AA40_Questions_and_Answers_rv7.docx

AA40

Q1) RFP Due Date: Given that the Mod 3 specification allows for completely different components than the current Mod 0 specification, we'd respectfully request that the Government consider a 90 day turnaround time on this RFP. This would allow industry sufficient time to not only test different configurations than those already qualified but also time to formulate a favorable Technical Data Rights strategy which would change significantly based on final configuration.

A1) At this time, the Government will not be extending the RFP response time to 90 days. The purpose of the draft RFP was to give industry advance notice prior to the final RFP being released. Potential Offerors can request an extension once the final RFP is released and the Government will assess it that time if an extension is needed based upon the information provided.

Q2) Number of samples: Respectfully suggest that the Government consider letting the offeror submit up to two samples of 1,600 rounds. This would give the Government more choice and opportunity in evaluating the strengths and weakness of different compliant configurations' performance under the new specification.

A2) The Government will only accept one proposal per Offeror. Each Offeror must make a business decision on the cartridge design they believe will perform to meet the requirements on the RFP.

Q3) RFP page #11 - 3.1.1- Design Verification Testing (DVT) requires a significant number of test cartridges. Will test samples be required free of charge, or invoiced as a contract deliverable?

A3) Offerors will not be reimbursed or paid for test samples provided as part of the proposal.

Q4) Specification 3.5.4 - Given that frangible bullets can crumble upon the jaw clamping force in a bullet extraction test, would the GOV consider changing the 3.5.4 Bullet Extraction to a Bullet Push Requirement understanding the inherent frangible nature of bullet design?

A4) Understanding that the projectile is frangible, there can be other ways of gripping the bullet for extraction such that are less damaging to the projectile. These can be submitted as Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AIE) for USG approval.

Q5) Specification PRF16001A0006 Table V Note 14 calls out for “The retest shall be fired at 600 yards.” when the original dispersion test was fired at 100yrds. Should this Note 14 be removed or amended to 100 yards?

A5) The sentence in Note 14 “The retest shall be fired at 600 yards” shall be removed from the specification.

Q6) RFP page 14 - 3.6.3 RFP states that “The contractors TDP shall be marked proprietary and it shall be used solely for configuration verification purposes.” However, “Proprietary” is not a recognized marking under Clause I-101 “Rights in Technical Data for Non Commercial Items (IS6045)” and could be subject to removal in accordance with paragraph (h) of that clause. Is the reference to “Proprietary” markings in Section 3.6.3 intended to refer to one of the legends/markings authorized under Clause I-101? Suggest that the draft RFP be modified to clarify this ambiguity.

A6) Any proprietary marking on the contractor’s TDP should conform to the clause.

Q7) RFP page 14 - 3.9.2 Please confirm that the contractors and Governments rights in technical data will be governed by Section I-101 of the Contract, pursuant to which the contractor retains ownership of the technical data and the Government obtains license rights (Unlimited Rights, Government Purpose Rights, Limited Rights or Special Purpose Rights) that are dependent on the parties respective financial contributions to the development of the items or processes to which the technical data relate. Section 3.9.2 of the SOW (page 14 of the RFP) can be read to conflict with Section I-101 and we seek confirmation that Section I-101 will determine the parties respective ownership and use rights.

A7) Clause I-101 allows for Offeror’s to assert restricted rights, prior to award, for data that may be used in the development of this requirement. Data produced and owned by the Government will be marked with the appropriate distribution statement.

Q8) RFP page15 -3.14 (“Anti-Terrorism (AT) Level I Training”) requires such training for “All contractor employees, to include subcontractor employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities and controlled access areas . . .” Is this requirement applicable to employees whose only required access is for occasional contract reviews? If so, suggest that this requirement be narrowed to those personnel required to execute NDAs in accordance with H-3 (“Identification and Access Eligibility Requirements of Contractor Employees (HS7011)”).

A8) AT Training should not be required for occasional employees visiting Picatinny or any other Army installations.

Q9) RFP page 17 - Section D. This section of the RFP describes Performance Oriented Packaging (POP) Testing requirements of the contractor, yet the RFP provides detailed packaging instructions and packaging drawings. Please clarify, does the Government want the contractor to perform POP tests on the Government’s packaging configuration?

A9) The contractor shall perform POP testing along with the detailed packaging instructions included in Section D of the contract.

