SPRBL1-17-R-0005-0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning ____________ copies of the amendments: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14 Are Made In

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

B. The Above Numbered Contract/Order Is Modified To Reflect The Administrative Changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) Set

Forth In Item 14, Pursuant To The Authority of FAR 43.103(b).

C. This Supplemental Agreement Is Entered Into Pursuant To Authority Of:

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return _______________ copies to the Issuing Office.

14. Description Of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. Name And Title Of Signer (Type or print)

16A. Name And Title Of Contracting Officer (Type or print)

15B. Contractor/Offeror 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

By (Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Firm Fixed Price

0003 2016DEC07

SPRBL1

DLA LAND AT ABERDEEN

6001 COMBAT DRIVE ROOM C1-301

APG, MD 21005-1846

JUSTIN D. RUTH

EMAIL: JUSTIN.RUTH@DLA.MIL

SPRBL1-17-R-0005

2016OCT27

X

X 2017JAN04

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 3

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: JUSTIN D. RUTH

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: DLA-ZLAB/(443)861-4527

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Type of Contract 2: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of this Amendment, number 0003 to SPRBL1-17-R-0005, is to provide responses to questions asked by interested parties. These questions, along with the Government's response to each, are detailed below. Questions 1 through 8 were answered through Amendment

0002. Amendment 0003 begins with Question 9.

As a result of this Amendment the closing date of the RFP will be extended from December 13, 2016 to January 4, 2017.

Question 9: After reviewing all the materials, specifically inclusive of the Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) Test Plan updates, we are unable to locate data files for Special Tools used during Production Acceptance Test; specifically-5405-D-000 Vibration Table

Fixture and all non-COTS elements of the part family for the 5405-E-000 series of Special Tools, seen in ESS Test Plan Table 2-1 (CDRL

A023, Rev A). QTYDESCRIPTIONMODEL/SERIAL NUMBERMANUFACTURER 1Ethernet Wire Harness Assy5405-E-100Symetrics 1Power Wire Harness Assy5405-

E-200Symetrics, 16J3-to-J4 CNR Loopback Cable5405-E-300Symetrics 16J8 SIP/EPLRS Loopback Cable5405-E-400Symetrics 1ESS Distribution Unit

(EDU)5405-E-500Symetrics, Can you provide the information/documents related to these items?

Answer 9: Prospective contractors will have to design a vibration table to match their equipment. There is no information available for the cables identified in Question 9.

Question 10: On the parts list for item #9 of PL5405-4-000.xlsx there is a line item with a description of a "Supercap Assy" but the part number as given as "TBD." There is no parts list or files in the TDP or in follow-on ECPs to support this assembly. It appears to be a Hold-up capacitor bank for a MIL-STD-704 test, but does the USG have any information for this item (other than "TBD")?

Answer 10: The CAPS referenced are to test the drop out for the 304B. Therefore, the caps are the same as the ones used in the actual

304B. The part number from the 304B TDP are: THQ4050303-SM05, CAPACITOR, TANTALUM, HYBRID, 30,000 \'ecF, 50 V, C1, C2, C3, EVANS

CAPACITOR.

Question 11: The TPD and its associated Test Systems appear to provide adequate ability to "build and test the functionality" of the

IDM-304B. However, in dealing with and managing "parts obsolescence", performance parameters and environments must also be considered so as to ensure performance in the field by the system after redesign has been implemented. These parameters are defined in the Product

Specification documentation, and would have been necessary for the incumbent to have designed the IDM-304B in the first place. In order to reduce program risk derived from addressing obsolescence, we would request a copy the Product Specification because the information in the currently available TDP does NOT address those parameters.

Answer 11: The Hardware Interface Control Document (HCID) and the test plans (Attachment 0008) contain all information necessary to manage parts obsolescence. The HCID is included in the Technical Data Package. For a copy of the HCID contact Justin Ruth at

Justin.Ruth@dla.mil.

Question 12: In the USG's answer to Question #3 in Amendment 0002, it is stated "During the performance of the previous contract for this item, Symetrics (now Extant Aerospace) designed and developed test plans, test systems, test fixtures, and test racks. The cost associated with the development of these items was paid by the Government under this contract. The technical data to produce these items was provided to the Government and is included in the TDP provided to interested potential offerors." If as the USG's answer indicates that the incumbent contract was compensated for the development of the test plans, test systems, TEST FIXTURES and TEST RACKS and does not plan to provide those items to any other potential offeror, how does the USG plan to fairly balance the price evaluation since any other offeror will have to cost those test systems, test fixtures and test racks, while the incumbent will have already been compensated by the government for those items?

Answer 12: The incumbent contractor was paid to develop these items and provide the associated technical data. However, the incumbent contractor was not paid to produce the test equipment from the technical data. Instead, the incumbent contractor produced the test fixtures and test racks with their own funds. Therefore, these items are property of the incumbent contractor.

Question 13: This question relates to the requirement to perform Tinning and Re-balling of Electrical Components per drawing A3317570

2 3

SPRBL1-17-R-0005 0003

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Rev -. It is not clear why some components on the same assembly require tinning, while others do not. As an example with the CPM CCA most of the ceramic caps that are a 0603 package are specified to be tinned as part of the A3317570 drawing, yet all of the resistors in an 0603 package do not require tinning. To further illustrate this discrepancy we have highlighted several parts listed on the

PLA3317860_Rev G BOM (attached to this email) that are lead-free plated parts but are not called out on the A3317570 drawing to be tinned. Further, item 153 and 153a, Semtech SM05.TCT is listed on the A3317570 drawing to be tinned, but it's also listed on the BOM as an alternate that does not require tinning. While it is understandable that the BGA's that are lead-free will always require re-balling to tin / lead solder balls, but it would appear to be overkill (and more expensive to the USG) to direct tinning of the other components when the TDP is conflicted on the subject and if a credible supplier is using a tin / lead solder process on all of the CCA's along with conformal coat. Would it be acceptable to the USG to eliminate the tinning requirements of all components (with the exception of the

BGAs)?

Answer 13: Pure tin solder contacts on Ni barrier layer provides compatibility with lead containing soldering processes so they do not need to be tinned. Parts that come pre-coated with lead free solder that are not pure tin need to be re-tinned with lead.

Question 14: From Amendment 0002 we are in receipt of ECPs 4-11, but from our discussions with the sub-tier developers of the IDM-304B we understand that in addition to those listed ECPs that there were waivers to the Product Specification that were granted by the USG.

Is it possible to receive a copy of those waivers?

Answer 14: Waivers to the product specification are function/performance issues and do not effect production. Army CECOM does not possess these documents.

Question 15: Referenced in the USG-provided TDP within document A3317830 and under the "Build Document Improved Data Modem (IDM)-304B

Production Acceptance Test Software" Document 5405-5-000 are listed two documents: a) Detailed Specification for the Army Improved Data

Modem (IDM)-304 B Hardware AVNS-DTL-10822 Revision M, 2011-08-22 and b) A3317899, Critical Item Development Specification (CIDS), Army

Improved Data MODEM (IDM-304B), Communications Processor Module (CPM) Revision B, 2012-04-17. These two documents are not included in the TDP but appear to be the Hardware Product Specifications. Is it possible to receive those two documents?

Answer 15: These documents are not required for production or repair of the IDM. Army CECOM does not possess these documents.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

3 3

SPRBL1-17-R-0005 0003

SECTION A