Solicitation_N68335-18-R-0102_Questions_&_Answers_2.14.18.docx

MV-22 BPS Questions and Answers February 14, 2018 Question: SOW Section 7.8, para 1, the USG states "The Contractor shall send a test sample that represents the final BPS coating configuration to NAS Patuxent River." When is this test sample due to the USG?

Answer: The successful Offeror shall provide the required test sample to the Government after contract award but prior to the Critical Design Review (CDR). Section 7.8 of the SOW has been revised accordingly.

Question: What are the required dimensional specifications for each test sample?

Answer: For test coupons that will undergo ballistic testing, please see SOW Section 7.2., Ballistic Testing.

For the remaining test efforts, the various test coupon dimensions shall be sized to unequivocally demonstrate that the Offeror has met the requirements as specified in the SOW.

Question: If the USG requires our testing qualifications as part of the proposal, what is the purpose of the design reviews? Is the qualification of the BPS part of the proposal or the design review?

Answer: As part of the proposal, the Government requires qualification data for only a subset of all of the requirements. Per Section M – Evaluation Factors, Part B: Specific Information, 1.0 Technical, Section a Technical Requirement Compliance, the Government’s expectation is that the fifteen requirements listed in Table 1 – Technical Verification Requirements will be fully verified as part of the proposal. The proposal shall document how the Offeror has the ability to comply with the remaining requirements. The requirements listed in Table 1 all revolve around the material properties of the product. The design reviews are necessary to address the remaining requirements in the SOW.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 2.2.2. references two documents:

a. SD-572-1-3: Detailed Specification for V-22 A1 -'V22 AB-CLG-0001 V-22(C)B-9: Cargo Handling Manual V-22 Tiltrotor

b. 17-1V22-1: Aircraft Tool Control Manual Navy and Marine Corps Model V-22 Will the USG provide this document be provided to support design, qualification testing and the proposal?

Answer: There is an error with the alignment of the text in Appendix B, Section 2.2.2. There are actually three documents listed there; SD-572-1-3, A1-V22AB-CLG-0001V-22(C)B-9, and 17-1V22-1. This error has been revised accordingly.

The documents will be provided to all who have received the Technical Data Package (TDP).

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 2.3. references the BELL HELICOPTER document 901-947-002 V-22 Finish Specifications. Can this document be provided?

Answer: The document will be provided to all who have received the Technical Data Package (TDP).

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.1.1. and Section 4.1.1. (Ballistic Protection) requires ballistic testing to be performed with 80% reliability and 80% confidence, which shall require at least 8 shots with no failure, placed at the corner of an 8 inch equilateral triangular pattern (hence a minimum of three samples coupons are needed). Will 3 shots on 2 samples, 2 shots on the remaining sample, be considered acceptable without complete penetration, for the 80% reliability and 80% confidence?

Answer: Yes, this is acceptable.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.2.7 requires the BPS panels to be segmented or modular to allow partial installation based on mission requirements (e.g. aircraft configured with Mission Auxiliary Tank System, Medical Evacuation Kit, Air Drop Kit, Defensive Weapon System, and/or Ramp Mounted Weapon System). Will the USG provide technical data packages for Mission Auxiliary Tank System, Medical Evacuation Kit, Air Drop Kit, Defensive Weapon System, and/or Ramp Mounted Weapon System.

Answer: No as this data is not necessary for proposal development. If the Offeror adheres to the dimensions of the previously procured BPS product (drawing package will be provided 10 days after contract award as discussed in SOW paragraph 3.2) and adheres to the maximum thickness requirement, then by default, this requirement will be satisfied. In other words, adhering to 3.2.4 Maximum Thickness and 3.2.11 Interchangeability, the design will automatically address 3.2.7 Modularity.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.2.10, 3.11.7 and Section 4.2.10, 4.11.7 (Flammability &Toxic Fumes). Please confirm that no ballistic testing is needed after Flammability testing? What constitutes a toxic by-product or toxic fume? What is an acceptable pass/fail measuring criteria?