Q10) RFP page 40 - H-3 3 Please confirm that (“Identification and Access Eligibility Requirements of Contractor Employees (HS7011)”) applies only to employees working at Picatinny Arsenal and other Army installation and that this does not apply, for example, to contractor employees who are only “working at Picatinny Arsenal” when attending periodic contract reviews.

A10) This clause applies to employees working at Picatinny Arsenal or other Army installations and does not apply to contractors employees who are attending contract meetings or reviews.

Q11) RFP page 67 - D.3 “Volume III Factor 3: Price” provides that “Failure to provide a price for FAT may result in the offer not being considered for award.” However, Section B does not appear to provide any line for entry of FAT prices. Please clarify and/or modify as appropriate.

A11) This was an oversight and a FAT CLIN will be provided in the final RFP.

Q12) RFP page 68 - D.4.1 RFP states the quantity of ammunition required for Bid Sample Testing is 1600 cartridges. RFP Attachment 0002, “Bid Sample Test Plan” states the quantity to be 1680 cartridges. Question: What is the correct quantity?

A12) The correct quantity is 1680. Section D.4.1 will be revised to reflect the correct quantity of 1680.

Q13) RFP page 71 - D.4.6 RFP shows Factor 6: Small Business Participation as Volume V. Should be Volume VI

A13) D.4.6 will be revised to state Volume VI

Q14) RFP page 73 - D.4.7 RFP shows Factor 7: Solicitation, Offer, etc.” as Volume VI. Should be Volume VII.

A14) D.4.7 will be revised to state Volume VII.

Q15) Since the M4A1 is often run suppressed by SF operators, we believe that there should be a performance requirement for the frangible ammunition to be able to operate safely and reliably when a suppressor is attached to the barrel. Meeting this requirement would require that there be no appreciable degradation to shot dispersion, and zero baffle strikes.

A15) Note taken, additional action may be considered by the Government.

Q16) In Performance Spec section 4.5.15 Port Pressure, there is a specific mean minimum PSI of 15,300 listed. Is is possible to have both a minimum PSI and also a functionality requirement listed to ensure reliable cycling of all 3 weapon systems specified? It may be possible to achieve a slightly lower port pressure and still achieve full and reliable cycling of the weapon.

A16) Note taken, additional action may be considered by the Government.

Q17) Since barrel wear is a well known and common issue in the industry, we suggest that a barrel wear test be included in the Performance Spec. The normal testing procedure would be evaluating the degradation to shot dispersion over a certain number of rounds. Barrel manufacturers often claim 13K-15K rounds of useful barrel life, but field testing usually demonstrates much lower performance life. We believe that the frangible rounds should be held to the same standard as ball rounds as it relates to barrel life.

A17) Note taken, additional action may be considered by the Government.

Q18) The mean maximum chamber pressure called for in the Performance Spec in section 3.5.3 sub a is 58,700 PSI. Could you please clarify is this is measured by the NATO (sensor at the neck) or SAAMI (sensor in the body) testing protocol? The most common would be to specify the use of the SAAMI testing protocol.

A18) The NATO protocol shall be used.

Q19) RFP SOW Section 2.1.1 references HS/4083/C01/1240 REV "B" Cartridge.

A19) The SOW is accurate, “REV B” is the correct version.

Q20) Section B – Request that the Government consider doing a separate spread sheet as an appendix for the range pricing for the annual buys. This has been done on many other procurements and it will take pricing out of all other volumes and include it solely in the Price Factor Volume.

A21) We prefer to have the pricing in Section B and the pricing volume.

Q22) Section C 2.1.1 incorporates HS/4083/C01/1240 which is currently on revision C, yet revision B is listed. Does qualification to revision C meet the requirements of paragraph 3.1.1.1 of the draft RFP?

A22) No. If the design was previously qualified in accordance with HS/4083/C01/1240 Rev C, a partial Design Verification Test will be required to assess the design’s ability to meet the requirements of PRF-16001A0006.

Q23) Section C 3.1.1 Please clarify if the rounds required for Design Qualification would be considered DO 0001 under resulting contract and thus the contract minimum.

A23) The Government expects to order the Design Qualification cartridges as part of the delivery order. There is no minimum quantity or contract minimum under a requirements contract.

Q24) Section C 3.1.2.1 Please clarify how many samples are required for a PCA.

A24) The Government requires 5 complete cartridges, and 5 samples of each component used to produce the cartridge. If more than one piece of equipment is used to produce a component, then 5 components from each piece of equipment is subject to PCA evaluation. If a mold or die has more than 1 cavity, 5 pieces will be evaluated from each cavity.

