M1061_Draft_RFP_Additional_Questions_and_Approved_Responses.pdf

Answers to M1061 Draft RFP Questions

Question 1: The Government-furnished drawing package includes eleven (11) “redline” drawings. We assume that these redlines will be incorporated into released drawings when the RFP is issued. Can you confirm or correct this assumption? Similarly, three (3) DTL documents are marked as “Draft”. For our clarification, how are we to regard these redline drawings and draft DTLs in responding to your request for contractor review and comments on the draft RFP? We appreciate your consideration of our request.

Answer 1: The USG intends to include the redline drawings and draft DTL’s into the Tech Data Package when requesting proposals. Since this package is in the draft phase, changes may still occur between now and RFP.

Question 2: The Vectra LCP A130 called out on drawing 13008598, find number 3, appears to be indicating a potting material which is used to fill the channels in the fragment matrix (drawing

13008597) after the bimodal shot size distribution is loaded to pot the tungsten fragments into the matrix. However, Vectra LCP A130 is a molding powder that is solid a room temperature. It is the same material from which the Fragment Matrix Insert (p/n 13008597) is molded. Melting point is listed as

280C, so it is not a potting material. Do we understand the drawing requirements correctly? Are the fragments (Shot-1 and Shot-2) potted in the Fragment Matrix Insert in the manufacture of the Fragment

Insert? If ‘yes’, what potting material is to be used?

Answer 2: The data in the drawing is sufficient to produce the fragmentation insert. The notes, and material callouts are all accurate. The only material used to suspend the fragments it LCP-A130.

Question 3: Can the US Army provide a digital three-dimensional CAD model file for the Fragment

Matrix Insert, drawing number 13008597, and the (Alt) Fragment Insert assembly 13008598?

Answer 3: CAD models for the parts do exist, but will not be released with the RFP. The drawings are sufficient for proposals.

Question 4: We request that Army provide further clarification of the distribution of Shot-1 and Shot-2 fragments within the Fragment Insert required to achieve the mass and center of gravity requirements defined in Note 4 and Note 9. Presently, the drawing only identifies a minimum quantity of each type of

Shot.

Answer 4: The minimum quantity of shot is needed to ensure warhead performance. Due to the high tolerance on individual shots, a situation could arise where the count is met, but the total weight is not.

For this reason USG provides a reference weight total shot types for assistance. Center of Gravity shall be met to maintain ballistic compatibility.

Question 5: Is there any Government-owned tooling available for the manufacture of the Fragment

Insert or mold tooling for production of the Fragment Matrix Insert?

Answer 5: The USG does not own any of the tooling for the parts.

Question 6: An additional item for clarification; We are seeing some conflicts with packaging. The upper level drawing #13008611 calls out unitization document #19-48-4116/28T. We have 28U which is for an illumination round. One calls for a wire bound box and one doesn't. They are referencing two different ammo cans (PA124 vs PA191) and two size pallets (42" X 53" vs. 40" X 48"). Also the qtys per pallet are different. If we had the "#19-48-4116/28T" document that might clear things up.

Answer 6: we are packing the M1061 in the PA191 metal container (with no wire bound box) which uses unitization drawing 19-49-4116/28U. This is correctly called out on the latest revision of COAI drawing

13008611 which is rev A

Question 7: DTL 13008598 references the inspection of the "SAMPLES" for the Fragment Insert but the inspections are not included in the inspection charting nor are they identified as being Critical, Major or

Minor. Are we to assume that these inspections are to be classified as "Process Control" inspections with a sample to be pulled at a Verification Level that we determine to be appropriate or are we supposed to treat them as a "Critical" since the DTL does require the "SAMPLES" to be inspected at

100% by a Level 2 plus a VL VII by a Level 3? If this is the case and 100% of the units are inspected and not simply a sample, it will make a lot of difference on the inspection costs.

Answer 7: It appears the draft spec used for the draft RFP was not complete. Three major characteristics will be added to paragraph 4.4.2.1. they are M114 Center of gravity, M115 Shot distribution, and M116 Shot count (items 1 and 2). Along with these characteristics, note 6 will be added;

6/ For FAT quantities, and at minimum, 2 units inspected at a maximum of every 4 hours of continuous operation or after manufacturing process changes that are deemed significant by the government IPT.

The Correct Draft will be uploaded to FBO.