18R1305-_Questions_and_Answers-_PC_GEN_III-Soft__Armor_Inserts.pdf

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

1. L.3.1 General Proposal Format

The official ballistic test reports shall be unaltered in Portable Document. Format (pdf) format and contain a test laboratory signature

Can Offeror use ANY lab (i.e. a ballistic provider’s in house lab) to provide results or must the submitted test documentation be from a NIJ certified third party lab?

Ballistic test reports are not required. This sentence has been removed from Section L. An updated Section L has been provided.

2. Table 6 on page 47 of the RFP Section L.3.2.4 lists “Small Disadvantaged Veteran-Owned Small

Business (SDVOSB)” as one of the requirements. Should this be “Service-Disabled…”?

The table in L.3.2.4. Should be Service Disabled instead of Small Disadvantaged. An updated Section L has been provided.

3. RFP Section L.3.2.2.1 (page 44) of the Solicitation states that the “Offeror shall propose a claimed areal density” and that the Government will verify that the areal density of the samples meets “the threshold areal density in the chart below.” The chart references Paragraph 3.6.2 of the Detail Specification. Paragraph 3.6.2 of the Detail Specification contains both a “threshold” and “objective” areal density requirement. The RFP Section M.3.1.1 states that the

“Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s PDMs meet the Government’s areal density requirements.”

a. Are the “requirements” referenced in Section M.3.1.1 of the Solicitation to both the threshold and objective areal densities? In other words, does the Offeror need to meet the threshold or the objective requirement, or both?

At a minimum, offerors shall meet the Government’s threshold areal density requirements.

Objective areal density is listed to provide a goal for industry.

b. Is there any additional, specific consideration given for meeting the objective areal density, or is the ability to meet the objective areal density just considered as part of the adjectival rating for all of Factor 1?

The order of importance for subfactors is in Section M.2. The ability to meet the objective areal density if for consideration as part of the adjectival rating under Subfactor 1.

4. Section L.3.1 (starting on page 43) of the Solicitation states that the “official ballistic test reports shall be unaltered in Portable Document Format (pdf) format and contain a test laboratory signature.” There is no other reference to “official ballistic test reports” in the proposal instructions. Subfactor 4 (Ballistic Performance) is evaluated solely based on the results of

Government-conducted tests (on the sample shoot packed submitted by the Offeror). Please clarify:

a. If ballistic test reports are required to be submitted with the Proposal, Please see response to question #1.

b. What ballistic test reports are required,

c. How they will be evaluated if submitted, and

d. In which volume they should be included in the proposal and how that affects volume page limit?

5. On page 45 of RFP Section L.3.2.2.2.b, the Solicitation states that “The Offeror shall submit … [a] list of equipment, available personnel, and manufacturing capacity to address the ability to produce at least 6,000 base vest inserts, 6,000 side plate pocket inserts, and 600 cummerbund inserts 120 days after FAT approval.” Is the Offeror supposed to demonstrate the ability to produce those quantities on a monthly basis -- i.e., does the offeror need to demonstrate the ability to produce 6,000 base vest inserts, 6,000 side plate inserts, and 600 cummerbund inserts per month? Or are those quantities expected over some other time period (rate)?

The offeror shall demonstrate its ability to, after 120 days of FAT approval, produce a quantity of 6,000 base vest inserts, 6,000 side plate inserts, and 600 cummerbund inserts per month.

6. Section L.3.2.2.2.e of the Solicitation (page 45) references “solicitation number M67854-17-R-

1305.” Should the required certification in Section L.3.2.2.2.e read solicitation number M67854-

18-R-1305?

The solicitation number should be M67854-18-R-1305 in Section L.3.2.2. An updated

Section L has been provided.

7. On Page 6 of the Solicitation, CLIN 0009, should the Supplies/Services be described as “Base

Vest Insert – SL” instead of “Base Vest Insert – S”?

CLIN 0009 should read Base Vest Insert – SL. An updated CLIN 0009 has been provided.

8. On page 48 of the Detail Specification, the Water Repellency will be tested in accordance with

AATCC 22. Will the water be sprayed on an area of the ballistic cover that is away from the stitched-on label?

The Government will test water repellency on unused rolls of the material as part of FAT in accordance with the FAT Plan. The Water Repellency test will not be conducted on the stitched-on label of the ballistic cover.

9. Is the stitching for the label on the ballistic cover supposed to conform with Section 3.2.15 of the Detail Specification (Non-Ballistic Thread) or Section 3.2.16 of the Detail Specification

(Ballistic Thread)?

The thread for the stitching on the label should conform to 3.2.15 (Non-Ballistic Thread) of the detail specification since it is not sewn through a ballistic component.

10. On page 55 and continuing to page 56 of the Detail Specification, should the table be named

“Table XXV” instead of “Table XIVV”?

