N00019-13-R-0065_Q As_Amendment_0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FMU-139 C/B
- Solicitation number
- N00019-13-R-0065
About this file
Solicitation Q A's.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N00019-13-R-0065_Amendemnt_03.doc | DOC document | |
| N00019-13-R-0065_Amendment_0002.doc | DOC document | |
| Solicitation_N00019-13-R-0065-Amd_0001.doc | DOC document | |
| N00019-13-R-0065_to_Post.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment_2_-_FY_14_FMU-139CB_Contract_SOW_dtd_21_Feb_2014.docx | DOCX document | |
| FMU_139CB_CDRLS_dtd__21_Feb_14.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Regarding the timing of the exercising of options, the solicitation states that the Government may exercise options no later than (NLT) 30 and 42 months after contract award (ACA). It also states that upon exercise of an option, the Contractor is required to deliver NLT 12 months after exercise of an option. Depending on the timing of the option exercise date, and the quantity required to be delivered, this could present an impossibility situation. If, for example, the base quantity was the max of 15,000, and then, 6 months later, the Government exercised an option for 20,000 additional fuzes, it would be impossible to peform a FAT and deliver within the contract schedule. Therefore, is it the Government’s intent to set up deliveries sequentially, where the base quantities would be delivered within the 30 month ACA period, and the options thereafter, with no overlap? | Yes. The intent would be that the deliveries for the base year would deliver within the base period, and the deliveries for the follow-on options, if exercised, would continue within the corresponding timelines annotated for the options. |
| In previous contracts, PBXN-7 was provided as Government-Furnished Material. Will the Government be providing PBXN-7 with the follow-on contract? | All currently planned Government Furnished Material (GFM) is annotated in Section F, Clause 5252.245-9509 PLACE OF DELIVERY - GOVERNMENT FURNISHED MATERIAL (NAVAIR) (MAR 1999) and Section H, Clause 5252.245-9500 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT (NAVAIR) (MAY 2012). If the Contractor requires the provision of additional GFM, it should be noted in the Contractor's proposal. |
| Does the Government anticipate FMS deliveries? If so, what are the anticipated arrangements for storage and handling of fuzes prior to receipt of a Notice of Availability? | Yes, the Government anticipates FMS procurements under this contract. Notices of Availability (NOAs) should be prepared and provided to FMS Customer Countries, or their representatives (e.g., Freight Forwarder) as early as possible to avoid shipping delays. All items shipped prior to the annotated contract delivery date are considered early deliveries and are to be held in bonded storage, with no liability or increase in cost assumed on the part of the Government. |
| Regarding the configuration of the FMU-139C/B fuze itself, the SOW paragraph 3.2.3.1.a states, “The configuration baseline is defined as the latest configuration of FMU-139C/B fuze approved for delivery to the US Government via prior Lot Acceptance Test.” Since the contractor thereby establishes its own configuration baseline for its unique fuze design, please explain the intended roles of RFP Attachments 3 and 5 (respectively, the ADL’s for the USAF and USN Fuzes). | Attachment 3 (ADL 1379AS970) and Attachment 5 (ADL 1379AS972) provide top-level information for existing, as-delivered, configurations of FMU-139C/B fuzes. While not mandatory, any changes to these configurations could drive additional qualification testing requirements. |
| The supplied Technical Data Package (TDP) compact disc contained two ADL files, USN Fuze ADL 1379AS970 (Attachment 5) and USAF Fuze ADL 1379AS972 (Attachment 3). Both files contain an ADL for both the FMU-139C/B and FMU-139B/B. Does the ADL1379AS901 (rev. – dated 6 NOV 02) Fuze and Accessories – FMU-139B/B (USN) and ADL1379AS318 (rev. – dated 26 NOV 02) Fuze and Accessories – FMU-139B/B (USAF) apply to this proposal? | ADL 1379AS901 and ADL1379AS318 apply to the FMU-139B/B configuration of the FMU-139 fuze. These were erroneously included in the TDP and should be disregarded. |
| The RFP requires, through Option CLIN 0009 and that CLINs description in Section C, that a Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) be performed IAW SOW paragraph 3.1.4.2. That SOW paragraph states: | a. Government representatives will attend the PCA. As PCA is an audit, auditors independent of the FMU-139C/B Program are required to attend. Fuze Subject Matter Experts from the Government/Industry Team will attend to facilitate the meeting. |
b.i. MIL-HDBK-61A provides additional guidance on configuration baselines and the PCA. Paragraph 8.2.2.2 states that when the PCA is complete, Configuration Management has a documented baseline for the product and for controlling production. Product baseline is established by comparing physical parts to their drawings. Production baseline is derived from the work instructions, drawings, etc.
