shall” weight is 20 oz., versus previously mentioned 14 oz., when the weight of what the Warfighter carries is always desired to be as minimal as possible without sacrificing the effectiveness and operability of the system?

Answer 22. (a) No, does not have to be integrated. Consider requirements 3.2.2 Weapon Interface, 3.25 Attachment Time, and 3.3 Hand Configuration, and other specifications. (b) The shall not exceed weight of 20oz and should not exceed 10oz are the validated warfighter requirements supporting this solicitation and Performance Specifications.

Question 23. In specification section 3.2.5, Attachment Time: (a) Has there been testing by MARCORSYSCOM to indicate such a wide spread of “shall” take no longer than 90 seconds versus “should” take no longer than 10 seconds? Is this the difference between attaching with tools versus without tools?

Answer 23. (a) Yes, there has been testing to support this requirement. (b) With or without tools, the OI system shall take no longer than 90 seconds and should take no longer than 10 second to mount to a weapon. See 3.5.1 for specific tool limitations and requirements.

Question 24. In specifications section 3.3.1, Pistol Grip: Requires pistol grip that can be attached to the OI in lieu of a weapon mount. Should the Pistol Grip have the ability to fire the OI system with an integrated trigger in the Pistol Grip or is the firing Trigger on the OI system to be used for firing when mounted to the Pistol Grip?

Answer 24. 3.3.1 Does not specify an integrated trigger. This does not preclude the offeror from using an integrated trigger to activate the system, vice the remote switch. However, the pistol grip shall provide a position for the remote fire switch, per Performance Specification 3.3.1.

Question 25. In specifications section 3.4.1, Visible Laser: There are currently two different ranges of acceptable power listed; 180mW – 500mW and 330mW – 500mW. If MARCORSYSCOM is allowing a range of 180 mW – 500 mW, why state the second power range? In addition, being that MARCORSYSCOM is asking for “variable” divergence angles, as in a flood mode and spot mode, the “should” be 330 mW minimal power would not necessarily make sense being that the system will be providing different irradiance levels through the different divergence angles.

Answer 25. The “shall” maximum output power of 180mW to 500mW is the threshold value while the “should” maximum output power of 330mW to 500mW is the objective value. 500 mW is the absolute maximum output power.

Question 26. In specification section 3.4.2.1, Spot Mode: The solicitation states a “spot mode” with a fixed beam divergence angle of (at least) 2.0 mrad for engagements of “shall” be 10 meters and “should” be 2 meters; a safe range of two meters is not the same as inherently eye safe, as stated in the requirement. This reads that the Warfighter has to switch between different divergence angles in addition to relying on the automated power attenuation. If the operator has to switch between two fixed focus divergence angles, which in effect have gaps of effectiveness in the stated ranges, (a) why not have automated continuously variable divergence angles whereas the operator can operate effective and safe at all ranges versus effective at certain “fixed” ranges?

In addition, the lag time of communication between the automated power limiting system and the OI system’s laser, which can also be inadvertently and adversely affected by environmental conditions, is unpredictable and unstable in many tactical scenarios. (b) Does this change how the training will occur whereas if the system is intended to operate “by-itself” dependent upon an automated power attenuator, but the power attenuator malfunctions based on environmental conditions, (c) how will the operator use the system effectively?

Answer 26. Nowhere in the OI Performance Specification (OI-PRF-0001v2.0) is the term “inherently eye-safe” used. (a) The requirement is for a “spot” mode and a “flood” mode of operation. How the power on target is controlled within these modes, independently, to prevent inadvertent lasing is up to the offeror. (b) The “Spot” and “Flood” modes are independent modes suited for 2 different operational missions. (c) Effective use of the system will be based on the tactical situation and the capabilities of the OI system, relative to the Performance Specifications which include mechanical safety features.

Question 27. In specification section 3.4.4.1, Maximum Allowable Intensity: the maximum visible laser intensity (power density or irradiance) is given as 2.25mW/cm2. This is close to the ANSI level of CW lasing for 0.25 sec intrabeam exposure MPE value. A 0.25 second exposure is not the most tactically and operationally effective exposure limit to use for an ocular device wherein the goal is to engage the target for as long as necessary to gain situational control through temporary suppression/glare/distraction. Based on the ANSI Standard for MPE levels, the preferred, safer and more operationally effective, value for this type of application is a 10 second exposure MPE value because at 10 seconds the MPE is the maximum value under any exposure time. In addition, the 2.25mW/cm2 does not take into account the reduced exposure limit when laser CW operation changes to the PRF condition.

In addition, in “worst case scenarios”, being that in a tactical engagement many operators may exceed the 0.25 second exposure times to be able to effectively operate the system to achieve the desired outcome, which in many cases may take 5-15 seconds, operating based on a 10 second exposure allows the operator to engage the target(s) for a longer period of time, and at the maximum safe distances. If the operator exceeds the safe distances in a 0.25 second exposure, the risk of injury is increased versus if operating based on a 10 second exposure, the NOHD ranges for a 0.25 second exposure are less than for a 10 second exposure, which means the operator is operating more safely when based on 10 second exposures versus 0.25 second exposures. Based on this knowledge, is the Government willing to consider a 10 second exposure?

Answer 27. No, the Government will not consider a 10 second exposure. The Maximum Allowable Intensity of 2.25 mW/cm2 was intended to be an additional 0.25mW/cm2 less than the ANSI 0.25 second MPE, and the value is a “not to exceed” parameter. This specification does not preclude using lower values for maximum irradiance on target so long as all other threshold specifications are met or exceeded. The 0.25 second versus 10 second exposure has been examined with the Navy’s Laser Safety Review Board and currently using the 0.25 second value is an accepted best practice for assessing maximum permissible exposure for continuous wave visible lasers in the 520nm to 540nm wavelength.

Question 28. In specification section 3.4.6, Laser Delay: Being that the exposure time stated in the solicitation, pending it not be for 10 second exposures which further increases the systems effectiveness and safety for realistic tactical engagement scenarios, is 0.25 second exposures versus 0.1 seconds, will MARCORSYSCOM consider a requirement that the laser delay be equivalent to 0.25 seconds which would equate to an “effective” engagement of 0.25 seconds?

Answer 28. No, the shall and should values in Section 3.4.6 - Laser Delay is the time required for the OI laser energy to arrive at the target from the time the remote fire switch or fire button is pressed. This is not related to exposure duration. Section 4.6.4.12 provides the context for the specification 3.4.6 Laser Delay.

Question 29. In specification section 3.7.5.2, Battery Orientation: should this be a “shall” requirements of the system for the positive terminal facing out towards the battery cap, or towards the exit point of the system’s battery housing?

Answer 29. No, “Should” is correct.

Question 30. In all of the performance testing, will there be separate testing to both the “shall” values and “should” values, which are stated in the solicitation?

Answer 30. No, the Government will test to “shall” values. The level of performance offered shall become the Threshold specification, should the Offeror be awarded the contract, refer to RFP section L-3.3.1. In considering best value the Government will consider all exceeded performance values identified while testing to “shall” values or the awardee’s established threshold based on their proposed performance level added to the contract.