Yes, the Table should be XXV in the detail specification. An updated detail specification has been provided.

11. Section 4.10 of the Detail Specification (page 62) states that “Lot Acceptance Testing shall be conducted on end items of the approved ballistic material systems as verified FAT.” In addition, Tables XX-A and XX-B of Section 4.3.2.2 of the Detail Specification call out V50 testing on finished ballistic inserts sizes. However, Section 4.10.7.1.a of the Detail Specification requires that all V50 testing be conducted on 15”x15” shoot-packs. Is the V50 testing for the Lot

Acceptance Testing supposed to be conducted on 15”x15” shoot-packs or on finished ballistic insert shapes?

Only the finished ballistic inserts are subject to Lot Acceptance Testing. Paragraph 4.10.7.1.a of the detail specification references the FAT requirements. Paragraph 4.10.7.1.b of the detail specification specifies that the base vest inserts are subject to LAT.

12. In Table XX-A of Section 4.3.2.2 of the Detail Specification (page 44), there is a column for “Total inserts required”; however, the number of inserts listed for each Lot Size does not add up to the number listed for “Total inserts required.” Can you please confirm which numbers in Table XX-A are correct or provide a new table?

The total number of inserts presented in the table XX-A of the detail specification are correct.

Regardless of the base vest insert size being produced, please provide the quantity provided in the “Total Inserts Required” column of Table XX-A in the detail specification. As described in

Note 2 below Table XX-A, one additional V0 9mm test is required for XS and SM-S lots, which is why the number of panels required for V0 9mm test is higher for those sized panels.

13. In RFP Solicitation Section L.3.2.3 (page 46 from Past Performance section), what does the term

“Government” mean? Does it mean the United States Government or any Government?

The term government means United States Government.

14. Section L.3.2.3 (page 46) of the Solicitation states that “Offerors shall submit up to three contracts … that are relevant to this solicitation’s requirements.” However, it goes on to say that “Offerors with three or more prior Government contracts shall provide at least three

Government contracts. Those Offerors with fewer than three Government contracts shall provide all Government contracts.”

a. Does “contracts” with the United States Government include subcontracting to another contractor with the end customer being the United States Government? If so, who would complete the Past Performance questionnaire?

The Government contracting activity, responsible technical representative, or the prime contractor (if the Offeror is a subcontractor) for the associated contract shall complete the past performance questionnaire.

b. If the Offeror has no or less than three Government contracts, should commercial contracts be provided?

Yes, if the Offeror has no or less than three Government contracts, commercial contracts are acceptable.

c. Are relevant commercial contracts or unrelated Government contracts preferred?

Per L.3.2.3, Offerors shall submit up to three contracts (prime and major subcontracts in performance or awarded) during the past five years that are relevant to this solicitation’s requirements.

d. Do all Government contracts need to have been executed within the past 5 years?

For example, if an Offeror were to have one relevant Government contract, one irrelevant Government contract, one relevant Commercial contract, and one irrelevant

Commercial contract, which past performance contracts should be included?

Per M.3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance, Contracts completed more than five years prior to the solicitation’s release are Not Relevant.

15. In Table XIVV of Detail Specification Section 4.7.2, in the row called “Ballistic Insert Cover” a critical defect is stated as being “Any hole, cut, or tear in the heat-sealed cover”. However, Section 3.8.6e of the Detail Specification states, “The instruction labels … shall be in accordance with MIL-DTL-32075, Type VI, Class 14”. A MIL-DTL-32075, Type VI label is a sew-on label

(creating needled holes). These two requirements are contradictory. Please clarify.

Any hole cut or tear unassociated with the label’s stitching will be a defect. Needle holes due to attaching the label are not a defect as specified in Table XXV in paragraph 4.7.2 in the detail specification. An updated detail specification has been provided.

16. In Table X-B of Detail Specification Section 3.3.2.4 (page 27), in row “6x6”, the panel size is listed as 7 inches long by 7 inches wide; however, Section 3.8.6 e) of the Detail Specification states, “The instruction labels shall be located on the inner side of the vest or ballistic component. The size of the label shall be 4.5 inches wide by 7.75 inches high. The type shall be no smaller than

10 point and shall be in accordance with MIL-DTL-32075, Type VI, Class 14”. The size of the label called out cannot fit on the side plate insert. This issue also exists for the cummerbund sizes (for example, small cummerbund has 14” length and 6.75” height). Please clarify what size labels should be utilized on these smaller components.

The instruction label is only required on the Outer Vest Components and the Base Vest Inserts as specified in paragraph 3.8.6.b and 3.8.6.d of the detail specification. No instruction label is required on the Side Plate Pocket Inserts. An updated detail specification has been provided.

17. Detail Specification Section 4.2.2.2.1, Paragraph 3 (page 42 – 43) states, “The ballistic filler carrier will have an insert pocket capable of holding the largest insert stitched on the face fabric.