Q25) Section C 3.1.2.1 states “The U.S. Government reserves the right to request a PCA throughout the period of performance of the contract.” Assuming a written notice will be received from the Contracting Officer, what is the duration of notice given of when a PCA is to be performed by the contractor?

A25) PCAs during the contract are normally done in conjunction with a FAAT. The duration of the notice for both would be 30 days for CONUS and 60 days for OCONUS.

Q26) Section C 3.6.3 TDP is stated as containing all product drawings and specifications to include material specifications, process descriptions, critical physical characteristics, chemical compositions, etc whereas the only CDRL defined as TDP is Product Drawings. Please confirm TDP for this requirement and for sale of Technical Data is limited to CDRL A016, Product Drawings.

A26) The referenced CDRL is used for configuration management purposes not for the sale of Technical Data.

Q27) Section C 3.15 states that OPSEC Level I training is required per AR 530-1. AR 530-1 states that OPSEC training for active personnel or Contractors if required specifically by the contract. Please confirm that the intent is not to make all personnel of a commercial ammunition factory compete week long OPSEC Level 1 certification training and respectfully request that an approved OPSEC plan may be considered in lieu of factory wide training.

A27) This training is applicable to only to contractor employees, to include subcontractor employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities and controlled access areas.

Q28) Section D - Will the drawing changes detailed on draft RFP pages 19-21 be incorporated into the packaging drawings as new revisions?

A28) At this time, there are no plans to incorporate the drawings as new revisions.

Q29) Section H - In regards to section H-2 of the draft RFP: if the maximum quantity of 132 million rounds is ordered, the contractor will need at least 6 of each weapon type, roughly 3 additional barrels/uppers per weapon, and roughly 14000 reference rounds. Does the government concur with this assessment?

A29) The Government will supply the GFP listed in Section H-2 and any additional GFP will need to be requested as needed.

Q30) Section L - numbering sequences seem to be repeated e.g. two occurrences of D.3

A30) This will be corrected for the Final RFP.

Q31) Section L D.2.3.1 – Please clarify the number of CDs required for submittal. Is it 7 total or 7 of non price factors, 1 for pricing, and 1 for Reps & Certs found on SAM for a total of 9?

A31) This will be clarified in the Final RFP.

Q32) Section L D.3.3.1 – Request that a foldout page be counted as only one page and not a page per fold.

A32) Agree, but the Government will limit the foldout pages to 10.

Q33) Section L D.3.1 - Would the Government consider increasing the Technical Volume’s page limit to 75 or 100 pages?

A33) The limit in the final RFP will be increased to 100 pages.

Q34) Section L D.3.1 - Format for Proposals lists 6 volumes however D.4, Specific Proposal Instructions outline instructions for 7 Volumes including the Solicitation with both the Past performance and Small Business Volume numbers as Volume 5.

A34) See Q&A numbers 12 and 13.

Q35) Section L D.3 Volume III – CLIN numbers and Descriptions do not match CLIN Numbers and Descriptions in Sec B.

A35) The Final RFP will be revised to ensure CLIN Structure is consistent throughout the document.

Q36) Section L D.3 Volume III specifies a price must be proposed for First Article Test CLINS for all ordering periods. Sec B does not have any CLINS for First Article Tests.

A36) FAAT CLINs will be added to the Final RFP for each Ordering Period. One FAAT CLIN for each Ordering Period.

Q37) Section L D.3 Volume III uses quantities of 25.6M rounds per year which would be a max quantity of 128M rounds over 5 years. Section L D.4.2.1 asks Offeror to demonstrate capacity to produce 26.4M rounds each ordering period which would put the max at 132M. Section B pricing quantities include a range up to 32M rounds which would be a max quantity of 160M rounds over 5 Years. Section B.1, Contract Maximum Volume puts the max quantity at 132M rounds. Please clarify expected Ordering Period amounts and Max number of rounds expected under this contract.

A37) The maximum contract quantity is 132M rounds with 32M per order period maximum.

Q38) Section L D.4.4.3 states the desired delivery of license rights is at award of Ordering Period 3. Sec M C.5.2 defines Factor Ratings being scored on the Government’s capability to obtain the Tech Data Rights by end of Ordering Period 3. Please clarify when the Government wishes to obtain the Technical Data Rights.

