180319_M67854-18-R-1305_QA-_Round_2_(003).pdf

M67854-18-R-1305 Q&A 2 PC Gen III (Soft Armor)

1. We respectfully ask that you revisit the answer to question 38. Historically, military ballistic testing has always been done on either simulant surrogate shoot packs (15 x 15’s) or end items including carriers.

The carrier in which the shoot packs are inserted are to simulate the vest carrier right down to the plate insert in front of the soft insert. That is why the shoot pack carriers have a plate insert in front (without a plate). Several problems are created by performing LAT on ballistic inserts without carriers:

* The testing at LAT will be inconsistent with the FAT which is done on shoot packs with the simulated carriers

* The testing at LAT will be inconsistent with the actual physical condition in the field

* The testing at LAT will be inconsistent with how the original ballistic V50 and V0 requirements were originally developed

* V50 and V0 performance criteria were determined via shoot packs (with carriers) and end item units with inserts in end item carriers

* The industry standard for testing including private R & D testing has been (most likely without a doubt) on shoot packs with carriers.

* We would guess that most of the offerors have spent much time and money at this point testing in the standard shoot pack which will render inaccurate values to predict LAT performance over time.

We respectfully ask that you reconsider the answer to Question 38. At the areal densities required in the PD, the presence of carriers will make a difference regarding ballistic performance. We suggest LAT be done on simulant shoot packs or end item inserts in end item carriers.

For LAT, testing will be conducted on finished ballistic inserts with a surrogate ballistic filler carrier constructed as described in 4.2.2.2.1. This answer supersedes the answer provided to Question 38 of the questions posted on 8 March 2018. The Detail Specification will be updated to reflect this change.

2. Paragraph 3.3.2.4 of the Detail Specification (page 27) the Table X-A: “Base Vest Insert Finished Measurements (inch)” contains the finished ballistic base vest insert sizing. The Row X-Large defines Width 2 as 12 ½” and Width 3 as 12 ¾”. However, upon review of the updated patterns it appears that Width 2 on the X-Large Base vest pattern is 12 ¾”. Should both widths be 12 ¾” as the pattern defines?

(Is this a typo?)

This is a typo. The Width 2 for and XL Base Vest Insert shall be 12 ¾. The Detail Specification will be updated to reflect this change.

3. Section L.3.2.1 Source Selection Samples (of the Amendment 0003) says that the samples should contain a removable label that includes the Solicitation number, unique identifier (e.g., serial number) and the Offeror’s Name. Should stitched-on labels in accordance with the Detail Specification (i.e. the way panels would be delivered under contract) be included as well? Or are only removable labels to be provided?

Only the removable labels shall be provided for the source selection samples.

4. In regards to the answer provided in Q&A I for Question #38, we respectfully ask that you reconsider the answer to Question #38 and the LAT Plan. Historically, military ballistic testing has always been done on either surrogate shoot packs (15” x 15”) or end items including carriers. The carrier in which the shoot packs are inserted are to simulate the vest carrier right down to the plate insert pocket in front of the soft insert. The following issues are created by performing LAT on ballistic inserts without carriers:

• The testing at LAT will be inconsistent with the FAT which is done on shoot packs with the simulated carriers.

• The testing at LAT will be inconsistent with the actual physical condition in the field.

• The testing at LAT will be inconsistent with how the original ballistic V50 and V0 requirements were originally developed o V50 and V0 performance criteria were determined via shoot packs (with carriers) and end item units with inserts in end item carriers

The terminology in the Detail Specification – DTL-17001A0029 V1.2, paragraph 4.3.2.2 (U//FOUO) Ballistic Verification referencing both ballistic inserts and base vest system leads to confusion regarding how the end items are to be tested. Offerors development efforts to provide the government with light weight, high performing solutions, which are also cost effective, must include statistical confidence in LAT performance.

Furthermore, at the areal densities required in the PD, the presence of carriers will make a difference regarding ballistic performance. We suggest LAT be done on surrogate shoot packs or end item inserts in end item carriers. If the government will not reconsider the LAT Plan, we respectfully ask for a 30 day extension to conduct additional testing to gain confidence in LAT performance of the ballistic insert only end items.

See answer in question #1.

5. In accordance with the technical specifications and Q&A (Question 17), the insert pocket material should be MIL-STD-32439, Type IV, Class II. As previously asked, this material is currently not available. Will the Government accept the use of MIL-STD-32439, Type IV, Class III for proposal submission (Type IV, Class II would be used on FAT submission).

MIL-STD-32439, Type IV, Class III can be used for source selection samples.

6. Based on the answer provided in question 17 (Q&A Set #1) and the change to the technical specification (paragraph 4.2.2.2.1) there appears to be some confusion. Is it possible for the Government to provide a drawing detailing the layer and material type?

No drawings are available at this time.

7. Based on the answers provided in questions 29 and 38 (Q&A Set #1), the Government states that no shoot-pack covers will be used during LAT Testing. All performance criteria were originally based on ballistic materials inside a shoot-pack cover. Since shoot-pack covers will be used during FAT, LAT testing is ultimately conducted on a different design. What would happen if a ballistic test fails LAT as its being tested in a different configuration than FAT?

See answer in question #1.

8. During LAT testing what fragmentation shot pattern will be used since the 16 shot pattern is not possible?

The shot pattern specified in 4.10.7.1 shall be used. Shot spacing shall remain consistent between FAT and LAT. As stated in 4.10.7.1.i, additional test panels may be used for V50 determination.