Answer: Ballistic testing is not required following these two tests (Flammability and Toxic Fumes). If ballistic testing is required for a given requirement it will be explicitly stated in the SOW.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines permissible exposure limits for various substances. Please refer to 29 CFR 1910 Subpart Z for a complete list. Also refer to FAR 52.223-3 and DFARS 252.223-7006 of the solicitation for additional information on Hazardous Materials.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.2.11 (Interchangeability). This section requires BPS hardware and panels to be fully interchangeable with the previously procured MV-22 BPS. The SOW, Paragraph 3.2 states that the information for the MV-22 will be provided 10 days after award; however In order to design and develop an interchangeable solution, will the USG provide the MV-22 BPS drawing package to support our proposal effort?

Answer: Please refer to the SOW, Section 3.2, b, iii, for justification. The variation between the drawings provided as part of the TDP and the final drawings for CV-22 are negligible for proposal development.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.5.5 and Section 4.5.3 (Vibration) Please confirm that no ballistic testing is required after vibration testing?

Answer: Vibration testing is no longer a requirement for this effort and the SOW is updated to reflect this change. The items removed from the SOW include: the last sentence of Section 7.4, all of Section 7.4.4, the last sentence of Section 8.2, CDRL A00A, all of Section 3.5.5, and all of Section 4.5.3. Data submissions for CDRLs A007 and A009 are not required for vibration testing.

Question: Table 1 of Page 132 of N68335-18-R-0102 requests Areal Density requirement 3.2.8 to be fully verified prior to contract award. How can it be fully verified prior to contract award knowing that we are going through a series of design reviews after contract award? The total weight and total surface area protected of the BPS of the final design cannot be fully determined until design constraints like MV-22 drawing package and all the M interface with Mission Auxiliary Tank System, Medical Evacuation Kit, Air Drop Kit, Defensive Weapon System, and/or Ramp Mounted Weapon System will are fully assessed.

Answer: SOW Appendix B, Section 4.2.8, states that the areal density, pounds per square foot, shall be determined as the weight of the armor (to include armor, coatings, edge guards, but not the fasteners used to mount the armor panel to the floor) divided by the total surface area protected by the armor. The Offeror is expected to know what armor, coatings, and edge guards would be required for this system. A sample of material should be created to satisfy the other proposal requirements. That sample can be used to determine the areal density as it should be representative of a final configuration of the armor.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.7.1 and Section 4.7.1 (Foot Traffic). Please confirm that no ballistic testing is required after foot traffic testing? We need better understanding of what ‘foot traffic consistent with the aircraft usage environment’ means and what constitutes an acceptable testing scenario. What constitutes an acceptable exposure duration to foot traffic testing, 48hrs, 72hrs, etc.? What is an acceptable measurable and objective pass/fail criteria for this testing?

Answer: Ballistic testing is not required following the foot traffic testing. If ballistic testing is required for a given requirement, it will be explicitly stated in the SOW.

As stated in section 7.7 of the SOW, the Contractor shall determine the number of cycles that the BPS must endure during the testing defined in section 4.7 of Appendix B. The number of cycles should be based on the knowledge of the product, the intended use environment, expected service life, and how the other requirements in this specification affect the ability to satisfy the wear performance requirements.

As stated in Appendix B Section 4.7.1 of the SOW, this testing will be deemed successful if, according to the maintenance manual that will accompany the BPS, at the conclusion of the test the panel would not require repair or replacement if it were installed on an aircraft.

Foot traffic demonstrates a friction wear on the BPS. This requirement should be verified by dragging tread over the surface of the BPS for a number of cycles. This requirement could likely be fulfilled by the Vehicle Traffic and Cargo Traffic requirements, due to the average lower weight of personnel. If a specific test is not conducted for this requirement then the Contractor would need to demonstrate that the psi is less and/or is not a factor (which may also be covered in the structural requirement testing).

