AA40_Q&A_004-022.docx

Q&As 004 -022

4. With regard to the bid sample submission only: Does the bid sample of 1,680 rounds require conformance to the packaging labeling requirements listed in Section D – Packaging and Marking? Section L.4.1 of the RFP does not state whether or not this is a requirement. It is recommended that bidders be allowed to label cartons, cans and crates with white labels for the bid sample only. In addition, can the U.S. Government please provide guidance as to whether or not the bid sample rounds are to be clipped in their packaging configuration?

Government Response: Packaging for cartridges provided during the bid sample test will be at the discretion of the Offeror.

5. The current solicitation for MK311 Mod 3 has a port pressure requirement significantly higher than prior MK311 Mods. Preliminary test results have shown that the higher port pressure requirement adds significant complexity to the design of the cartridge while also decreasing overall performance of the cartridge. Would the U.S. Government consider eliminating the port pressure requirement and relying on the function and casualty test to determine if sufficient port pressure exists for cycling of the weapon?

Government Response: The port pressure requirement will be removed from the specification. An updated specification will needed to be requested per the instructions in Section A of the RFP.

6. Would the U.S. Government please supply what energetic material is currently qualified under NAVSEAINST 8020.5 per the requirement of 3.7.2 of PRF16001A0006?

Government Response: Offerors are encouraged to ensure that their select energetic material has been tested in accordance with NAVSEAINST 8020.5. A list will be provided upon formal request to the Government. Propellant manufacturers can provide more up to date information on what propellants have been tested in accordance with NAVSEAINST 8020.5.

7. If the propellant used is not on a current approved list under NAVSEAINST 8020.5, will the qualification be included as part of the DVT?

Government Response: Yes. The propellant must still meet the requirements of NAVSEAINST 8020.5

8. Would the U.S. Government consider eliminating the compound requirements in Part No. 13005626, specifically note 2, composition and Part No. 12990882, specifically note 2 composition, and instead only require the function testing set forth in PRF16001A0006 4.6.3?

Government Response: An Offeror’s design must meet the waterproofness requirement of PRF16001A0006 4.6.3. The means of meeting the requirement will not be dictated by the Government.

9. Can the U.S. Government please expand, if needed, on what additional package drawings are required if the rounds are to be packaged per DODIC AA40?

Government Response: Additional package drawing not needed.

10. Under PRF16001A0006 Section 3 Requirements, paragraph 3.4.1 states the “cartridge must be free of lead and toxic material”, with the list of toxic materials in paragraph 6.12.3. Paragraph

3.4.1 also states that “[cartridge] shall comply with the requirements specified on drawing 16001A0006, which only requires that the cartridge be lead free. Is the requirement that the entire cartridge must be lead free, or that just the projectile must be free of lead and all toxic materials? Can the U.S. Government please clarify which requirement is applicable?

Government Response: The entire cartridge must be free of lead.

11. Is it the U.S. Government’s intent that the shelf life requirement under PRF16001A0006 Section 3 Requirements, specifically 3.6.2 Shelf Life, be for 10 years of uncontrolled storage and 20 years of controlled storage? Can the U.S. Government please expand on what “uncontrolled storage” entails?

Government Response: The Government’s intent is the 10 year “uncontrolled”/20 year “controlled” shelf life. Note, the shelf life refers to the energetic materials. Uncontrolled storage entails non ideal atmospheric conditions. The Government considers successful completion of DVT related testing, in the specification, as meeting the shelf life requirements for controlled and uncontrolled storage.

12. Under PRF16001A0006, Table V. Conformance tests and Inspections, would the U.S. Government please correct the hardness (case sidewall) inspection method from 4.5.4 to 4.4.4? Additionally, under the same table, will the U.S. Government please correct the Port Pressure notes in Table V to read 3/ instead of 4/? Can the same correction occur under Action Time notes to read 3/ rather than 4/ for consistency? It is recommended as well that Note 5 under Table V be removed as it is redundant to paragraph 4.5.

Government Response: Note 5 will remain and the other suggested administrative changes will be made to the specification. An updated specification will needed to be requested per the instructions in Section A of the RFP.

13. Under PRF16001A0006, paragraph 3.5.3, b. can the U.S. Government please clarify if the pressure listed for average chamber pressure when conditioned at 145 degrees Fahrenheit +/- 2 degrees Fahrenheit should be 63,700 psi or 64,700 psi as listed in 3.5.3, a.?