9. During LAT testing what soft armor test fixture will be used as the end item samples are smaller than FAT samples? If a different fixture is used, the soft armor material will see different boundary conditions which could cause performance differences between FAT and LAT. What would happen if a ballistic test fails LAT as the solution would have passed FAT but now is being tested differently?

The same soft armor test fixture used for FAT shall be used for LAT as specified in 4.10.7.1. For LAT, the ballistic window will be sized in accordance with the size of the insert being tested.

10. Please confirm label requirements: DTL SPEC 3.8.6e states the label shall be in accordance with “MIL-DTL-32075, Type VI, Class 14”, however section 4.11.6. states “MIL-DTL-32075 Type IV, Class 14.”

The label shall be in accordance with MIL-DTL-32075, Type VI, Class 14. The Detail Specification will be updated to reflect this change.

11. Please clarify answer to question 29 on Q&A I. Surrogate Shoot Packs are required for testing that the government is conducting on submission samples, however LAT as specified in section 4.3.2.2 of the detail specification does not call for surrogate covers. Doesn’t this cause inconsistency with test processes and testing results, therefore impacting LAT performance? If LAT requires the panels to pass without a surrogate cover, why is a surrogate cover required for initial samples and FAT?

See answer in question #1.

12. For submission samples will the government accept MIL-DTL-32439, Type IV, Class 3 for the surrogate shoot pack material referenced in section 3.2.2?

See answer in question #5.

13. In Appendix B the Plate Carrier instruction label follows MIL-DTL-32075 Type VI Class 14 layout.

However the Plate Carrier Ballistic Label sample does not. Do we reformat the Label to follow Class 14 layout or follow the sample in appendix B which does not?

Follow the example format as provided for the Base Vest Insert Label Example in Appendix B of the Detail Specification.

14. Also in Appendix B there is a UID sample, however there is also the Plate Carrier Ballistic Instruction Label sample that incorporates the UID at the bottom. Do we need to include both a UID label and an instruction label that incorporates the UID label? Or can we just have one label like the sample with the incorporated UID on the Bottom?

Follow the example format as provided for the Base Vest Insert Label Example in Appendix B of the Detail Specification. One label can be provided with both instruction label and UID as demonstrated in the example in Appendix B.

15. Lastly MIL-DTL-32075 Type VI Class 14 denotes “In addition, a solid line 1/16 inch minimum width will extend across the entire label approximately midway between the 1/4 inch blank space.” However if that is done it interferes with the “quiet space” required by the solicitation. 3.8.7 f “A quiet zone of 0.5 inches of Black label/tag material shall be required around the Data Matrix code.”. Do we include a border per mil spec or exclude to keep the quiet zone?

When both instruction label and UID are combined into one label, maintain the quiet zone for the UID as specified in 3.8.7.f.

16. DTL Spec 3.8.7 e: can the Government explain what [)> represents in the Construct Example code?

It is the header indicator used for ISO/IEC 15434 formats.

17. Should an Offeror choose to provide ballistic test results we would like to request it not be counted towards the page limit in Volume I. Please confirm if this is acceptable.

Ballistic test results are not required and will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

Should an offeror choose to provide ballistic test reports, the reports will not count towards the page limit in Volume I.

18. We are having difficulty with the soft armor patterns for the above referenced solicitation. The files came across corrupted so we are using the patterns from the pre solicitation notice. This file, however does not have Small-Short. Do you have those patterns? Is it possible to have them sent to us?

An amendment was posted on 8 March 2018 that provided updated patterns that corrected the corruption from the previous contract. The SM-S is included in those patterns and is accessed through a combination of Size Code and Alteration file that were included in the pattern zip file.

19. Can you please clarify why ballistic LAT will be conducted on shoot packs without a cover while FAT shoot packs require a cover? We are developing ballistic solutions to meet the rigorous requirements set for in the FAT plan and all preliminary testing is done with shoot pack covers based on the FAT requirements. Would the government consider utilizing the same panel requirements for LAT as specified for FAT (i.e surrogate shoot packs with covers)?

See answer to question #1.

20. Can you please confirm that each surrogate shoot pack cover requires a serial number? If so, does this mean both the insert and carrier need a serial number? Do the insert and cover serial numbers have to match?

The shoot pack cover should have a serial number that matches the ballistic insert it is housing.

21. Are removable labels the only labels required for the PDM submission samples?

Yes, only removable labels are required for PDM submission samples.

22. Section 3.2.16 of the DTL-17001A0029 states, ‘The thread used in ballistic construction shall be Aramid, spin staple, Size Tex 50-60, AA-55217, Type 1. This spec calls for Nomex thread, when historically Kevlar thread is used. Would the government except Size Tex 50-50, A-A-55195, Type II Kelvar Thread?

Yes, size Tex 50-50, A-A-55195, Type II Kevlar Thread is acceptable for use on the Source Selection Samples.

23. FAT delivery is unclear. Please help us understand the delivery timing of the FAT items after date of contract.

FAT items are due 90 days after Contract Award. Section I, Clause 52.209-4 will be updated to reflect the date.

24. We also request an extension of 30 days to support the following needs:

No extensions is granted.

a. We are working through verification of cummerbund pattern actual square inches, v.s. the PD requirement do not align and we need verification.

b. Need additional time due to changes to the pricing schedule in section M.3.4 Factor 3: Price via Amendment 3

c. We are working with suppliers to source and build source selection items and need additional time.

d. There is a backlog at testing facilities for design verification to meet aerial density and proposal requirements.