Questions_and_Answers-_-Round_2_-_Round_6.docx

Questions in response to Solicitation N68335-17-R-0077, Ballistics Protection System:

Question 1: Statement of Work: 4.1.1. Page 29 The initial V0 test (a.) has an 80/80 reliability/confidence requirement. To achieve this level of confidence we would need to test at least 8 coupons. Given the specification is unclear on the number of test coupons required, will the USG provide clarification as to whether there is an 80/80 requirement for all ballistic tests?

Response: This verification method applies to the requirements of section 3.1.1 only. Each ballistic requirement has a unique corresponding verification method identified in section 4 of the Appendix B.

Question 2: Statement of Work Appendix B, Section 3.5, Loads and Dynamics, & Section 4.4.1, Strength Post Ballistic Impact: There is a requirement for dynamic load testing after ballistic impact however we are unable to find reference in the TDP to the ballistic test to be performed prior to load testing or the test method, sample size, number of samples, etc. Please provide this data or advise how we can obtain this information.

Response: Strength post ballistic impact shall be verified by testing representative panels mounted into a frame similar to how the panels would mount into the aircraft. Three test shots (ballistic impacts) shall be performed to the panel (one in the center of the panel, the others approximately 2in from the attachment hardware. Successful test is defined as the panel not departing the frame. Sample size shall be 2 floor panels chosen at the government's discretion.

Question 3: Would the Government allow for a longer contract delivery schedule to allow for proposers to have enough time to adequately address requirements of the Verification Matrix?

Response: Section M, Part B, 1.0, Number 10 – Schedule, of the RFP states:

10. Schedule – The offeror shall provide a detailed description of its ability to meet the schedule and timeline identified in Section F of the solicitation.

Tentative Delivery after Contract (DAC) Award schedule:

· 15 Date after Contract (DAC) Site Survey (on an aircraft)/SRR

· 30 DAC PDR

· 60 DAC CDR/PRR

· 90 DAC, deliver 1 Shipset for First Article Testing/fit check/etc. before commence production.

· 120 DAC begin production

· 180 DAC - initial kit deliveries

Question 4: Upon review of the Appendix A – CDRL List on page 17 of the Statement of Work, there are no Data Item Descriptions (DID) for each CDRL to define format and delivery schedule. Will these be provided as part of the SOW?

Response: The chart for BPS Appendix A CDRLS has been updated to include a column identifying applicable DID. Appendix A CDRLS located in the SOW is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Appendix A CDRLS List with DID.docx. Updated Appendix A will be sent to all Vendors who have already received the Technical Data Package and will be listed in Section J of the Solicitation as an Attachment.

Question 5: Also upon review of Appendix A – CDRL List on page 17 of the Statement of Work, there is no clear definition of which CDRL’s would fall under CLIN 0002, CLIN 1002, CLIN 2002, CLIN 3002, and CLIN 4002. Assumption is that all the CDRL’s would be under CLIN 02 (prior to production) and confused on what CDRLS would be in CLINs 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002. Can clarification be provided?

Response: Appendix A and the Statement of Work have been deleted in their entirety and replaced with Appendix A CDRLS List with DID.docx and SOW – Revised. All CDRLS apply to Year 1. For all subsequent Years, CDRLS A001 (meeting minutes), A002 (progress report), A00J (training) and any logistic CDRLS, unless otherwise stated all CDRLs will follow with all CLINs as required.

Question 6: . Is the requirement for fluid immersion with Aircraft Cleaner MIL-PRF-85570D for Type I, Type II or both? Type I Is general purpose, aromatic solvent base based and Type II general purpose, non-solvent. Is any dilution allowed for the test fluid?

Response: Use MIL-PRF-85570 Type II, diluted 1:4 (1 part cleaner, 4 parts water).