The pocket cover shall consist of the same front outer shell fabric used in the construction of the

PC base vest. The face fabric of the ballistic filler carrier shall consist of the same top plate pocket fabric used in the construction of the PC Gen III base vest plate pocket … The ballistic filler carrier back cover shall consist of the same front inner shell fabric used in the construction of the PC Gen III base vest inner shell….”

What material is used for the “front inner shell fabric”? Is it the material referenced in Section

3.2.1, 3.2.2, or 3.2.3?

Use material referenced in paragraph 3.2.2 (MIL-DTL-32439, Type IV, Class 2) for the insert pocket material of the ballistic filler carrier and the material referenced in 3.2.1 (MIL-DTL-

32439, Type III, Class 3) for the outer material of the ballistic filler carrier as specified in

Paragraph 4.2.2.2.1 of the detail specification. An updated detail specification has been provided.

18. In Table XI (Shade) of Detail Specification Section 3.5.3 (page 29), in the row “Ballistic Insert

Cover”, the shade is called out as “Tan 499”. The minimum order quantity for this color material is 8,000 linear yards (a significant investment with long lead time). For the PDM models delivered for this solicitation evaluation, will a different shade be accepted?

Yes, a different shade for the PDM samples is authorized for source selection samples. Items submitted for FAT must meet the shade requirements specified in 3.5.3 of the detail specification.

19. Table XI (Shade) of the Detail Specification (page 29) calls out the shade of components per

“class”. The “class” shade is inconsistent with the “Shades” defined in Detail Specification

Section 1.2.3 on Page 4. Please clarify.

Class 1 is Coyote, Class 2 is Tan 499, and Class 3 is Black as specified in paragraph 1.2.3 of the detail specification. Section 3.5.3 has been updated with the correct shade designations. An updated specification has been provided.

20. When opening the drawings for the ballistic inserts, only five Base Vest sizes were included in the files: X-Small, Small, Medium, Large, X-Large. Drawings for the X-Small Short, Small Short, and Small Long were not provided. Can the additional drawings be provided?

Updated patterns have been provided to correct corrupted grading. XS-S, SM-S, and SM-L are altered sizes and will be generated through the size codes and alteration table included in the zip file.

21. The Gerber files provided appear to have issues when compared to the dimensions provided in

Table X-A of Detail Specification Section 3.3.2.4. Size Medium appears to be consistent (see graphic below) – center length is 14” and corners are square. The other sizes provided (XS, S, L, XL) do not appear to be correct. The dimensions do not match the table, and the corners are not square. See example graphic below. Can correct drawings be provided? Additionally, can

DXF drawings be provided?

Updated patterns have been provided to correct corrupted grading. Only patterns are provided at this time.

22. Pages 2 – 8 lists the CLINs, with 15 total CLINs listed. On page 9, these same CLINs are provided in the table for “Maximum Quantity.” However, on pages 56 – 57, a table of CLINs is provided in order to explain how price will be evaluated. The CLINs in this table do not match those provided on pages 2 – 9. Specifically, CLINs 0008 (Base Vest Insert XS-S) and 0009 (Base Vest

Insert S-L) from Section B are not the same as that listed Section M.

Which CLINs are correct? Can you please also clarify the Section M price evaluation metrics?

CLINs 008-0013 in the table in M.3.4. are incorrect. Side Plate Pocket Insert, 6x6, should be

CLIN 0010. Side Plate Pocket Insert, 6x8, should be CLIN 0011. Cummerbund Insert, Small should be CLIN 0012. Cummerbund Insert, Medium should be CLIN 0013. Cummerbund Insert, Large should be CLIN 0014. CDRLs s should be CLIN 0015. An updated Section M has been provided.

23. In Section L.3.2.1, Table 2 and Section M.1, Table 1 of the Solicitation (pages 44 and 52, respectively), the 35 15x15” shootpacks that are required are described as “Sewn Shootpacks.”

However, in Paragraph 4.2.2.2.1 the Detail Specification (page 42), the requirement for the surrogate shootpacks states: “If no stitching pattern is used and stitching is required, the ballistic packet will be stitched diagonally across the 4 corners with a 5 inch line of 50 TEX aramid thread at 5 to 10 stitches per inch ….” Should Table 2 in Section L.3.2.1 and Table 1 in Section M.1 of the Solicitation (pages 44 and 52, respectively) read “Surrogate Shootpacks” instead of “Sewn

Shootpacks”?

Surrogate Shootpacks should be used in Table 2 in Section L.3.2.1 and Table 1 in Section M.1 instead of “Sewn Shootpacks.” Updated Section L and M have been provided.

