M1061_Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.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 exists, 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: I can see their confusion. 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. there 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, at minimum.

(Further information and clarification shall be available at time of the official RFP) Question 8: The technical information already received is not “Protected or Classified” but has a Distribution Statement “F”. Does the USG consider sending “Protected or Classified” information under this contract..? or will it stay at the level of Distribution Statement “F”.

Answer 8: The information is expected to remain Distribution Statement “F” as the highest distribution.

The RFP will provide further detail.

Question 9: What type of documentation (e.g: technical data, engineering analysis, test reports and/or final reports) could involve “Protected or Classified” information..?

Answer 9: Documentation is expected to be unclassified.

Question 10: Does the tooling for the case manufacturing ( dwg # 13008594 ) will be GFE?

Answer 10: No.

Question 11: With the objective of the manufacturing cost reduction, does the USG consider the following alternatives to the proposed draft TDP:

Question 11 a: DWG # 13008600 Rev G Use of an alternative adhesive, for the Loctite 242 ( including primer coating ) by a more adapted solution to the mortar construction Answer 11a:

Loctite 7649 Mil Std alternate can be: Mil-S-22473 Grade N, Form R

Loctite 242 Mil Std alternate can be: ASTM D5363 (AN0321) Mil-A-46163A Type 2 Grade N

Question 11 b. DWG # 13008601 Rev D Paint applied on the body assembly, as an alternative, can the parts be painted at the components stage (prior to assembly) and application of touch up on the body assembly?

Answer 11b: Due to test, inspection, and traceability of subcomponents we suggest against it.

The TDP does not allow for this, if a contractor would prefer to paint the components separately, a request for variation (RFV) could be submitted under the contract and evaluated, though no promise can be made of acceptance.

Question 11 c. DWG# 13008578 Rev C The two part adhesive KLEIBERIT, as an alternative, can we use a North American product?

Answer 10c: Please price according to use of Kleibert. An RFV can be submitted under the contract and evaluated then.

Question 12 DWG# 13008578 Rev C, the inner and outer shell adhesion with the fragment insert, curing process is not defined in the draft TDP. Does it requires special process? If possible, specify the process.

Answer 12 Instructions included with the adhesive should be sufficient.

Question 13 Here is a question regarding Draft SOW: As per paragraph C.4.10.4: Does U.S. citizens authorized to work on this contract includes NTIB company employees?

At this time the USG does not anticipate an exchange classified information, but if the USG decides it is necessary or needed it would be specified in the solicitation and be applicable.

Question 14: Regarding DI-ADMIN-81505 Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes – Please confirm the required paper size. The DI states 8”x10.5”. Should this be 8.5”x11”?

Answer 14: Correct, 8.5” x 11”.

Question 15: Regarding C.13.2 Tensile Testing:

“C.13.2 Tensile Testing: In addition to the requirements for mechanical properties testing called out in the specifications, once per month, the Contractor shall have a second set of test specimens taken from the components selected for regular mechanical properties testing and test them at a certified independent or USG-approved lab.”

Please provide clarification for which components must be tested and if this applies only to active production at the vendor or to parts already produced and in inventory at the final assembly location.

Answer 15: The components which will require independent verification will be listed in the final Spec:

DTL 13008578 and ECP R17J2001. (Fuze Adapter and Case). All parts used for this contract must meet the requirements in the current TDP while meeting interfix and lotting requirements.

Question 16: SOW C.4.1.3 – Will the RFQ include an expected delivery schedule of GFM, or will all GFM be available at contract award?

Answer 16: The delivery schedule will be determined during contract award.

Question 17: C.4.3.2 – Do we need to provide the two-point mount display stand used to support the cut-away models?

Answer 17: Yes.

Question 18: SOW C.4.3.1 – When should the models be delivered?

Answer 18: The delivery date for the models will be agreed upon at contract award.

Question 19: FI SPEC: Do the “zones” in paragraph 4.5.6.2 coincide with the “sections” illustrated in figure 2?

Answer 19: Yes, we use zones and sections interchangeably in those paragraphs.