b.ii. In instances of reprocurement from an existing manufacturer, a delta PCA approach may be considered, whereby inspections are limited to safety critical items (energetic devices, flex cables, etc.) and items/drawings have changed since the item was last delivered to the Government. Specific requirements and sample sizes can be determined by the Government/Industry Team prior to PCA.
b.iii. NAVAIRINST 4355.19D, paragraph 1 further defines the scope of the PCA to include: "...the PCA confirms that the manufacturing processes, quality control system, measurement and test equipment, and training are adequately planned, followed, and controlled. It is also used to validate many of the supporting processes used by the contractor in the production of the item..." This highlights that the purpose of the PCA is to validate the configuration baseline via a systems approach and the documentation and review of all of the system's inputs/outputs.
b.iv. PCA checklist is provided as an attachment to the synopsis. Tailoring of the checklist will be performed by the Government/Industry Team at the time of program execution.
“Unless the FAT is waived by the Government, the Contractor shall conduct a Physical Configuration Audit (PCA), in accordance with NAVAIRINST 4355.19D. The purpose of the PCA is to verify that the FMU-139C/B fuzes and other configuration items are fabricated in accordance with the current documentation, and that the documentation is adequate for production and accepting subsequent fuzes in accordance with Exhibit A (Item A00D), CDRL, DD Form 1423. (DI-CMAN-81022C)”
NAVAIRINST 4335.19D is the “Systems Engineering Review Process Handbook”. It describes the PCA requirements in pages 131 through 136. The PCA guidance provided in the NAVAIRINST is very broad and general in scope, and seemingly diverges from the PCA purpose stated in SOW paragraph 3.1.4.2. In order to enable industry to better understand the scope of the required PCA and estimate its cost accurately, the following clarifications of PCA requirements are requested:
| a. Is the PCA to be an internal effort conducted solely by the contractor IAW paragraph 1 of the NAVAIRINST and the results reported via the specified CDRL? Or will the Government participate in the conduct of the PCA, as is implied by numerous references to Government participants throughout the NAVAIRINST document? If the Government participates, will that participation consist of a NAVAIR team or local DCMA at the contractor’s facility? |
| b. Paragraph 4.b defines the PCA Elements. It states: “A representative number of drawings and associated manufacturing instructions for each item shall be reviewed to determine their accuracy in accordance to the final product configuration/design. Unless otherwise directed by the Government co-chairperson, inspection of the drawings and the associated manufacturing instruction may be accomplished on a valid sampling basis. The purpose of the PCA is to ensure that the manufacturing instructions (and/or Computer Aided Manufacturing data) accurately reflect all design details contained in the drawings (and/or Computer Aided Design presentations). Since the hardware is built in accordance with the manufacturing instructions, any discrepancies between the manufacturing instruction and the design details and changes in the drawings will be reflected in the hardware. The following areas should be addressed in the PCA: |
| (1) Quality Control System; |
| (2) Control of Purchases; |
| (3) Shipping; |
| (4) Software; |
| (5) Training; |
| (6) Measurement and Test Equipment; |
| (7) Non-Conforming Material; and, |
| (8) Manufacturing” |
The requirements as stated in 4.b are broad and represent potentially unlimited scope. They require clarification as follows:
| i. The text requires comparison of manufacturing instructions to design drawings in order to indirectly determine hardware compliance to design details. Nowhere does the text require that hardware be physically inspected and the inspection results directly compared to drawing requirements, as is commonly done in a PCA involving an relatively minor end-item like a fuze, as opposed to a major end-item such as an aircraft or missile. Is the scope of the PCA therefore to be limited to comparing design documentation (drawings and specifications) to manufacturing instructions? Please clarify. | |