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.7.2 and Section 4.7.2 (Vehicle Traffic). Please confirm that no ballistic testing is needed after vehicle traffic testing? The requirement refers to V-22 Cargo Handling Manual (A1-V22AB-CLG- 0001V-22(C)B-9) which is not available. Can it be provided? What is a vehicle referenced in the manual, or recommended vehicle, that can be used for this testing? What constitutes an acceptable exposure duration to vehicle traffic? What constitutes an acceptable testing scenario? Would a scenario with a pickup truck driving on and off for 1 hour on a representative sample coupon be considered acceptable? What is an acceptable measurable and objective pass/fail criteria for this testing?

Answer: Ballistic testing is not required following the vehicle traffic testing. If ballistic testing is required for a given requirement, it will be explicitly stated in the SOW.

The V-22 Cargo Handling Manual will be provided to those that have received the TDP.

As stated in section 7.7 of the SOW, the Contractor shall determine the number of cycles that the BPS must endure during the testing defined in section 4.7 of Appendix B. The number of cycles should be based on the knowledge of the product, the intended use environment, expected service life, and how the other requirements in this specification affect the ability to satisfy the wear performance requirements.

As stated in Appendix B Section 4.7.1 of the SOW, this testing will be deemed successful if, according to the maintenance manual that will accompany the BPS, at the conclusion of the test the panel would not require repair or replacement if it were installed on an aircraft.

An acceptable test would demonstrate that the BPS does not succumb to wear when exposed repeatedly to the tread of a vehicle with an aggressive tread pattern. The test may include considerations for tire spin on the surface of the BPS. The Government would expect any test plan to specify number of cycles rather than a “time” of testing. Results would demonstrate the level of wear to the surface of the material as well as any structural wear (such as indentations) to the panel as a whole. (Structural wear is considered highly unlikely in a BPS panel. Anything like this should be revealed in the structural testing).

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.7.3 and Section 4.7.3 (Cargo Traffic). Requirement states the BPS shall withstand loading, unloading, and transportation of cargo (such containers, pallets, and hard-wheeled support equipment) as identified in the V-22 Cargo Handling Manual (A1-V22AB-CLG- 0001V-22(C)B-9) without wear and tear. This document is not available. Our understanding is that cargo traffic such containers, pallets and hard-wheeled support equipment will be loaded and unloaded using the roller rails and not directly on the BPS. The BPS shall only allow, with its thickness, to maintain a gap between the top of the BPS and the top of the roller rails to ensure loading and unloading of the cargos using the roller rails. Will hard-wheeled support equipment, loading and unloading procedures drag the 10000 lb cargo DIRECTLY moved and dragged in contact with the BPS surface?

The V-22 Cargo Handling Manual will be provided to those that have received the TDP.

When cargo is loaded on the roller rails: (1) any cargo will tend to sag between the roller rails, and (2) palletized cargo (wood pallet) will fall in between the individual rollers. In both of these cases, due to the limited clearance between the heights of the BPS and the roller rails, the cargo will drag along the surface of the BPS as it is loaded.

Wear testing would not be cargo sitting on the surface, but moving over the surface.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.7.3 and Section 4.7.3 (Cargo Traffic). Please confirm that no ballistic testing is needed after Cargo traffic testing? What constitutes an acceptable exposure duration to cargo traffic? Would 17psi force applied for 24 hours on a representative BPS floor panel be acceptable? If not, what constitutes an acceptable testing scenario? What is an acceptable measurable and objective pass/fail criteria for this testing?

Answer: Ballistic testing is not required following the cargo traffic testing. If ballistic testing is required for a given requirement, it will be explicitly stated in the SOW.

As stated in section 7.7 of the SOW, the Contractor shall determine the number of cycles that the BPS must endure during the testing defined in section 4.7 of Appendix B. The number of cycles should be based on the knowledge of the product, the intended use environment, expected service life, and how the other requirements in this specification affect the ability to satisfy the wear performance requirements.

As stated in Appendix B Section 4.7.1 of the SOW, this testing will be deemed successful if, according to the maintenance manual that will accompany the BPS, at the conclusion of the test the panel would not require repair or replacement if it were installed on an aircraft.

