Amendment 0001 Att. 5. Questions and Answers.pdf

Questions and Answers

Solicitation N66604-26-R-0011

Question # Question Answer

Will the Government be posting a drawing Package with this solicitation?

No, Applicable Documents will not be posted on SAM. See Section L, Note 9, for details on how to request the drawing package and Applicable Documents.

Questions 2.a – 2.g all pertain to Drawing 03411002 Rev K

NOTE: Addressing this and several other questions requires an update to the CIPS and the reference drawings identified in the CIPS. The Government intends to update the CIPS and associated reference drawings after award of the MAC. Until a CIPS revision is issued via postaward modification, in the event of a disagreement between the questions and answers and the CIPS including the reference drawings the questions and answers shall Govern.

Further, as detailed in CIPS Section 2.1, in the event of a disconnect, the CIPS is the controlling document over drawings referenced in the CIPS.

2.a

Zone C5 shows dimension

1.180 with datum lines that do not align with any features. In Revision J, this feature was from the end of the body to the step in the body where the contacts exit the body. Is this where the feature should be aligned?

The Government will correct the drawing in next revision. Dimension value (1.180) is correct; leaders are not properly aligned. The dimension is intended to apply from the face of the threaded body, to the trailing surface of the spacer plate (pc 8) where it meets the glass seal. The Government will correct this in a in a future revision.

2.b

Zone B4 shows dimension .495 with no associated tolerance (therefore tolerance reverts to the tolerance block for a

Revision J is overtaken by revision K so the tolerances identified in revision K are applicable under this requirement. The mating socket length (pin depth) is defined as 0.495 with a tolerance of +/-.005.

Maintaining the +/-.005 pin length tolerance will ensure proper mating tolerance of +/-.005). In Revision J, this feature was listed as .495 +/- .015. Should this feature have a tolerance as listed asin Revision J?

and rubber face engagement while mated. No change to the stated requirements is necessary.

2.c

Detail C:

In Revision J, Detail C was listed as “For Reference Only”, Revision K does not state “For Reference Only”. Detail C shows in processing dimensions that cannot be verified at the final assembly.

When completing First Article forms, it will not be possible for a QAR to verify these in process dimensions. Should this Detail be listed as “For Reference Only” as in Revision J?

Detail C is for reference only. The true position control feature will be moved to the Detail B projection where the 0.312 +/- 0.002 dimension is already defined. The Government will correct this in a drawing revision.

2.d

Detail C:

The features .156 TYP and .125 TYP are confusing as they are individual features not associated with any other feature. Why is TYP listed with these two dimensions?

See 2.c response. These are typical based on the pin types used in legacy designs.

2.e.

Detail C:

In Revision J, dimension .120 and .060 were listed as .12 and .06. The .XXX dimension will have a tolerance of +/-.005, See 2.c response. Specifically, the response to 2c states that Detail C becomes “for reference only” in the upcoming drawing revision, therefore none of these values become inspectable.

whereas a .XX dimension will have a tolerance of +/-.010.

These features are basically “Molding FLASH” and will be very diƯicult to accurately measure. Should they be listed as a .XX dimension?

2.f

Detail F, is drawn to show how the molded assembly will fit within the cylinder, but is unclear as the Length required by this cylinder. Should there be a length defined in Detail F as the length of the molded assembly is now a MINIMIUM?”

See assembly view in Zone 4D where the minimum assembly length is defined. Detail F defines the max volume diameter, creating a cylindrical volume for the cable/mold geometry and lengths to be design within.

2.g

Note 5 states there is to be Gold over Copper, an approved RFV (30463-FA01-005a) on previous contract allowed “Suitable Underplating “, will “Suitable Underplating “ be allowed on this contract?

The Government will issue a drawing revision that will simplify to “IAW NAVSEA SPEC 53711-8192757” which will include the following:

Pin mat’l/plating can be IAW SAE AS39039, ASTM F30, or equivalent as approved by NAVSEA under the process summarized in the answer to question 3 below.

Gold over copper thickness, as appropriate, per MIL-DTL-45204 Type II, Grade C, Class 1.

Gold over an intermediate plating layer of nickel IAW SAE-AMS- QQ-N-290 or MIL-C-26074, is acceptable as an alternative

Drawing 03411004 Rev A:

Revision “-“ of this drawing allowed material Copper Alloy 903 per QQ-C-390, Revision A now states “AS APPROVED BY NAVSEA”. How do we get

NAVSEA SPEC 53711-8192757 is the governing technical document;

see section 3.2.4 for allowable material types.

Generally, If vendor plans to qualify outside of this contract (i.e. MIB) a design/configuration review will be held with govt, prior to FAT

If vendor plans to qualify under this contract, general FA configuration reviews will be conducted, providing ample time alternate materials approved prior to proposal submitted?

to propose alternative materials with supporting OQE to assess suitability

Drawing 03411008 Rev A:

Note 6 was added for marking information and states

“MARKED ON THE OUTER

DIAMETER AREA WITH LESS

THAN .06 INCH HIGH

LETTERING (MIN) IN

ACCORDANCE WITH MIL-STD-

792”, The note is confusing as it states “WITH LESS THAN .06 INCH HIGH LETTER (MIN). How can lettering be less than, but

(MIN)?