Question 7: SOW – In Section 6 of the SOW (Non-Recurring Engineering), the Gvt states “The Contractor shall propose the necessary hours needed to manufacture, test, and qualify/form and fit the BPS technology to the existing V-22 floor system.” Is the intent of the Gvt to have the contractor price the labor and testing efforts into the overall CDRL costs per each CDRL, as there is no specified CLIN for Non-Recurring Engineering defined in the original solicitation?

Response: The Statement of Work has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with SOW – Revised. Section 6 of SOW – Revised has been revised. CLIN 5001 has been added to encompass Non-Recurring Engineering for all 5 Years.

Question 8: Section L Part B 1.0 c states “The Offeror shall provide a summary of any exceptions or deviations, and proposed Section H clauses addressed in Volume 4 (Contract Administration).” The RFP does not contain a Section H. Can the Government please clarify?

Response: Section H is used to detail special contract requirements not found elsewhere, such as special security requirements and limited access to facilities. This information is not required for this contracting effort. There is no Section H for this requirement. Section L Part B 1.0 c has been revised.

Question 9: Was it intentional to modify the ballistic test requirement from the CV-22 requirement which was 2560 fps + -50 fps to 2560 fps + -75 fps for MV-22? Was there a specific intent or reason behind the change?

Response: Yes the velocity tolerance band was set at +/-75fps intentionally

Question 10: Solicitation CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001 all have a Qty of 50 for base year and out-years. The SOW states that a minimum of 33 systems would be delivered in Year one and 17 systems for years 2-5. Is it the intent of the Gvt to change the solicitation to add a Min/Max requirement and is it the intent of the Gvt for the contractor price this on a sliding scale matrix for procurement of up to 50 in any single year by the Gvt?

Also, the CLIN structure laid out in the SOW does not match the CLIN Structure in the solicitation, is it the intent of the Gvt to correlate the CLIN structures between the two documents?

Response: The Statement of Work has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with SOW – Revised. FAR clauses located in the Solicitation have been updated and filled in where appropriate to address the above question.

Question 11: Solicitation – What is the Government’s defined delivery schedule for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 in the initial base contract and the out year CLIN equipment deliveries?

Response: See response to Question 3.

Question 12: Solicitation – What is the Government’s defined timeframe for the initial system that is required for post award RAP test?

Response: See response to Question 3 (90 DAC).

Question 13: Will the Government provide the LAT test fixtures (that will be used for each of the (40) panels to be tested) as Government Furnished Equipment or should these fixtures be priced into the contractor’s cost for Lot Acceptance Testing?

Response: In accordance with Section 7.5, the contractor is to perform Lot Acceptance Testing with the Government witnessing. The Government will not provide test fixtures.

Question 14: Solicitation – Section L Part B 1.0 a requests that the Offeror’s complete the Offeror Summary Table (Table ES-1). Does the Government only want information for the prime and ALL entities performing on this contract (i.e. all subcontractors) or ONLY principal entities defined as “entities that are proposed to perform at least 15.00% of the proposed total price for the contract”?

Response: The government requires both prime and ALL sub-contractor information.

Question 15: Some standards/specifications in the RFQ may not be applicable to alternative designs. Will the Government accept alternative designs that meet the intent of the RFQ standards/specification through compliance with other applicable, equivalent DoD approved standards/specifications?

Response: The government will evaluate and consider alternative designs so long as they meet the BPS operational requirements.

Question 16: Section F - Deliveries or Performance, is blank but referenced in multiple places. When will the Government provide the Section F required delivery schedule?

Response: Section F has been updated with a Tentative Schedule for the initial 180 days. Delivery is at Origin and the Government will provide a TAC Code to the awardee for shipping to the specified destination at time of order.

Question 17: Appendix B, BPS Requirements, para 3.11.1 states, “Installation Time. The complete BPS shall be installed by two maintainers or aircrew within 3 hours.” Is the 3 hour requirement applicable to the initial ‘green aircraft’ installation, or is it only applicable after any necessary aircraft modifications are performed on the aircraft, and then a BPS installation is performed? How is this attribute evaluated?

Response: The intent of the requirement is to install the BPS system within 3 hours. This time does not include the necessary time to remove other mission kits, or cargo from the aircraft. This time would include any hardware installation necessary for the installation of the BPS kit. One-time modifications to the aircraft that are specific to BPS installation would not be included in this time (A-kit); however, permanent modifications of this kind were not intended for BPS compatibility, and deviates from the mission kit philosophy.

Question 18: FAR Clause 52.216-20 Definite Quantity is in full text. However, the SOW sites 52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity and 5252.216-9506 Minimum and Maximum Quantities. Please confirm which one applies?

Response: The Statement of Work does not reference clauses. Section M, Part B, 2.0, Total Evaluated Price, has been updated to reflect the appropriate clause.

Question 19: SOW Paragraph 3.1 says deliver a minimum of 33 approved BPS, but the CLIN’s state 50. Is 33 the definite quantity or is it 50? Additionally in the same 3.1, the maximum is stated as 200, but for the 5 years the cumulative total is 250, please confirm?

a. If we submit pricing for 50 units each year (and fill in the Unit Price field in the CLINs), what is the USN’s expectation for the unit price if they order 33 in year 1 and 17 in year 2 as is stated as the minimum quantities in the below two SOW paragraphs?

7.3.1 V-22 BPS Production (CLIN 0003; Base Year 1)

The Contractor shall produce and deliver a minimum of 33 BPS floor panel ship-sets.

7.6.1 V-22 BPS Production (CLIN 0004; Order Period 2)

The Contractor shall produce and deliver a minimum of 17 BPS floor panel ship-sets.

b. Is the Government establishing a quantity of 50 as a baseline to determine the lowest price for award?

c. Vendor will assume that the sequence of CLIN numbering in the SOW (i.e. 7.3.1 CLIN 0003, Base Year 1 & 7.6.1 CLIN 0004 Order Period 2…0003/0004 is not in the solicitation) is an administrative error but remains logically the same from the solicitation? Please confirm.

Response: The Statement of Work has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with SOW – Revised. Please refer to FAR Clause 52.216-19 Ordering Limitations for Minimums and Maximum quantities.

Question 20: In the drawing package there are 31 cabin panels (to include the cockpit) and 9 ramp panels for a total of 40 ballistic panels. However, in Section B of the solicitation, 42 panels are required for delivery. What are the 41st and 42nd panels?

Response: 40 panels is the correct number of panels for each shipset (31 cabin, and 9 ramp panels). Solicitation has been updated.

Question 21: The following tests were added to Table 2 “Verification Matrix” which is referenced in the SOW (4.14.2017)

a. Strength post flammability

b. Strength post ballistic impact

c. BPS Floor loading

d. Vibration

e. Foot Traffic

f. Vehicle Traffic

g. Cargo Traffic

The previous matrix provided as Section L Spreadsheet 1 called out which tests and data is required to be included in the offeror’s proposal. The matrix referenced in the SOW is not that same in that it references other required tests and does not clarify what data is required in the offer’s proposal response. As the SOW supersedes all other documents this discrepancy needs to be clarified.

Response: The section L spreadsheet 1 matrix defines the data required for inclusion with the proposal. The matrix in the SOW Appendix B contains additional data requirements necessary to achieve airworthiness certification, and release to the fleet users. The difference in data requirements between the two matrices are items that are not expected with the proposal, but will be developed during the program to support airworthiness, and fleet release of the capability.

Question 22: The USN provided a short excerpt from the “DETAIL SPECIFICATION FOR V-22” (SD-572-1-3 Version 11.0.pdf) on 19 April. This specification excerpt has a single requirement highlighted in Yellow (3.2.6.2) for the Interior Color. This SD-572-1-3 specification is called out in the V22 BPS system SOW in Section 2.2.2. Para 3.2.6.2, requirement M00651.A, specifies the BPS color to be gray.

