Questions_and_Answers_Set__2_-_Q&A's_6-17_-_M739A1_Fuze_W15QKN-17-R-0051.pdf

Questions and Answers Set #2 (Includes Q&A’s 6-17) for Solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0051

QUESTION 6: It was requested for clarification specific to the requirements of MIL-DTL-32267 paragraph 4.4.1.42 for the Safing & Arming Module Subassembly (P/N 9294833) functional test requirements. Please confirm the following listed tests are required to be performed 100% at each of (3) temperatures: hot (+145 F), cold (-45 F), and ambient (70 F) on each Safing and Arming Module Subassembly.

1. C1, Arming Time, below 750 ms.

2. M102, Arming Test

3. M103, Arming Time

4. M104, Locking of Rotor

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 6: C1, M102, M103, and M104 are performed 100%, but NOT at temperature. The fuze specification only spin at temperature a sample of 60 units per (Majors 112 - 114), which is reflected in 4.5.33.

QUESTION 7: Per Solicitation W1QKN-17-R-0051 TDP, it was requested to provide 2 drawings that were not provided in the TDP: Drawing 12972592 Box Pallet Type Wire bound and Drawing 12972621 Sleeve. Both drawings are listed on Drawing 8886458 for Packaging the Fuze, Less Booster.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 7: Copies of affected drawings will be provided upon request and submitted thru AMRDEC SAFE.

QUESTION 8: Clarification was requested for Attachment 4 on Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) R16A2017 that names 4 drawings: Drawings 7548103, 7548104, 12977287, and 12977288. These drawings are also not on the TDP, does this aforementioned ECP apply?

REPSONSE TO QUESTION 8: Yes, the ECP applies and the listed drawings, above, will be provided upon request and submitted thru AMRDEC SAFE.

QUESTION 9: It was advised that the following drawings under Solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0051 TDP are not legible:

1. 9258626 – Retainer, Interrupter

2. 9258628 – Sleeve, Setting

3. 9288649 – Charge, Upper

4. 9294606 – Firing Pin and Housing Assembly

5. 9326147 – Lubricant, Fluorocarbon, Phenolic Resin – Sheets 3, 4, and 7

6. 9333937 – Pin, Firing, Single Piece

7. 11836270 – Delay Module, Impact

8. 11836276 – Lock, Detent

9. 11836278 – Firing Pin Holder Assembly

10. 11836281 – Pin, Firing

11. 12973184 – Safing and Arming Module Subassembly

12. 12973186 – Safing and Arming Module Assembly

13. 9258614 – Support, Firing Pin

14. 9258616 – Tube, Firing Pin

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 9: New copies of drawings have been provided to the Offeror that made the request with the exception of 12973184 and 12973186 which will be removed from the TDP as they are not applicable to the M739A1. If copies are needed to any interested offeror, drawings will be provided upon request thru AMRDEC SAFE.

QUESTION 10: C-3.15 (SPC) vs E-10 (SPC)

• C-3.15 lists specific characteristics requiring SPC, or to propose alternatives.

• E-10, Part I, e) requires written justification for not applying SPC to all criticals, specials and majors

In the above conflict, can the written justification statement from E-10, Part I, e) be interpreted to apply to only those characteristics listed under C-3.15?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 10: The characteristics listed under C.3.15 are the only mandatory characteristics for SPC. Although, other characteristics may be researched for SPC implementation by the Offeror and submitted to the Government for review and approval, if deemed value added.

QUESTION 11: E-11 (Ammunition Data Cards)

• Paragraph c) and d) requires eleven (11) total items that will individually require ADC’s in compliance with MIL-STD-1168 and WARP, as well as being listed on the end item ADC.

Several of the eleven items identified are either simple piece parts or assemblies containing no energetic materials. Is it necessary to actually use the ADC and WARP system to track parts and/or assemblies that can easily be identified by just utilizing basic manufacturing lot #’s that are part of our own, or our suppliers, standard ISO 9001 requirements?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 11: No, it is not necessary to use the ADC and WARP system to track parts and/or assemblies. Clause E-11, 52.246-4015 entitled “Ammunition Data Cards” contained an error and will be corrected with this amendment. All the components listed under Paragraph d) should be listed under Paragraph c). See Amendment 0002 for updated clause.