The Government will correct this error in the next drawing revision.

The marking will now be allowed on the flat area of the lockwasher.

Drawing 03411009 Rev B:

There is a conflict between 03411009 Rev B and Paragraph

3.2.3 of 8192757. Note 3 of 03411009 states “C63200 PER

ASTM B150 , TEMPER TQ50”,

whereas Paragraph 3.2.3 of 8192757 states “C63200 temper QC50 in accordance with ASTM B150.” Please confirm the temper to be TQ50 as stated in 03411009.

Temper TQ50 is correct for C63200 (QC50 not a B150 temper option) as stated in 8192757, paragraph 3.2.3.

The Government will correct the CIPS in next revision

6 Questions 6.a – 6.c all pertain to-Specification 8192757

6.a Paragraph 4.3.5 Circuit Resistance, states “shall be

Concur, the Government will correct the CIPS in next revision used to obtain the total conductor voltage drops as shown in Figure 1.”. Believe Figure 1 is in error and should be Figure 2, please confirm.

6.b

Paragraph 4.3.10 Cable Flexing, states “stationary mandrels as shown in Figure 3 to show conformance”. Believe Figure 3 is in error and should be Figure 4, please confirm.

6.c

Paragraph 4.3.17 Thermal Shock, states “subjected to thermal shock testing specified in Table 4 ”. Believe Table 4 is in error and should be Table 3, please confirm.

Can you verify drawing 03412003 is currently at Revision A?

Yes.

The drawing revisions in the CIPs do not match the drawing package. Are the drawings in the drawing package accurate to this solicitation?

The Government agrees that there are typos on Page 3 of the CIPs regarding drawing revisions. The drawing package provided for the solicitation includes the correct drawing revisions. For clarification, the correct drawing revision for drawing 03411001 is Revision A.

The Government will revise the CIPs to remove all drawing revisions from this section.

Will the Navy schedule and execute the Shock event, requiring only the oƯeror to provide the built hardware?

Yes.

Will only one unit of the First Article be necessary, or is there a minimum quantity for shock testing?

Twelve (12) First Article units are required, in accordance with clause 52.209-4(a) of the solicitation.

What is the estimated lead time for scheduling and completing this Shock event?

There is no specified lead time for completing the shock test event.

However, as identified in the solicitation, following contractor testing and delivery, the Government has six (6) months to complete Government performed First Article testing, per clause 52.209-4(b).

FAR 52.211-11 is called out on page 36 of the solicitation. Our company historically does not enter into contracts that invoke any form of liquidated damages.

To ensure our continued participation in this bid opportunity, we request the removal of FAR 52.211-11 (Liquidated Damages – Supplies, Services, or Research and Development) in its entirety from the solicitation. Please confirm if FAR 52.211-11 can be removed.

The Government reserves the right to establish liquidated damages at the order level. The Clause will be modified via amendment to replace the “TO BE PROVIDED AT AWARD” fill-in with “TO BE ESTABLISHED AT

THE ORDER LEVEL VIA TASK ORDER SOLICITATION”.

Page 3, section B of the solicitation states that for CLIN 0003: “OƯerors shall propose a total ceiling value of $98,160,000 for this Clin.”

Please confirm oƯeror is to only plug $98,160,000 pricing for 1 LOT for CIN 0003 and all follow

Yes, that is correct.

on RFP’s will be priced for specific quantities.

The solicitation includes two conflicting dates for the question submission deadline.

Can the Government please confirm the correct date for the submission of OƯeror questions?

The correct question submission cutoƯ date is 14 days before the closing. Provision L-215-H007 will be corrected via amendment.

There appear to be two diƯering definitions of the “recent record of past performance” within the solicitation. Can the Government please clarify which definition or timeframe should be applied when preparing the Past Performance submission? Additionally, please confirm which document governs in the event of this inconsistency.

The recency period will be five years. Section L will be corrected to reflect five (5) years.

There appears to be a discrepancy between the small business goals stated in the RFP and those outlined in Section L.

Can the Government please clarify whether the objective is to achieve 5% participation by all small business concerns, or specifically 5% participation by small disadvantaged business

The Small Business Participation (SBP) and Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements are separate and distinct and need to be independently addressed by oƯerors. The Government has reviewed both the SBP and Subcontracting Plan and the stated 5% requirements are accurate in the context of each provision.

concerns? Additionally, please confirm which document governs in the event of this inconsistency.

The RFP does not specify a requirement to submit a Pricing Workbook or Pricing Narrative as part of the proposal. Can the Government please clarify how it would like OƯerors to demonstrate the derivation of the unit price for First Article Testing?

First Article Units are to be proposed on a Firm Fixed Price (FFP).

Therefore, no pricing workbook or narrative is required.

Given the current Government shutdown, does the Government anticipate extending the proposal due date to allow OƯerors adequate time for submission?

The Government does not anticipate the current Navy budgetary status impacting this requirement. Further, based on the information required for this solicitation and the time allotted after an extension to 11/21/25 which will be issued with the execution of Amendment A00001, the Government determined oƯerors have more than enough time to