UBA_Performance_Spec_Questions_FINAL_Q_A.pdf

UBA Performance Spec Q&A

Questions as of 08/14/2018 (4 Total)

1. In the BASE table Item id #1. Please confirm that this is for REDACTED. Please confirm that the evaluation period is 04/01/2019 - 03/31/2020. On the Option 1 table item id#1. Please confirm the certification period is the same as the evaluation period and that consumables needs to be costed for this period. On the Option 2 table item id#1. Please confirm the certification period is the same as the evaluation period and that technical support needs to be costed for this period.

ANSWER 1:

1.

a. In the BASE table Item id #1. Please confirm that this is for REDACTED.

(CLIN 0001 is for 7 UBAs)

b. Please confirm that the evaluation period is 04/01/2019 - 03/31/2020.

(Yes)

c. On the Option 1 table item id#1. Please confirm the certification period is the same as the evaluation period and that consumables needs to be costed for this period.

(No. The certification testing will begin following the evaluation period. CLIN 4 and 5 apply)

d. On the Option 2 table item id#1. Please confirm the certification period is the same as the evaluation period and that technical support needs to be costed for this period.

(No. The certification period is not the same as the evaluation period. Note that there is no requirement for on-site technical support during the entire period, but communication with OEM may be required.)

2. For the T&E units do we need to have Berry compliant soft parts (harness etc.)?

ANSWER 2:

2. For the T&E units do we need to have Berry compliant soft parts (harness etc.)?

Yes

3. Please explain where the IAW document can be found ( IAW paragraph 4.2.1.1). Example;

3.2.1.1. Operational Duration: The UBA must provide the prescribed breathing loop characteristics for 30 minutes at a breathing rate of 36 Respiratory Minute Volume (RMV) and an additional 240 minutes at a breathing rate of 22.5 RMV when tested IAW paragraph 4.2.1.1.

(ANSWER NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS QUESTION; VENDOR SUBMITTED BELOW)

ANSWER 3:

No response required.

4. Previous question. What is IAW document is now understood. Thank you. 1. Definition 3.1 in Attachment A document defines a CO2 injection rate of 1.6l/min. This relates to an approximate ventilation (Ve) of 40m/min. Definition 3.2.1.5 defines a Ve of 90l/min which is in excess of 1.6l/min CO2. Please confirm 1.6l CO2 is the correct injection rate. 2. Definition 3.2.1.10. please define the requirement for individual components testing. The UBA comes as a complete system with no 'removable components'. The UBA will be tested complete. Please confirm. 3. Definition

3.4.2. There is no IAW 4.5 in the document.

ANSWER 4:

4.

a. 1. Definition 3.1 in Attachment A document defines a CO2 injection rate of 1.6l/min.

This relates to an approximate ventilation (Ve) of 40l/min. Definition 3.2.1.5 defines a Ve of 90l/min which is in excess of 1.6l/min CO2. Please confirm 1.6l CO2 is the correct injection rate.

(Para 3.2.1.5 is concerned only with oxygen addition to maintain ppO2 IAW Para 3.1.)

b. 2. Definition 3.2.1.10. please define the requirement for individual components testing.

The UBA comes as a complete system with no 'removable components'. The UBA will be tested complete. Please confirm.

(The UBA will be tested as a complete assembly and major components/sub-assemblies will be tested as components to allow for replacing such components/sub-assemblies.)

c. 3. Definition 3.4.2. There is no IAW 4.5 in the document.

(There is a typo in Para 3.4.2. In Para 3.4.2, “4.5” should read “4.4.2”.)

END OF QUESTIONS

Questions as of 08/16/2018

08/16/2018 Questions

1. Is there a penalty of any kind if a company is accepted to provide 7 UBAs but is late in delivery of the 7 prototypes for the 29 March 2019 deadline? Not that there is an anticipation for being late but if there is some unforeseen occurrence that would cause a short delay; would there be a penalty of any kind?

Response: The ability to meet delivery schedule is an important factor in the Government's assessment of a potential vendor's production capability. However, for this phase of the effort, the government does understand that prototype deliveries may be dependent upon a number of factors. Therefore, it is not anticipated that a penalty would be imposed upon a potential vendor who delivered prototypes within a reasonable timeframe beyond the 29 March 2019 deadline.