When cargo is loaded on the roller rails: (1) any cargo will tend to sag between the roller rails, and (2) palletized cargo (wood pallet) will fall in between the individual rollers. In both of these cases, due to the limited clearance between the heights of the BPS and the roller rails, the cargo will drag along the surface of the BPS as it is loaded.

Wear testing would not be cargo sitting on the surface, but moving over the surface.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 3.8.2. (Finishes/Coatings). Requirement refers to V-22 Finish Specification 901-947-002 which is not available. Will the USG provide this as GFI in order to perform testing requirements prior to RFP delivery?

Answer: The document will be provided to all who have received the Technical Data Package (TDP).

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 4.1.2. (Ballistic Obliquity Capability). The Offeror’s understanding of this requirement is that it is not necessary after all other testing and can be performed in conjunction with the other individual tests. Will the USG clarify this requirement?

Answer: The testing identified in SOW Appendix B - Section 4.1.2 is a stand-alone test to verify the requirements of 3.1.2. The vendor will be required to perform a 2 shot ballistic test as identified in SOW Appendix B - Section 4.1.2 to satisfy the 3.1.2 Ballistic Obliquity Capability requirement.

Question: SOW Appendix B - Section 4.11.7. (Toxic Fumes). What specific testing is required? What constitutes a ‘toxic fume’? What parameters are to be measured/evaluated?

Answer: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines permissible exposure limits for various substances. Please refer to 29 CFR 1910 Subpart Z for a complete list. The Government’s expectation is that during the flammability and fluid resistance testing, the off gassed emissions will be collected and analyzed by an independent laboratory. Also refer to FAR 52.223-3 and DFARS 252.223-7006 of the solicitation for additional information on Hazardous Materials.

Question: SF Form 33 Block 1. What is the DO rating for this solicitation?

Answer: There is no DO rating for this solicitation.

Question: CLIN 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001 all state that the USG is requiring a First Article Inspection Performed even though it is provided with CL0001. Is it the USG's intent to have a First Article Inspection conducted on each follow-on procurement or just use the Initial FAT as precedence to perform a First Piece Inspection of subsequent builds?

Answer: From a ballistic test perspective, please see section 8.4 of the SOW.

During the acceptance process, DCMA will be inspecting for key attributes. The Government does not plan on physical inspections for every order unless there is reason to doubt that the Contractor is no longer satisfying the requirements of the SOW.

Question: If awarded, will the USG provide the awardee with a DoDAAC Address?

Answer: Yes, all applicable/necessary DoDAAC Addresses will be provided at contract award.

Question: Is there a spec/standard to refer to for the vibration testing, other than the information provided in Table 1 of the SOW?

Answer: Vibration testing is no longer a requirement for this effort and the SOW is updated to reflect this change. The items removed from the SOW include: the last sentence of Section 7.4, all of Section 7.4.4, the last sentence of Section 8.2, CDRL A00A, all of Section 3.5.5, and all of Section 4.5.3. Data submissions for CDRLs A007 and A009 are not required for vibration testing.

Question: Will the USG accept a weight/surface area of one representative floor panel prior to contract award and refined as design is finalized once all drawing packages will be delivered?

Answer: Yes, it is acceptable, if the question is in regard to SOW Appendix B, Section 4.2.8.

Question: What is the Manufacturer and part number of the Cargo Rail mounted on the aircraft?

Answer: This information is not necessary for proposal submission.

Question: Will the USG provide a specific thickness that the Non-Skid is supposed to be applied to the BPS?

Answer: No, the thickness of the non-skid coating is dependent upon the Offeror’s design for meeting all of the requirements specified in the SOW.

Question: Re SOW 7.4.4: The SOW says that the Contractor will conduct analysis and ground vibration test (RAP test to be performed by Government during fit check) to validate that there is no less than 10% separation between the BPS natural frequencies and the predominant V-22 rotor frequencies. Does this mean that every panel in the V-22 kit must be tested, or can the test plan analyze the kit components in terms of aspect ratio and fastener arrangement (long, skinny, unsupported or unfastened features are most likely to have natural frequencies low enough to fail this criteria) and then test two or three panels which are determined to be most susceptible? During the government RAP testing, does the contractor participate in this activity? If so, what activities will the contractor be responsible for?