Government Response: 3.5.3b. pressure value will change from 63,700 psi to 65,700 psi. An updated specification will needed to be requested per the instructions in Section A of the RFP.

14. Under Appendix C of PRF16001A0006, specifically C.2 Equipment, C.2.1 Barrel, the requirement states that 2 5.56 NATO accuracy barrels are to be used for testing while in Tables IV, V, and VI, in PRF16001A0006 state that 3 barrels are to be used, utilizing 30 rounds in each. Can the U.S. Government please specify if it is the intention for 2 or 3 barrels are to be used in the testing requirements?

Government Response: The testing is for 3 barrels. The specification Appendix will be updated and can be requested as part of the specification per the instructions in Section A of the RFP.

15. With regard to drawing number 408JXN00003, section M5 calls out a ½” spacing between lines. This should be corrected to read 3/32” spacing between lines. Additionally, would the U.S. Government please remove the requirement that “5.56MM” be marked at the beginning of the 2nd line per column D as the marking of “5.56MM” is already at the end of the 1st line rendering the requirement redundant.

Government Response: Spacing will remain at least ½”. The marking of “5.56MM” should not be on the second line. This drawing will not be modified as the U.S. Army is not the configuration manager.

16. With regard to drawing number 408JXN00095, the word “Cartridge” is abbreviated as “CART” on the carton markings, however on the Can and Crate drawing for the same product the word “Cartridge” is abbreviated “CRTG.” Can the U.S. Government please utilize the abbreviation “CRTG” for “Cartridge” throughout 408JXN00095?

Government Response: The abbreviation “CRTG” shall be used. This drawing will not be modified as the U.S. Army is not the configuration manager.

17. With regard to drawing number 408JXN00096, requirement M4 is not a possible configuration as there is only one end of the box, the other end being open and the ammunition being configured in opposing positions within the box. Would the U.S. Government please consider requiring the M4 instruction to only be required on one side of the box?

Government Response: Marking will be required on one side of the box. This drawing will not be modified as the U.S. Army is not the configuration manager.

18. With regard to drawing number 408JXN00096, P2, P5, and P6 are not a possible configuration as the rounds are packed in opposing positions/directions within the carton. Can the U.S. Government please provide clarifications and guidance on P2, P5, and P6 of the packing instructions?

Government Response: Disregard note P2. In regards to note P5, orient cartons such that the round tips are facing each other as indicated. Disregard the markings, the markings are incorrectly shown on adjacent cartons when only markings for one row should be displayed, while the next row is facing the opposite direction. In regards to note P6, pack so that the tips are in the indicated direction, and disregard how the markings are shown on the cartons in the drawing. This drawing will not be modified as the U.S. Army is not the configuration manager.

19. Under L.4.2.3, Subfactor 3: Quality of the solicitation, there is the requirement for a Statistical Process Control. It is our understanding that the Statistical Process Control is more relative to inspection processes than material control systems. Would the U.S. Government consider moving the required Statistical Process Control to the testing and inspection requirements rather than Material Control System requirements?

Government Response: The Material Control System requirement encompasses all stages of production from incoming material through final acceptance. The offeror should provide details on the inspection system they have in place, how non-conforming material is segregated, how they will maintain their control system, and indicate if statistical process control will be used.

20. Will the U.S. Government please clarify if a royalty payment is a viable option for rights in technical data as there is a conflict between I-106, 52.227-4000 (b) and L.4.4.4?

Government Response: Although the Government prefers other options, such as a lump sum or minimum units purchased, royalty payments are a viable option for the Government to attain a desired license in limited/restricted technical data rights. FAR 52.227-4000(b) refers to the definitions of the various technical data rights assertions. The technical data rights that are correctly identified and supported as “Limited Rights” in FAR 52.227-4000 would be the items detailed in Volume IV Factor 4: Technical Data Rights, including any terms for granting the requested license to the Government.

21. Can the U.S. Government please provide clarification if the First Article Test is to occur 90 days after contract award as listed in Section B CLIN 0002 or 60 days after contract award as listed in

3.1.2 of Section C on page 12 of the solicitation?

Government Response: FAT will occur 60 days after design verification testing per section C in 3.1.2 on Page 12.

22. Would an extended jacket on a polymer filled bullet designed to reduce tip breakage, be still considered “semi-jacketed” if the extended jacket’s length exceeds prior MK311 Mods?

Government Response: The round shall meet the performance requirements of PRF 16001A0006 with or without being in a semi-jacketed configuration.