Amendment_0002.docx

N00174-16-R-0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

The purpose of this amendment is to 1) make changes to Figure 1 of the Statement of Work (SOW), 2) revise paragraph 3.7.3.2 of the SOW, 3) update Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) B027 and 4) provide questions and answers received by potential offerors as follows:

1. Figure 1 of the SOW is changed as follows:

FROM: Group C, -160˚F TO: Group C, +160˚F

2. Paragraph 3.7.3.2 of the SOW references CDRL B023 to submit any HAZMAT identified material. Reference is changed:

FROM: B023

TO: B010, System Safety Hazard Analysis Report (SSHA)

3. CDRL B027 references CDRL A015 in conjunction with its block 12 and 13 submission dates. Reference is changed:

FROM: A015

TO: B010

4. The following questions and answers are provided to all offerors:

1Q: SOW, Paragraph 3.2.3, Design Verification Units & Testing Figure 1: Paragraph 3.2.3 references Figure 1 for Environmental Development Testing. The paragraph states there are 30 S&A devices for Design Verification Testing phase. When reviewing the Figure 1 flow, it is concluded that there are two possible quantities that get selected from the lot of 30 as follows:

a) Quantity of 13. This is derived from the Group A and Group C flows specifically. The “quantity 3” listed in each sub-band is interpreted that 3 S&A devices are selected for that flow (Group A and Group B respectively) and then the sub-band brackets affirm that all 3 S&As go through the cited tests at the temperature listed.

b) Quantity of 19. This is derived from the Group A and Group C flows specifically. The “quantity 3” listed in each sub-band is interpreted that 3 different S&A devices are subjected to each sub-band shown for that flow (Group A and Group B respectively) thus resulting in 6 samples per group flow.

Can the Government clarify which quantity is correct?

1A: The government expects that 13 units as categorized in this paragraph [inert loaded] will be tested in the test flow identified in Figure 1. Group A and C have 3 samples per group flow.

Group A: -65˚F and -40˚F (3 units) Group B: +73˚F (5 units) Group C: +160˚F and +140˚F (3 units) Group D: See paragraph 4 (2 units)

-6 S&A shall be explosive loaded samples tested per the Group B test flow.

-5 S&A shall be cut-away units

2Q: SOW Paragraph 3.2.4, Fuze Qualification Testing, Specification PRF-8603212, Paragraph 4.4, First Article Inspection, Table 4: SOW paragraph 3.2.4 is entitled “Fuze Qualification Testing”. Neither the SOW nor PRF-8603212 further define qualification and when it would apply. JO5P-052 provides guidelines for qualification of S&A devices as required by PRF-8603212. It provides for a battery of tests similar to the Design Verification Acceptance (DVA) testing. SOW 3.2.3 also mentions that new S&As are to be fabricated for qualification testing after DVT and PCA/FCA is completed using DVT phase S&A devices. Based on the solicitation and PRF-8603212, the testing required for the S&A devices are assumed to be:

o DVA testing – 30 S&A devices required o Qualification testing using JOTP-52 as guidance – TBD S&A devices required o First Article testing, which is a subset of DVA is assumed to be NOT REQUIRED Is the above correct? Can the Government clarify what constitutes qualification testing and the number of S&A devices to be fabricated for qualification?

2A: The number of S&A devices required for fuze qualification is specified within JOTP-52 (see Figure 1a or Figure 2a). For tests that do not have quantities specified, refer to the specifications invoked in the Figure. Also note that the Navy does not require jumble tests. Final concurrence with test quantities will need to be provided by the FISTRP and WSESRB.

There are no requirements for First Article testing. Paragraph 4.4 of the Specification PRF-8603212 states that it is only required if specified in the contract (SOW).

3Q: Please provide squib weight and squib classification.

3A: If the question about the squib, is referring to the explosive item (detonator) requirement, see paragraph 3.6 of PRF-8603212. Reference information for the built-to-print MK 117 Detonator Mod 0 (5479937), total weight is 309 mg [Lead Styphanate - 5 mg; Lead Azide - 114 mg ; Pentaerythrite Tetranitrate - 190 mg]

4Q: Specification PRF-8603212, Paragraph 3.4.2.3: Paragraph 3.4.2.3 states that the S&A shall arm at water entry velocity of greater than 100 ft/sec or pressure greater than 75 psig. Should there be an upper bound on the velocity and pressure? For example, should it state that the S&A arms at a water entry velocity of greater than 100 ft/sec, but not greater than XXX ft/sec? Similarly, should it state that the S&A arms at a pressure greater than 75 psig, but not greater than XX psig?

4A: There is no upper bound requirement for arming based on velocity or pressure, however the device will not be tested beyond the forces described in Table 2, under Section 3.7.2.

5Q: Stepladder Pricing Template, (Attachment 6): Is it permissible to add rows to provide more than four (4) stepladder prices?

5A: If alternative stepladder quantities are necessary, please provide desired step ladder quantities and rationale for Government determination.

6Q: Statement of Work (SOW), Paragraph 3.7.1.3, Environmental Stress Screening (ESS): SOW paragraph 3.7.1.3 requires ESS regimen for the S & A. Assumption is that ESS will be performed on the S & A prior to the energetics being installed. Is this assumption correct?