2. It is understood that the government owns the molds and/or tooling for the MK-16 MOD II. How much of the MK-16 tooling or molds does the government own, 100%? Should a company submit a proposal containing a UBA based on the design of the MK-16, would these molds and or tooling be available for eventual production run purposes?

Response: The government owns approximately 90% of the molds and tooling associated with the Mk 16 UBA program. At this time, in the event the government does decide to pursue future production contracting, the government does not see an impediment to providing those molds and tooling to a potential vendor if determined applicable to production. However, it remains incumbent upon the vendor to deliver a functional, effective, and suitable end item and the government would not accept responsibility for any failure to meet mandated performance thresholds due to use of these molds or toolings.

3. What does the government consider the relationship to be between the cost of the 7 prototypes (amount per unit) and the possible future order of 400 serial production units? Production units would be significantly less expensive to produce than prototype units. Is the government's decision concerning value based on surmised cost reduction for production level manufacturing or must this be explicitly stated and a quote for 400 units approximated?

Response: the government has not yet requested quotes for a potential full rate production run.

However, it is true that the government would anticipate and expect a significant unit cost difference between 7 prototypes and a potential production run of several hundred units. Final selection of a vendor will be based on a number of factors that determine best value to the government including production unit cost.

END OF 08/16/2018 Q&A

08/17/2018 Questions

1. (3.2.1.12) The technical specification states the Integral Buoyancy Compensator must be approved for US Navy use. Can a buoyancy compensator on supplier’s current equipment be qualified as part of the evaluation process rather than selecting from the ANU list? Only 1 Buoyancy Compensator listed on ANU meets the technical specification of 300 FSW.

Response: Yes. The supplier’s current BC should be included and considered for qualification.

2. (3.2.1.14) Shall the supplier’s emergency gas supply system be included with the MMUBA Prototype Production (CLIN 0001)? If not, what egress/emergency gas system currently in use shall the supplier be compatible with? Can this egress/emergency gas supply system and its connections be made available to the supplier for review of compatibility, if such a system is currently in operational use.

Response: Yes. The supplier’s current EGS should be included and considered for qualification.

3. Re previous question asked: The Berry Amendment does not look to be specifically called out in this RFQ by FAR regulation, and we believe it should not apply; 1) the amount of textile of a percentage is small, 2) “the fabric is to be used as a component of an end product that is not a textile product” and

3) This is a test and evaluation procurement. If the Berry Amendment is deemed necessary on any production contract, then manufacturers would have incentive to re-qualify sources meeting Berry compliancy. Putting that burden on T&E rigs seems onerous. In the previous questions section, the question was asked, and answered YES to Berry Amendment. Please clarify.

After reconsideration, the Government is removing the Berry Amendment requirement.

4. Page 28 of N0002418Q0003 states the technical volume must be a max of 15 pages, but then lists additional attachments in the table and pages limits for each of those documents, which would total well over 15 pages. Is the Technical volume limit separate from the attachment table page limit?

RESEPONSE: The limits ARE separate.

5. Documents N-R were referenced but were not provided. Please provide for review.

Response: Will attach shortly.

6. Heading refers to Acoustic Signature. Reference document provided is Ref K which is FMECA report, is this correct?

Response: Ref K listed in the SOW is the FMECA report, and is referenced in section 3.4 of the SOW. Ref K as listed in the Performance Spec is the Acoustic Signature Test Procedure (attached).

7. In accordance with MIL DTL 1959D. Please confirm if the Rebreather Set is classified as a ‘non-contact assembly’ and that any forward facing elements such as the handset or head up display are classified as ‘non-contact components’.

Response:

1. The Rebreather Set is classified as ‘non-contact’, including the Secondary Display/Handset.

2. The Primary Display/Head up display, and Face Mask/Full Face Mask and all other front mounted components/assemblies are classified as ‘contact’ assemblies and tested as such IAW MIL-DTL-19595D.

END OF Q&A