A38) The Government requires Technical Data Rights by the end of Order Period 3 and the final RFP will reflect that.

Q39) Section M, C.4.4.b – Request that the Government provide the “assigned weighted percentage” used to derive the weighted evaluation price. This will provide a better estimate of the most likely quantities and result in better pricing for the Government.

A39) The weighted percentages will not be provided.

Q40) Drawing 16001A0006 states that “Primer seating depth may affect primer sensitivity. However, must be a minimum of 0.008 inches below flush.” However, specification PRF16001A0006 Table VI states “Primer depth (The primer shall be seated flush to 0.008 inch below flush of the face of the cartridge case head.)” Please confirm that the specification is correct and the drawing will be revised.

A41) The drawing has been updated.

Q42) Specification PRF16001A0006 paragraph 3.4.2 states that “…The projectile shall not deform when…” Is deformation a visual inspection? If not, and deformation is measured, what is to be measured and what change in measurement constitutes deformation? Note that considering that there is standard variation when taking repeated measurements, “no change” is not physically possible.

A42) Deformation is not just a visual inspection The Government measures deformation along the final length and diameter of the bearing surface of the projectile (as stated in D.4.2) as per the manufacturer’s projectile drawing.

Q43) Specification PRF16001A0006 paragraph 3.5.7 specifies the cartridge noise level limits; is this limit for the average of the 9 shots or the max individual?

A44) Peak per TOP 1-2-608 Section 4.2, max individual.

Q45) Specification PRF16001A0006 paragraph 3.5.11 states that “…the projectile shall reliably fragment when…” How is reliable fragmentation measured, and what are the accept/reject limits? Note that paragraph B.3.4.5 has measuring the number of penetrations as part of the test procedure, but it does not define what is acceptable and what isn’t.

A45) “Reliable fragmentation” means that each of the 10 rounds that are fired against the steel plate must fragment. This is determined by looking for penetrations in the witness paper. If the bullet does not fragment at all (no penetrations observed), it is considered a failure.

Q46) Specification PRF16001A0006 includes information on Bullet Integrity testing, but does not specify accept/reject criteria in Table VII with all other F&C defects. What are the accept/reject criteria for Bullet Integrity for both the first sample and the cumulative second sample?

A46) The accept/reject criteria for bullet integrity shall be added to Table IV for FAT and Table V for LAT. The accept/reject criteria shall be accept on 0, reject on 1, with the possibility of a double sample retest for LAT only.

Q47) Specification PRF16001A0006 Table III and Table IV specify that for Accuracy Match 30 rounds will be shot from 3 different barrels for a total of 90 rounds. Appendix C specifies that the testing will be shot in 5 round groups. How many groups are to be shot with the MK311 MOD 3 and how many with M855?

A47) Thirty M855 cartridges shall be fired on one target before changing the target and firing thirty MK311 MOD 3 cartridges on another target, per barrel (3 barrels total). Therefore a total of 90 M855 cartridges and 90 MK311 MOD 3 cartridges shall be required for this test. Appendix C in the specification shall be updated to reflect this.

Q48) Specification PRF16001A0006 Table VI has “Gage” listed as the inspection method for M110 and M111, which are visual defects per MIL-STD-636. Please either confirm that these defects are inspected visually, or provide guidance as to what type of gaging should be used.

A48) The specification will be changed to “visual” rather than “gage” for defects M110 and M111.

Q49) Specification PRF16001A0006 paragraph 3.5.10 states that “There shall not be any fragments returning to the shooter during the firing [of penetration testing]”. Appendix A specifies that witness paper shall be set up. Historical MK311 clarified the requirement to state that no fragments greater than 3.0 grains are to return to the shooter; though not specified in that contract, a trap was used behind the witness paper in order to capture any potential fragments so that they could be weighed. Please clarify what apparatus and pass/fail criteria is to be used for the splash back element of the penetration test.

A49) There is no longer a requirement to collect the fragments that come off of the steel penetration plate. Any perforations in the witness paper represent fragments returning to the shooter and are not allowed, regardless of weight. Since 3.5.10 states that “there shall not be any fragments returning to the shooter during firing”, then if any are found, the cartridge fails to meet the penetration requirement.

Q50) Specification PRF16001A0006 3.6.2 Shelf Life – warrantying that a new product will meet all operating requirements of this spec after 10 years of “uncontrolled” storage or even 20 years at controlled storage is unrealistic. Please confirm that an ammunition industry standard warranty (up to 5 years) is sufficient for any contract resulting under this RFP.

A50) The 10 year “uncontrolled”/20 year “controlled” shelf life refers to the energetic materials.

Q51) Specification PRF16001A0006 3.7.2 - If energetic material is not currently qualified by the USMC, is the Government’s intent to qualify it during the design verification phase?

A51) Yes, all energetic materials, if not currently qualified, will need to be qualified as part of the design verification phase.

Q52) Specification PRF16001A0006 3.7.2 - If the energetic material is not currently qualified by the USMC would an energetic material that is qualified by or used by the US Army be acceptable based by analogy?

A52) Yes, a material that is qualified by the US Army would be acceptable.

Q53) Specification PRF16001A0006 3.7.2 - Given recent developments in energetic materials and the performance specifications for this cartridge, will bid samples with unqualified USMC energetic materials be accepted?

A53) Bid samples with unqualified energetic materials will be accepted. However, these materials must go through qualification during the design verification phase.

Q54) RFP page 74 - D.4.7.1 RFP states “Contract Data Requirements List (DD1423) with blocks 17 and 18 completed.” This is not typically requested for Small Caliber Ammunition supply contracts. Question: Is this correct? Does the Government want the offeror to price the CDRLs?

A54) The Government will remove “with blocks 17 and 18 completed”

Q55) RFP page 11 - 3.1.2 RFP states that fabrication of First Article Test (FAT) samples will be fabricated within 60days of design qualification. Some DVT tests are long term, requiring weeks (e.g. 28-day Temp. & Humidity safety test) or years (e.g. Shelf Life, 10-20 years). Will the government provide a listing of the DVT tests that must be completed before FAT start-up will be authorized, and an estimated time for conducting these DVT tests?

A55) The list of the DVT testing is included in the Performance Specification. The estimated time for all DVT testing to be completed is 6 months.

Q56) Exhibit A CDRLs A005, A007, A013 and A014 appear to provide redundant instructions regarding ECPs and RFVs. Question: Can the redundant CDRLs be deleted?

A56) These are not redundant- the different CDRLs/DI’s for the ECPs and RFVs pertain to different types of ECPs and RFVs – specifically safety and quality assurance.

Q57) Since the M4A1 is often run suppressed by SF operators, we believe that there should be a performance requirement for the frangible ammunition to be able to operate safely and reliably when a suppressor is attached to the barrel. Meeting this requirement would require that there be no appreciable degradation to shot dispersion, and zero baffle strikes.

A57) Note taken, no additional changes to the specification for this will be done at this time.

Q58) In Performance Spec section 4.5.15 Port Pressure, there is a specific mean minimum PSI of 15,300 listed. Is is possible to have both a minimum PSI and also a functionality requirement listed to ensure reliable cycling of all 3 weapon systems specified? It may be possible to achieve a slightly lower port pressure and still achieve full and reliable cycling of the weapon.

A58) Note taken, no additional changes to the specification for this will be done at this time.

Q59) Since barrel wear is a well known and common issue in the industry, we suggest that a barrel wear test be included in the Performance Spec. The normal testing procedure would be evaluating the degradation to shot dispersion over a certain number of rounds. Barrel manufacturers often claim 13K-15K rounds of useful barrel life, but field testing usually demonstrates much lower performance life. We believe that the frangible rounds should be held to the same standard as ball rounds as it relates to barrel life.

A59) Note taken, no additional changes to the specification for this will be done at this time.

Q60) Drawing 16001A0006 states that “The cartridge shall be free of lead and other toxic material.” What document or standard defines what is considered “other toxic material”?

A60) Drawing 16001A0006 will be revised to state “The cartridge shall be free of lead.”

Q61) Specification PRF16001A0006 3.4.3 states weapon compatibility includes M27 links. However, there is no CLIN or drawings referenced in the Draft RFP for a M27 linked configuration. Additionally this paragraph includes the requirement to test linked configurations in the M249, however the M249 is not included in the Draft RFP’s H-2, 52.245-4002 Schedule of Government Furnished Property. Please confirm a clipped configuration is the only desired configuration under this contract and that there will not be any testing in a linked configuration or in an M249 weapon system.

A61) The Government is not buying that configuration so that testing does not apply.

Additional Information:

Based on accuracy and dispersion, the Government might consider an increase in the standard deviation for velocity.