6A: Correct, ESS shall be performed on S & A without the energetics loaded (installed). The explosive component can removed and replaced with an inert component that exhibit similar electrical/mechanical performance.

7Q: SOW, Paragraph 3.3.4.2, Lot Acceptance Test (LAT): SOW paragraph 3.3.4.2 requires LAT on samples selected from each production lot. The SOW does not have any definition of LAT from a specific test detail standpoint. Specification PRF-8603212 does not cite any LAT requirement. However, the definition of Conformance Inspection per PRF-8603212, paragraph 4.5, mimics the SOW’s LAT description. As such, is the PRF-8603212 Conformance Inspection the LAT within the SOW?

7A: Correct, Lot Acceptance Testing (LAT) is synonymous with Conformance Inspection. The contractor must provide a LAT test plan for Government approval under CDRL B014 to describe the specific methods of testing. Per PRF-8603212, paragraph 4.5 the LAT shall "verify all performance requirements are met".

8Q: Specification PRF-8603212, Paragraph 4.5, Conformance Inspection (and Table 4): Paragraph 4.5 and Table 4 do not provide any details of what constitutes Conformance Inspection. The double starred note annotation in Table 4 for the “QC” column states to “See contract requirement”. The Solicitation SOW does not provide any details. Based on a previous question in which Conformance Inspection is assumed to be the same as defined as LAT in the SOW paragraph 3.3.4.2, can it be assumed that environmental portion of LAT (i.e. Conformance Inspection for table 4 of the PRF-8603212) is the same as the MK71 TDD WS33708, Table IX, for performance of lot “Periodic Quality Conformance Inspections” (i.e. LAT)? That is, would this be the appropriate test sequence for lot sample testing to quote and present in the LAT test procedure submissions?

8A: The contractor must provide a LAT test plan for Government approval under CDRL B014 to describe the specific methods of testing. Per PRF-8603212, paragraph 4.5 the LAT shall "verify all performance requirements are met".

9Q: Specification, Paragraphs: 3.4.7, Detonation Initiation, 3.4.8, Self Destruct Function: There appears to be no difference between the performance requirements in PRF-8603212 Paragraph 3.4.7 (Detonation Initiation) and 3.4.8 (Self Destruct Function). Is this correct?

9A: Correct

10Q: Technical Data Package (TDP): Request the technical data package of the Government-designed MK75-1 (as stated on page 130 of the solicitation).

10A: Offerors should request the documents in the same format as the performance specification as stated in Section L of the solicitation.

11Q: Classified Addendum: Request the classified addendum, as referenced in Section 3.4.6 (Armed Life) within the performance specification.

11A: Please refer to Amendment 0001 for further instructions on how to receive the documents.

12Q: NAVSEA, NAVAIR and Air Force Drawings: Request NAVSEA, NAVAIR, and Air Force drawings listed on page 6 of the performance specification.

12A: Offerors should request the documents in the same format as the performance specification as stated in Section L of the solicitation.

13Q: Request extension based on need for TDP; Classified Addendum; as well as NAVSEA, NAVAIR and Air Force Drawings.

13A: Please refer to Amendment 0001, closing date has been extended to 11 October 2016, 3:00 pm Standard Time.

14Q: Has the Navy previously worked with a supplier to design or produce this item for use in fielded systems? If yes, for how many years? Supplier identity is not desired, we’re simply attempting to determine program maturity.

14A: This item was last produced in the 1990's and tested during OPEVAL at which point it was found to be operationally effective and suitable. The design did not complete fuze qualification testing, and would need to be evaluated against current standards. The Quickstrike Mod 3 program is approved for full rate production. See paragraph 1.1 of the SOW for a list of program milestones.

15Q: SOW Paragraph 3.7.3.2, Hazardous Material Management Program (HMMP): Paragraph 3.7.3.2 references CDRL B023 to submit any HAZMAT identified material. B023 is the Environmental Stress Screening Report?

15A: The correct CDRL should be B010, System Safety Hazard Analysis Report (SSHA).

16Q: Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) B027, Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA): CDRL B027 references “CDRL A015” in conjunction with its block 12 and 13 submission dates. There is no CDRL A015.

16A: Correct, CDRL B027 should be submitted with CDRL B010.

17Q: Performance Specification PRF-8603212, Para 3.7.2.6 calls out "…immediately followed by…" What is the time period for this interval and what tolerance?

17A: paragraph 3.7.2.4 and Table 2 -Water-Entry Shock Theory: Water entry is broken into two phases. The first phase occurs as the nose of the projectile/mine enters the water (impact phase). The characteristics of this phase are high peak deceleration - high frequency. The drag phase of water entry immediately follows the impact phase. The peak deceleration of this phase is generally lower than the peak deceleration of the impact phase - low frequency. The peak deceleration of the drag phase is at its maximum immediately following the impact phase. The drag phase deceleration decays exponentially until terminal velocity is reached or bottom impact occurs. So, "...immediately followed by..." is by definition without a lapse of time between two phases of water entry.

18Q: Statement of Work, Para 3.8.3 Support & Test Equipment (S&TE) reads "The contractor shall conduct an assessment of test equipment existing in the US Navy inventory." Please provide a list of available test equipment to be assessed. Is this equipment available for on-site assessment?

18A: The provision of S&TE is based on the design concepts proposed by the offeror, and the appropriate S&TE can be provided after contract award.

image1.wmf