| ii. If the Government expects the PCA to also include the performance of physical hardware inspections, and the comparison of inspection results to drawing and specification requirements, what specific articles of fuze system hardware need to be inspected; for what specific requirements; and how many samples of each article of hardware will be required? | |
| iii. The text cites 8 areas of contractor operations that should be addressed in the PCA. In keeping with the defined purpose of PCA (“to ensure that the manufacturing instructions accurately reflect all design details contained in the drawings”), is the scope of the PCA in these 8 areas therefore to be limited to comparing contractor instructions involving these types of operational tasks to design documentation? Please clarify. | |
| iv. Please provide a copy of the PCA Checklist cited in the NAVAIRINST, along with any tailoring of that checklist the Government deems appropriate considering the specifics of this acquisition. | |
| The RFP includes provisions in Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.7, in which the contractor may request waiver of First Article and Physical Configuration Audit. Is it possible for the contractor to request waiver of Physical Configuration Audit alone? For example, a FAT may have been previously conducted and approved for the contractor’s design; the design and the production process has not significantly changed; but production itself has ceased for more than 180 days. In such a situation, FAT may be required to requalify production operations following such a lengthy break. But a case could be made that PCA should be waived because the contractor’s design, and their manufacturing and other instructions, remain unchanged from those demonstrated previously. | Yes, a waiver from PCA, alone, can be requested. |
| The solicitation includes FAR clause 52.232-13, Notice of Progress Payments. However, it does not include FAR Clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments. Will the contract allow for Progress Payments? | If the Contractor would like to request Progress Payments it should be noted in the Contractor's proposal. |
| Given the variability in timing of Option awards, per page 39 of the RFP, is the contactor required to indicate and/or display schedules for delivery of CLINs beyond the Base Year (e.g. for CLINs 010X & 020X)? We interpret RFP Section L, Part B, paragraph 1.2, to require only a top-level milestone schedule for Base Year CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0009. Please confirm that Option year schedules are not required. | A detailed milestone schedule is required for all base-year CLINs. Only a top-level (e.g., months after contract/option award) delivery schedule is required for all optional CLINs. |
| In review of the RFP attachments provided, Attachment 10 (FZU-48 DL 8385220) references revision D; however, solicitation N00019-11-R-0006 issued for the previous 2011 proposal referenced revision E of this DL. Will the Government please confirm which revision of the FZU-48 DL is applicable to this effort? | DL8385220 Rev E, Data List, Initiator, Bomb Fuze, FZU-48/B is the current configuration. An updated version of the ADL and associated updated drawings, has been mailed to both vendors. |
| In Section M, Part B, 2.0 Price, the evaluated price is computed using the formula specified. For each CLIN, that formula incorporates a quantity multiplier (example: in section 1.b of the formula, the multiplier is 3,500). Can the Government provide any details on how the multiplier was selected for the CLINs? Is there any relationship between the multiplier and a “most likely” award quantity? | There is no correlation between the "most likely" award quantity and the multiplier. |
| Attachment 20 of the RFP, in its header section, references solicitation N00019-13-P7-AZ006. It is assumed that this reference is in error, and that the correct reference should be N00019-13-R-0065. Please confirm. | N00019-13-P7-AZ006 is an internal NAVAIR processing number. The correct number should be N00019-13-R-0065. A corrected copy has been mailed to both vendors. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .