161107_ECH_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_Word.pdf

M67854-16-R-1122-0002 Enhanced Combat Helmet

1. Does the Government expect to receive five years of unit prices for First Article CLIN’s 0001-

0006 (Reference: Solicitation, p63, para L.3.2.4.1, Section B)?

a. Offerors shall propose a unit price for each of the five ordering periods for CLINs 0007 &

0008. The Government updated Paragraph L.3.2.4.1, Section B in the Solicitation.

2. Period five includes prices by quantity range, which unit price/range should be used to multiply by the max quantity to calculate the Max Net Amount (Reference: Solicitation, p63, para

L.3.2.4.1, Section B)?

a. Offerors shall enter unit price and total amounts in CLIN 0007 using the highest unit price in the stepladder pricing. The Government updated Paragraph L.3.2.4.1, Section B in the Solicitation to reflect this clarification.

3. Is the requirement for CLIN 0002AC to be a size “Large” opposed to size “Medium” (Reference:

Solicitation, p5. CLIN 0002AC)?

a. Yes. The Government changed the Description of CLIN 0002AC in Section B of the

Solicitation from “Medium” to “Large”.

4. The assumption is that the Government’s delivery of the helmet covers will be timely to coincide with the ECH production deliveries, please confirm that the Contractor will not be held accountable in the event there are late deliveries of the helmet covers (Reference: Solicitation, p13, para 3.0).

a. Section I of the Solicitation includes FAR 52.245-1. FAR 52.245-1 (d)(2)(i) states if

Government property is “not delivered to the Contractor by the dates stated in the contract, the Contracting Officer shall, upon the Contractor’s timely written request, consider an equitable adjustment to the contract.”

5. Please provide samples of the helmet covers as GFP for confirmation of fit, 2 each size, no later than November 1st to confirm form, fit and function (Reference: Solicitation, p13, para 3.0).

a. The Government will provide samples of the helmet covers, as requested by the Offeror.

Upon receipt of request, the Government will provide two helmet covers of each size (Small, Medium, Large and X-Large) no later than 15 days after receipt of request. In their request, Offerors should include Offeror Name, Cage Code, Point of Contact (name, email address, phone number), and Shipping Address to Katy Hurd at kathryn.hurd@usmc.mil. Offerors shall return all items provided as samples 15 days after RFP close date. The Government added Section L.9 to the Solicitation to include this information.

6. Are the IUID labels required for the Source Selection Samples and for FAT (Reference:

Solicitation, p19, para 3.7)?

a. IUID labels are not required for Source Selection Samples. The Government updated

Section L.3.2.1.3 to reflect this clarification. IUID labels are required for FAT, where they will be verified IAW the PD.

7. Please provide a definition of Purchase Description Texturing (Reference: CDRL A021, Exhibit A, Block 16).

a. The Government describes texturing requirements in Paragraph 3.5.8.2 of the PD.

8. Please confirm the corresponding SOW and PD referenced paragraphs are accurate (Reference:

CDRL A021, Exhibit A, Block 16).

mailto:kathryn.hurd@usmc.mil

a. The Government updated Block 16 of CDRL A021 to read: “Per SOW paragraph 3.8.1.3, submit Certification of Purchase Description Texturing paragraphs 3.5.8.2.1 or 3.5.8.2.2.

only, and include Health, Safety, Toxicity, and Hazardous Material (PD paragraph

4.22.2). Certification of conformance shall be provided certifying that the design and materials of the helmet have not changed since approval of FAT (PD Table VIII, note 2).”

9. Which CLIN is 3.9.1 referencing (Reference: Solicitation, p23, para 3.9.1)?

a. The Government updated SOW paragraph 3.9.1 to read “The Contractor shall assemble

NVD Bracket kits as ordered under CLIN 0008 – NVD Bracket Kits (w/ hardware), test all components in the NVD Bracket kits in accordance with the LAT Plan (Attachment 6), and provide specific quantities and delivery instructions in each delivery order.”

10. Where is the repair kit referenced in the PD (Reference: Solicitation, p23, para 3.9.1)?

a. The Government does not reference the repair kit in the PD because the Government is not requiring the Contractor to provide a repair kit.

11. The assumption is that the QAP is a government document. If the assumption is correct, is there any further definition of the Government QAP (Reference: Solicitation, p26, Section E, para 2)?

a. The Government removed Paragraph 2 of Section E from the Solicitation.

12. Are the “Duplicative Copies” required to be in binders and do they have to be marked the same as with the “Original” (Reference: Solicitation, p58, Section L, Table 1, SUBMISSION)?

a. Both the Original and Copy volumes shall be in loose-leaf three ring binders. Each volume (original and copies) shall have a cover sheet marked with the copy number (e.g.

Copy 1 of 2), title (e.g. Volume I – Technical Proposal), RFP number (M67854-16-R- 1122), classification (i.e., ECH), and Offeror's name. The Government updated Section L.3.1 of the Solicitation to clarify the requirement.

13. Although clearly stated, please confirm that the benchmarks need not be present for finished helmets for production and as per the LAT Plan, Attachment 6 (Reference: GL-PD-09-04L, p6, 3.3, para A).

a. Per PD Paragraph 3.3(a), the Government needs benchmarks for FAT only, not production helmets.

14. For purposes of the weight calculation please confirm that the Finished Helmet does or does not include the NVD hardware or the NVD mount (Reference: GL-PD-09-04L , p19, para 3.11).

a. The weight requirement (PD paragraph 3.11) does not include the NVD mount or the NVD hardware.

15. For confirmation purposes, please provide the ECH NVD Bracket as GFP (ref Attachment J.8) no later than November 1, 2016 (Reference: Solicitation, p14, para 3.2.1/3.2.2).

a. The Government will provide samples of the NVD Bracket, as requested by the Offeror.

Upon receipt of request, the Government will provide one 3D printed NVD Bracket no later than 15 days after receipt of request. In their request, Offerors should include Offeror Name, Cage Code, Point of Contact (name, email address, phone number), and Shipping Address to the Katy Hurd at kathryn.hurd@usmc.mil. Offerors shall return all items provided as samples 15 days after RFP close date. The Government added Section L.9 to the Solicitation to include this information.

16. Paragraphs 3.5.8 and 3.5.8.3 have differing requirements, please clarify the color of the interior of the shell (Reference: GL-PD-09-04L, p10, para 3.5.8 & p12, para 3.5.8.3).

a. The Government edited PD Paragraph 3.5.8.3 to allow color of interior of shell to be subdued.

mailto:kathryn.hurd@usmc.mil

17. It is recommended to quantify desirable impact protection (i.e. fewer G) via a VATEP Sample Evaluation Process matrix similar to the weight (Reference: GL-PD-09-04L, p20, para 3.12).

a. The Government will not evaluate impact protection using VATEP.

18. Testing as per para 4.20 on page 49 of GL-PD-09-04L does not describe the ballistic testing used to determine physical degradation of the ECH. Please provide the ballistic test protocol to be used for evaluation to determine operational degradation (Reference: GL-PD-09-04L, p20, para 3.12).

a. The Government removed the following sentence from PD Paragraph 3.12: “If physical damage is evident after blunt impact testing, helmets shall be ballistically tested to determine if the helmet has been operationally degraded.”

19. Couldn’t find any references, please provide the simulated wear and tear test protocol and criteria (Reference: GL-PD-09-04L, p22, para 3.13.4)?

a. The Government removed the following sentence from PD Paragraph 3.13.4: “Finished shells may undergo simulated wear and tear and shall be tested as Government reference only.”

20. Couldn’t find any references, please provide the ballistic test protocol, conditioning requirements and acceptance criteria for the evaluation of the visual defects (Reference: GL-PD- 09-04L, p53, para 4.21.5).

a. The Government removed the following sentence from PD Paragraph 4.21.5: “If visual defects are identified, a sufficient number of helmets shall be conditioned and ballistically tested.”

21. Why is there a significant increase in test quantities for the size XL (Reference: Attachment 5, FAT Event Design Plan, Appendix A)?

a. The significant increase in required samples for size XL is due to DOT&E testing requirements. Appendix A of DOT&E Protocol (Attachment 12), Page A-1 states “An additional 46 XL helmets are required to be tested at the crown in the hot condition to demonstrate BTD performance. This will provide a total of 48 data points (XL/crown/hot) for analysis as described in Appendix C”.

22. How are the major and minor defect percentages going to be calculated, please provide an example (Reference: Attachment 5, FAT Event Design Plan, Appendix A)?

a. For evaluation of defects, each helmet shall be examined for each potential defect. If a defect is found in a helmet, that helmet shall be considered defective for the associated level of defect (critical, major, or minor). A helmet with one or more defects will be considered defective for the associated level of defect regardless of the number of defects found. The critical defect percentage will be calculated by dividing the number of helmets found with critical defects by the total number of helmets inspected and multiplying the result by 100. The same calculation will be used for major and minor defect levels. If any of the defect rates (critical, major, or minor) exceed the allowable criteria, the requirement will be considered not met. The Government updated the FAT

Event Design Plan to add this clarification.

23. Please identify the preferred test progression (shot order/location) on the helmet shell (Reference: Solicitation, p59, L.3.2.1.2, Table 2).

a. The test progression will occur as stated in Section L.3.2.1.2, Table 2 of the Solicitation.

The Government will shoot one Medium helmet at cold on Right (R) first, followed by Front (F). The Government will shoot one Large helmet at cold on Crown (C) first, followed by Back (B).

24. The NAICS code for this solicitation is 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing. In that NAICS code, the small business size standard is 750 employees, however the solicitation indicates that it is 500 employees. Could you please clarify which size standard is correct?

a. The Government updated FAR 52.204-8 to state the small business size standard for NAICS code 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing is 750.

25. Would the USMC consider reducing the number of sizes required for PDM submittal due to the timing requirements? This would assist in achieving the proposal schedule and would allow sizes to be verified during FAT. If this is the case, the quantity of 94 could be reallocated amongst two or three sizes instead of four.

a. No.

26. Would the USMC consider splitting the proposal due date, requiring the written proposal on

December 15, 2016 and some or all of the PDM’s on February 15, 2017 or some later date?

a. No.

27. Would the USMC consider an edging solution that meets the performance requirements called out in 3.5.7, 3.5.7.1 and 3.5.7.2 of the Purchase Description, but may not meet the strict definition of integrally molded, one piece molded or one piece cut to length?

a. No. There is potential for an ECP after the Government awards the contract.

28. Section 3.3 of the Purchase Description states that the unfinished shell requires attachment holes, but does not specifically call out if this includes the NVD hole, while finished shells must have "all necessary attachment holes". Can you please clarify if NVD holes are required for these items?

a. Yes, NVD holes are required for unfinished helmets. The Government updated PD Paragraph 3.3 to include this clarification.

29. If an offeror submits a bid with four sizes, the measured weight of two of those sizes is 4 percent lighter than the threshold, the measured weight of one size is 5 percent lighter, and the measured weight of one size is 8 percent lighter, and the claimed weights are the same as the measured weights, what will be the weight reduction granted as assessed by the government?

a. Per Section L.3.2.1.4 of the Solicitation, the claimed weight should be shown on the TEP

Adjustment Table (Section M.3.4.2, Table 7) and should achieve the same percentage of reduction for each size. However, per section M.3.4.2, in the event the Government verified weights do not achieve the same weight reduction across all sizes, the

Government will adjust the Offeror’s Government verified claimed weight reduction to the helmet size with the lowest percentage reduction. Therefore, in this scenario, the

Government would evaluate the Offeror’s weight reduction at 4%.

30. NVD 3d Model (Att13_NVD_Mount_136-00-0001) dimensions do not match print nominal for bolt hole diameter. 3D Model has .255”, print calls out .250±.002; which dimension is correct?

a. Offerors should use .250”±.002” for the bolt hole diameter.

31. NVD location on helmet undefined. With no physical reference from bracket to edge of helmet, the NVD can be placed anywhere. How do we position the NVD bracket on the helmet?

a. The Government updated PD Paragraph 3.5.6 to specify the location of the NVD hole.

32. We cannot reproduce or find the table of the k factors produced in the PD (even with Mathew/Kirshnamoorthy reference). Can you please tell us where you are getting the k values used in the UTL calculations on tables 8 & 9?

a. K values are based on DOT&E Protocol (Attachment 12).

33. We have seen other PE helmet programs that are using the same changes made in this PD but with a larger sample size (and thus lower associated k values for the aggregate calculations). Can you tell us why this program is different?

a. The Government based sample sizes on DOT&E Protocol and programmatic cost constraints (Attachment 12).

34. Are there any modifications allowed to the NVD design supplied by the government to better work with the proposed helmet and designed bolts?

a. No. There is potential for an ECP after the Government awards the contract.

35. Is the NVD bolt hole diameter allowed to be slightly increased from the dimension on the drawing of 0.200inch (also asked during 1on1 at the industry day).

a. No.

36. In the contract rating, it calls out DO-A90, yet when we reference DPAS regulation (15 CFR Part 700), we do not see “A90” listed in this document. Is this something new? Is there any way you can define the A90 part of this callout?

a. The Government updated the DPAS rating from DO-A90 to DO-C9, Miscellaneous.