“3.2.6.2 INTERIOR COLOR

M00649.A Interior color shall be as follows: a. All painted areas in the cockpit shall be painted with NVG compatible black, conforming to FED-STD-595 color number 37038, unless approved by NAVAIR.

M00651.A [Interior color shall be as follows:] b. For areas in the cabin where the finish requirements specify paint with topcoat:, paint: color shall be gray conforming to FED-STD-595 color number 36231, except as otherwise specified herein.”

The V22 BPS SOW references SD-572-1-3 in Section 2.2.2, however, SOW para 3.11.6, states the BPS is to be black, conflicting with the requirements in SD-572-1-3.

“3.11.6 Non-Skid Coloring. The BPS non-skid protection shall be colored in night vision goggle (NVG) compatible black, conforming to FED-STD-595 (color number 37038) as specified in SD-572-1-3 Version 11, paragraph 3.2.6.2.”

What is the correct BPS color requirement?

Response: The color requirement for the BPS is NVG compatible black Non-Skid. There is no additional requirement for "paint with topcoat".

Question 23: Page #2 of the Solicitation calls for Quantity of (50) Ballistic floor sets, however in the SOW, Page 7, Section 3.1 General as well as Page 11, Section 7.3 V-22 BPS Production states a “minimum of 33 BPS” kits. Which quantity should be priced in the proposal?

Response: The Statement of Work has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with SOW – Revised. Appropriate FAR Clauses have been updated to reflect the correct quantities.

Question 24: The RFP calls for Spare Parts and lists Floor Panel #1 through Floor Panel #42, however the total number of Floor Panels and Ramp Panels, as listed in D/N 6081000 adds up to 40 panels. What is the correct number of panels? How should the Offeror cross reference Floor / Ramp panels from technical drawing to panel number in our response?

Response: There are a total of 40 individual panels. Solicitation has been updated to reflect the correct number. Section B, Item No’s 0001 through 4003BR, shall be completed in its entirety and submitted with the vendor’s proposal. Section B has been updated to reflect Floor Panels CB-01 through CB-31 and Ramp Panels RP-01 through RP-09.

Question 25: In Section L - General Instructions, Part B Specific Instructions, 2.1 Technical Design - Book 1, page 118: 2. States that "Technical Requirement Verification to be included in the Offeror's proposal - The minimum requirements for proposal content are identified in Attachment I." However there isn't an Attachment I in the Solicitation.

Response: The verbiage in the above listed section has been changed from Attachment I to Table 2 – Verification Table which is Referenced in Section M, Part B, 1.0, c and will be sent to the Vendors via AMRDEC.

Question 26: Further in bullet "4. Schedule" is states that Offeror needs to provide description of ability to meet schedule and timeline in Section F of solicitation, however Section F is blank.

Response: Section F has been updated to reflect a tentative schedule for the first 180 days.

Question 27: In Section M - Evaluation factors for Award, Part B: Specific Information, 1.0 Technical of the RFP page 125 notes that technical acceptability will be on a pass / fail basis, including for areal density noted on page 126. Does this mean that if an Offeror provides a lower weight areal density than in the RFP that there will not be a weighted criteria advantage to the lower weight solution? Would it be in the best interest to the Government and End User to deliver a lighter weight solution if one is available?

Response: Technical capabilities for this RFP are evaluated on a pass-fail basis. Weight is always a concern for any aircraft. However, the acceptable technical evaluation factors have been established for the basis of this evaluation.

Question 27: What is the transmittal method for documents developed under the legacy CV-22 effort which are marked as For Official Use Only (FUO) and had additional safe guards per the attached Program Protection Memorandum (see Attachment 1)? Is it approved by the Government to submit these documents electronically without digital encryption although it was originally mandated in support of this proposal?

Response: Please refer to Section L – General Instructions, 4.0 Proposal Packaging and Submission for instructions on how to submit packages/proposals.