24. The number of surrogate shootpacks to be submitted pursuant to Section L.3.2.1 of the

Solicitation (page 44) and to be ballistically tested pursuant to Section M.3.1.4 (page 54) of the

Solicitation does not allow for any contingency shootpacks in the event of an error occurring during ballistic testing. (This assumes 1 shootpack per V50 and 8 shootpacks per V0 per the FAT protocol in the Detail Specification.) It should be noted that the FAT testing provides for an approx. 25% contingency factor for the ballistic testing (see Table XIX of the Detail Specification

(pages 41-42) requiring 25 Contingency Shootpacks). Should the number of surrogate shootpacks to be submitted pursuant to Table 2 of Section L.3.2.1 of the Solicitation (page 44) be increased to provide for a contingency?

Provide the number of shoot packs (35) specified in Section L.3.2.1. Contingency shoot packs have been accounted for with regards to the source selection testing.

25. The Government has provided small business participation objectives (on page 48 of the

Solicitation). Are the participation objectives cumulative (i.e. the total objective is to have

6.85% small business participation broken out by the business types)? Or would a single business that met all category requirements (small, disadvantaged, woman-owned, HUBZone, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned) that does 5.25% of the work meet the objective? Or would that same business have to do 6.85% to meet the objective?

In accordance with Section L.3.2.4, the Small Business Participation Plan details percentages in terms of total dollars of work for each Small Business category, divided by the total contract value. If a single small business is classified as a small business, disadvantaged, woman-owned, HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned, that business would meet the

Government’s participation objectives specified in the RFP.

26. Can a 60-day extension be granted on the deadline of the proposal?

No; however, the Government will extend the RFP closing date 30 March 2018.

27. A number of questions have been submitted to date, but no answers have been posted yet. The answers to those questions may create more questions. Can the deadline for questions be extended beyond February 16 by at least 2 weeks?

28. Offerors may submit questions at any time. The Government will publicly post answers to all questions it received prior to 16 February 2018. The Government will answer and post questions it receives after 16 February 2018 to the maximum extent practicable.

29. Will Surrogate Shoot Packs be used for soft armor LAT for either Base Vests and/or

Components?

Lot acceptance testing will be on finished ballistic inserts as specified in section 4.3.2.2 of the detail specification.

30. Will the Non-Ballistic LAT be done at the contractor’s facility or at an independent lab?

Non-ballistic LAT will be conducted at the contractor’s facility as specified in the LAT Plan.

31. The pattern grade across all sizes does not appear to be correct. When will the government provide corrected patterns?

Updated patterns have been provided to correct corrupted grading.

32. Reference page 2 of solicitation M67854-18-R-1305: Please confirm the correct quantity and

UoM for CLIN 0001.

The quantity for CLIN 0001 should be one Lot of FAT materials comprised of the items listed in the CLIN description. An updated CLIN 0001 has been provided.

33. The inner vest carrier has locations for hook. However, there is no corresponding loop on the ballistic inserts. Should there be loop on the ballistic inserts for ballistic suspension?

No loop is required on the ballistic inserts.

34. Is this contract planned as a sole source award or as a multiple source award?

One vendor will be awarded the PC Gen III Soft Armor contract.

35. Regarding the FAT, Ballistic Material as line item 0001- Is it accurate that the pricing requested is for 30 units which a unit consists of a kit of what appears to be 138 panels? These will include;

- 104 15"×15" panels of the proposed ballistic package

- 8 15”x15” unsewn/unfinished panels of the proposed ballistic package

- 16 Finished Base Vest Inserts: 2 XS-S, 2 XS, 2 SM-S, 2 SM, 2 SM-L, 2 MD, 2 LG, 2 XLG

- 4 Finished Side Plate Pocket Inserts: 2 6x6, 2 6x8

- 6 Cummerbund Inserts: 2 SM, 2 MD, 2 LG

The quantity for CLIN 0001 should be one Lot of FAT materials comprised of the items listed in the CLIN description. An updated CLIN 0001 has been provided.

36. The official release date of the bid is February 1st 2018 and it states on page 47 of the solicitation document states that the past performance docs must be submitted within 20 days of the bid release date. Does this mean by February 21st this needs to be submitted?

The completed questionnaire shall be emailed to the Contract Specialist no later than the solicitation’s closing date. Section L.3.2.3 has been updated accordingly.

37. Can you please confirm if the FAT line item panels require an outer nylon pocket carrier for testing purposes?

The FAT shoot packs provided for FAT should be in accordance with paragraph 4.2.2.2.1 of the detail specification which includes the ballistic filler carrier.

38. For LAT; will the end items be tested in a carrier or in the pad cover only?

Ballistic LAT will be conducted without the carrier as specified in the LAT Plan.

39. Please note during review of the ballistic patterns, it has been identified the patterns are not symmetrical. Additionally, the pattern for the X-Small is larger than the pattern identified as size

Medium. Will there be revisions to the ballistic patterns?

Updated patterns have been provided to correct corrupted grading.