Answer: Vibration testing is no longer a requirement for this effort and the SOW is updated to reflect this change. The items removed from the SOW include: the last sentence of Section 7.4, all of Section 7.4.4, the last sentence of Section 8.2, CDRL A00A, all of Section 3.5.5, and all of Section 4.5.3. Data submissions for CDRLs A007 and A009 are not required for vibration testing.

Question: RE SOW 8.4: Is the Government open to having lot test panels, minimum 15" square, integrated into the manufacturing process for each shipset BPS kit as an alternative to testing a production panel and requiring the contractor to make a replacement? Witnessed testing of one or two lot test panels from every kit, in batches of five or ten kits, would be statistically more useful and less disruptive to kit production than selecting a part from each 25th kit which must be tested and then replaced on short notice.

Answer: No, the Solicitation and TDP accurately defines the Government’s requirement as written.

Question: RE SOW 3.3.4: the SOW has travel requirements but there is not a CLIN for travel in the solicitation. Will a CLIN for travel be added to the solicitation?

Answer: There is not a separate travel CLIN in the solicitation. Offerors should incorporate Travel costs as necessary in the pricing for the CLIN(s) that is/are estimated by the Offeror to require travel.

Question: RE Solicitation 3.0 Evaluation Factors for Award, Part B Specific Information, 1.0 Technical. Is it the governments expectation that all the testing required in table 1 Technical Verification Requirements be completed prior to submitting the proposal? This requirement was in the draft SOW but has been removed in the released SOW.

Answer: Per the second paragraph of the Solicitation 3.0 Evaluation Factors for Award, Part B Specific Information, 1.0 Technical, a. Technical Requirement.

“For each requirement listed in Table 1 below, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to verify the proposed system will successfully meet the given requirement. The Government’s expectation is that the Offeror will provide the necessary verification data as defined in Section 4 of Appendix B of the SOW for each given requirement (i.e. if the given requirement requires a test, then a test report should be provided). The Government’s expectation is that the data provided as part of the proposal will fully verify the requirements listed in Table 1 prior to contract award. Each individual requirement listed in Table 1 will be evaluated.”

All requirements are in the final SOW. The SOW has been revised to remove the vibration requirements.

Question: RE Solicitation 52.211-8 Time of Delivery: the SOW does not address the PDR that is scheduled for 30 DAC. What are the requirements for the PDR?

Answer: This BPS effort has no Preliminary Design Review (PDR) requirement, and was included in error. The references to the PDR have been removed from the solicitation. Additionally, be advised the Delivery Timeline dates are tentative, not required. The solicitation has been revised accordingly.

Question: Is it a contract requirement that the small business must have facility clearance (FCL)?

Answer: No, a FCL is not required.

Question: For pricing purposes, what is the total quantity of spares required across the 5-year contract duration?

Answer: The maximum quantity is 20 each for each of the 40 panels for each 12 month ordering period across the 60 month duration of the contract.

Question: Will the Government please add FAR 52.219-6 Alternate I to the Solicitation?

Answer: FAR 52.219-6 Alternate 1 will not be added to the solicitation

Question: Is the Government aware that the baseline for the requirement has changed, requiring new testing? Nothing on the market currently meets the salient characteristics included in the Statement of Work.

Answer: The Government is aware of the requirements of the Solicitation and the Statement of Work.

Question: Please provide the formula (qty x price x years) that you are using to determine the total value of the contract?

Answer: Please see the solicitation narrative of Section M, Part 2.0 Price, Evaluated Price. This section shows how pricing will be evaluated based on the stated MLQ’s for each CLIN/SubCLIN.

Question: Drawing number 6081400 is missing from the package that was delivered. Can that be provided?

Answer: The referenced drawing is for vertical armor panels, which are not a part of this requirement. All required documents necessary for proposal development were provided as part of the TDP. Additional documents that are necessary and have been discussed throughout this Q&A will be sent to qualified Offerors who request(ed) a TDP.