QUESTION 12: C.12 (Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Items) vs I-123 (Safeguarding Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and Explosives

• C.12.1 requires DoD 5100.76M, dated September, 1992

• C.12.2 requires Department of the Army (DA) 55-355/DLAR 4500.3 Defense Traffic

Management Regulation", and (DOD) DLAH 4105.4, dated July 1992

• I-123 requires DoD 5100.76M, latest release at time of award which would currently be April o By reference, DoD 5100.76M, dated April, 2012 requires DoD 45000.9-R, Defense

Transportation Regulation (February 2016)

Can the above conflicts be resolved by operating to the latest revision of DoD 5100.769M as required by DFAR 252.223-7007, which will also replace the obsolete DLAR 4500.3 and DLAH 4105.4 documents with DoD 45000.9-R?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 12: Section C.12 will be deleted from the SOW in its entirety as all requirements regarding safeguarding AA&E are cited in I-123.

QUESTION 13: RFP includes ECP R16A2017 as follows:

• NOR 1 for document 7548103

• NOR 2 for document 7548104

• NOR 3 for document 12977287, used in 7548099

• NOR 4 for document 12977288, used in 7548099

Reference documents were not included in TDP Viewer and ECPs only include affected sheets.

Can the USG provide these four drawings affected by the ECPs and the 7548099 drawing, as well as where used clarification that corresponds to a drawing or specification referenced in the M739A1 TDP?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 13: Copies of affected drawings will be provided upon request thru

AMRDEC SAFE.

QUESTION 14: C.5.4 (Hazard Classification)

• Contractor shall obtain a hazard classification from DoT prior to shipment

Can Contractors utilize existing hazard classifications issued to the DoD (referenced in TDP) for the purposes of shipping energetic material ammunition and explosives?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 14: Yes, existing Hazardous Component Safety Data Sheets (HCSDSs) provided with the solicitation can be used unless there is a change in design or requirements.

QUESTION 15: L.2.3.1.a vs L.2.3.1.b

• L.2.3.1.a states “One (1) signed and completed paper copy of the attached standard Form 33 (SF

33) and continuation sheets (Sections A through M) signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed contract on behalf of the Offeror.”

• L.2.3.1.b states “Original and two (2) paper copies and two electronic CD copies of the proposal volumes…”

Is only the original required to be signed by the person authorized, or should all copies also include the signature?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 15: Only one (1) signed SF33 is needed and shall be signed as stated within paragraph L.2.3.1 (a). Within, L.2.3.1 (b), the “original” describes the offerors proposal as well as requests that two(2) paper and two(2) electronic copies of the offerors proposal accompany the “original” proposal. To clarify further, only 1, signed, copy of the SF33 is needed.

QUESTION 16: B CLIN structure vs Attachment 0001 – Pricing Matrix Excel Spreadsheet

• Section B CLIN structure defines 3 CLINS for each year o 0001 – Initial FAT (first year) o 0002 – Additional FAT (first year) o 0003 – Production (first year) o 0004 – Initial FAT (second year) o … o 0015 – Production (fifth year)

• Attachment 0001 – Pricing Matrix Excel Spreadsheet defines only one CLIN each for Initial FAT, Additional FAT, and Production o 1001AA – Initial FAT o 1001AB – Additional FAT o 1001AC - Production

Can the USG confirm that the Attachment 0001 – Pricing Matrix Excel Spreadsheet should match the contract CLIN structure?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 16: Attachment 0001 should match the CLIN structure within Section B.

Attachment 0001 has been updated accordingly.

QUESTION 17: The definition (from Section A) of Initial FAT implies that only one of CLINs 0001, 0004, 0007, 0010, 0013 will be executed. The definition of Additional FAT implies that all five of CLINS 0002, 0005, 0008, 0011, 014 could be executed. Section M.3.3.4 however indicates that every CLIN will be included in Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Can the USG confirm that TEP calculations will only include the value of one of the five Initial FAT CLINs, plus the value of up to five of the Additional FAT CLINs? Stated another way, that the weighting factor applied to four out of five of the Initial FAT CLINs will be 0%.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 17: For clarification purposes, it is the intention of the Government to award no more than one (1) Initial FAT, however, for evaluation purposes, and as delineated within Section M.3.3.4, the TEP calculations will include the values for all five (5) Initial FAT’s, all five (5) Additional FAT’s, as well as all five (5) Production CLINs.