SPRBL1-21-R-0014 FAQ.pdf

SPRBL1-21-R0014 FAQ

December 23, 2021

1. Are all respondents mandated to incorporate the product identified in the Drawings A3297317 & A3297318 referenced in Amendment 0002 in lieu of named source products already qualified, tested and extensively fielded? Specifically, is it the Governments intention to eliminate any approved parts and replace with this new Ballistic Bolt?

A: There are two approved parts for NSN 5855-01-612-5116, PASGT-Helmet Mount:

Part Number: 1955010-1GC-1 Part Number: 56100G20

There are two approved parts for NSN 5855-01-610-8704, ACH Helmet Mount:

Part Number: 1955010-2GC-1 Part Number: 56100G19

All part numbers listed above for the two NSNs have been previously approved by the Government and are still approved sources. It is not the Government’s intention to eliminate any of the approved ballistic bolts from the mount kits. Any previously qualified part will retain that status and is acceptable.

2. What are the drawings for the Ballistic Bolts? How is ballistic testing conducted?

A: The drawings for the ballistics bolts are A3297317, A3297318, and A3297324. The ballistics bolt is required, and lot ballistics testing is required as well. More information can be found in the Technical Requirements Document. Drawings A3297317 and A3297318 are for ACH and not PASGT.

Ballistic testing must be adhered to and done for every lot that’s produced. Testing is done by taking the helmet, mounting to helmet, and shooting a bullet at it. If the bullet doesn’t go through, it passes. If it does, it fails. Ballistic testing for the PASGT helmet mount is not required. Ballistic testing for the ACH helmet mount is required.

3. When should I submit a FAT Waiver request?

A: A FAT Waiver request should be submitted with an offer to the solicitation.

4. Will the Government accept bids for products from additional vendors which are compliant with the ICDs and all pertinent requirements, but are not one of the existing approved part numbers? Or is it required that the parts be from one of the existing approved vendors in order to be compliant?

A: We will accept bids for products from additional vendors as long as they are compliant with the ICDs and all pertinent requirements, but they will have to perform FAT (First Article Testing) to become a qualified source.

5. Is Initial Product Testing (IPT) considered the same as First Article Testing (FAT)?

A: IPT is the same type of testing as FAT. Thus, vendors won’t be required to fulfill separate requirements of IPT and FAT. However all vendors will be required to conduct Lot Verification Tests (LVT), aka Ballistic testing. FAT is required for contractors who never made the item, or for contractors who made the item and haven’t delivered in 12 months. IPT will be required for contractors who have made the item but had a design change, and thus will be required to requalify.

6. Is the coordination and cost for the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) arrangements for ballistic testing Government or Contractor led?

A: The ballistics test is a contractor-led effort, with full transparency and inclusion of the Government. The entire effort is done in conjunction with the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (ATC). Both IPT and FAT are contractor funded, and contractors are expected to provide funds to ATC. The Government’s role is to guide contractors on their test plan and ultimately approve of the results, not provide assistance with costs.

The Government provides contractors the test plan that has been approved before, so they know how to build the product and test it. Reporting is done by ATC, they will coordinate the actual tests and provide results to the vendor.

7. Is the ballistic bolt assembly part of the PASGT Helmet Mount? Why do the measurements in ballistic bolt in Drawing A329317 not appear to fit through PASGT front bracket assembly hole identified in USG issued drawing A3256371D?

A: Drawings A329317 and A3297318 are specifically for ACH. The ballistic bolt assembly is part of the ACH Helmet Mount and should be backwards compatible with all previous ACH HMAs and helmets.

For PASGT, the Government does not have a drawing or specific requirement for the bolt. The Government recognizes that the bolt used for ACH will not fit PASGT. As such, the Government does not have an expectation for the bolt used for ACH to be backwards compatible with the bolt used for the PASGT.

The Government will allow vendors to propose a PASGT ballistic bolt that interfaces and is compatible with all current and previous PASGT HMA and helmets.

8. Are contractors required to adhere to the dimensions in the Government drawings? Are the bracket and mount required to be interchangeable? Are the bracket and mount drawings for form, fit and function interchangeability only?

A: The dimensions are required to be adhered to as per the drawings. This is critical in maintaining backwards compatibility with previously fielded hardware, as well as maintain interchangeability with other similar hardware. The most important thing is interchangeability with similar hardware and proper interfacing.

The hole in the helmet is not a regulated size. There is a level of variability in helmets themselves. The most important thing is to ensure everything fits properly (if it’s loose, snug, etc.), and that the dimensions won’t make the bolts malfunction or fall off.

9. Some of the drawings provide additional dimensions for non-interfacing surfaces. As this is not a build to print and rather an adherence to interchangeability through form, fit and function, are non-interfacing surfaces not required to contain the exact same dimensions as listed in the front bracket drawings?

A: Non-interfacing surfaces are not required to contain the exact same dimensions as listed in the front bracket drawings. The primary goal is interchangeability and a proper fit between current and previous HMAs.