NGSW_Industry_Questions_&_Comments_24-61.pdf

Next Generation Squad Weapons: Industry’s Questions & Comments

(Start as of October 23, 2018)

24. Question: In section 1.2, the Government has identified the NGSAR PON as background information to the new NGSW PON. The previous NGSAR PON has a small arms fire control component to it, however this new PON does not. Since this component is now missing, is the Government no longer interested in this fire control capability for its new weapon platforms? If the Government is still interested, can you please elaborate on the new acquisition strategy since fire control has been removed from the NGSW PON?

Response: Next Generation Fire Control will be sought under another FBO announcement. The acquisition strategy will be identified at that point.

25. Question: Section 2.2.2.2.1 indicates evaluation of engagement times for weapon systems between 50-600m, however the reference attachments provide no test procedures beyond 200m and optics to be used as “TBD”. Additionally, “Attachment 14 Bid Test Sample Overview” Appendix A indicates the use of both the M145 Machine Gun Optic and the M68 Close Combat Optic. Can the Government clarify how they intend to test “engagement time” and test beyond 200m? Further, will the M145/M68 be the baseline optics or will a Small Arms Fire Control (SAFC) be added to this PON for full NGSW/SAFC integration and test engagement time compared to baseline optics?

Response: The Government will update the attachments and provide all test procedures in the Final Prototype Opportunity Notice. For Bid Sample Testing, the Government will use the M68 Close Combat Optic. For Bid Sample testing, we are not testing Soldier-system accuracy or engagement time or having Soldiers' engage at targets beyond 50m. For the Prototype Tests, an updated Controllability test procedures will be provided. The Government will not measure engagement time, but will limit target exposure time and will be test system controllability at ranges within 50m to 600m.

26. Question: The Draft NSGW PON indicates that “The production award(s) may include 250,000 total weapons system(s) (NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, or both)…”. Does the Government intend to procure Small Arms Fire Controls in the same potential quantities? If so, can the Government expand on the procurement details for Small Arms Fire Controls to be fielded with the NGSW systems?

Response: Next Generation Fire Control will be sought under another FBO announcement. The acquisition strategy will be identified at that point.

27. Question: The Government has not provided guidance as to the potential architecture of the NGSW-AR and NGSW-C. Has the Government considered an objective requirement of a “monolithic” or solid one-piece weapon design to better enable future small arms fire control and night vision solutions? Current and legacy weapons do not provide optimal conditions to maximize effective use of small arms fire controls in conjunction with night vision devices.

Response: Vendors are encouraged to submit the weapon design which best addresses the Government’s goals considering the tiered capabilities, the timeline, and funding availability.

28. Question: Per 2.3.1.1.2, we understand “the Contractor shall prepare and deliver complete digital Contractor-formatted computer software and computer software documentation with at least restricted rights.” In that this program is for hardware and development, could the Government please specify what type of computer software and rights is expected/applicable? If the software is not proprietary is this applicable? Does the Government have a list of software currently in use that if used would not require software and license rights to be provided by the contractor?

Response: It is unknown if Offerors would propose a weapon with software (i.e. round counter, trainer mode, etc.). If software is not proprietary or is not proposed, the software requirements would not be applicable. The Government does not have a list of applicable software.

29. Question: Per page 6 of the draft, we understand “OTAs are acquisition instruments that generally, are not subject to the federal laws and regulations governing procurement (FAR based) contracts. As such, they are not required to comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), its supplements (i.e. DFARS) or laws that are limited in applicability to procurement contracts.” Could the Government please articulate which federal laws and regulations govern OTA procurement?

Response: The language in the Prototype Opportunity Notice articulates the rule. There is no defined list of all-encompassing applicable federal statutes and regulations that govern OTAs.

Offerors are directed to the appendices in The Other Transaction Guide for Prototype Projects, dated January 2017, for further guidance.

30. Question: Per 2.2.1.2.3, we understand LCAAP can be used as a subcontractor. Is an offeror limited to LCAAP as a subcontractor for classified and unclassified LAP capability? Or can the offeror identify another potential subcontractor?

Response: No, an offeror is not limited to LCAAP and may identify other potential subcontractors.

31. Comment: Per 2.3.2.4, we understand “release of ANY information associated with this project to ANY Government or private individual, firm, or business is prohibited without the express written approval of the Agreement Officer. Further, product(s) or product information shall not be marketed, displayed, or discussed at any trade show, symposium, or through any other medium without the express written approval of the Agreement Officer”. Could the Government please consider providing a list of approved parties/categories, relaxing some of this requirement, and/or designating an individual to be available 24/7 to address requests? It is our experience that high ranking military officials and congressional delegations frequently request information at trade shows, symposiums and other events, without advanced notice, and expect answers on programmatic details. It is typically a benefit to the Program and Program office for these individuals to speak directly to industry to get the requested/required programmatic support (i.e attention, funding, timelines, resources etc).

Response: Noted. We will take that into advisement.

32. Question: Per 2.3.13 and Section 5, we understand that “Future ammunition may be classified (SECRET) and may require facilities and personnel capable of handling classified (SECRET)”. If a contractor does not currently have SECRET clearance, is the Government able to help facilitate and fast track the process in order to allow the contractor to participate in the Program? Or relax timelines for a contractor without SECRET clearance to allow for participation? Otherwise, due to the rigorous timeline of this Program (30 days from award), it seems only current SECRET facilities/contractors, or those using LCAAP as a subcontractor, can successful participate, reducing overall competition.

Response: The Government may facilitate but may not be able to “fast track” the SECRECT clearance needed. We understand not all Offerors may have this capability. However to even the playing field so to speak, LCAAP will be offered as a subcontractor. Note: SECRET facilities are not required for this PON and will only be required for the Follow-on Production Award. This gives vendors approximately two years to plan for SECRET clearance at their facilities or make other arrangements.

33. Question: Per 3.4.3, we understand that “SLAs for the NGSW-Weapons and NGSW- Ammunition Data shall (…) Include conditions for the Government to receive Unlimited Rights to the data”. In that per 3.4.6.4, cost share is not a mandatory requirement. We believe 3.4.3 puts any company funding their own development (i.e. not a cost share) at a disadvantage in that the only way to recoup expenses associated with development (IP) is to embed those costs in the price of the system, raising the overall cost to the Government, either through a cost share expense or a more expensive product.

Response: Offerors may choose to cost share or not. Regardless Offerors can propose whatever license terms and conditions they want (i.e. a lump sum amount, a royalty fee, or some other mechanism) to recoup their development cost.

34. Question: How does the Government intend to evaluate cost sharing verses not cost sharing submissions “to allow the Government to make a best value assessment of the Offeror’s proposal” (SOW 3.3)? We understand how evaluated price will be calculated (4.6) but how does this relate to best value in light of cost share?

Response: Cost sharing is not evaluated only in the sense of meeting the statutory conditions at 10 U.S.C. 2371b paragraph d, where Offerors must meet at least one of the following conditions to be considered for an award:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses, nontraditional defense contractors, or nonprofit research institutions.

(C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than other than the Federal Government.

The total evaluated price is evaluated as stated. However when funding the total evaluated price and cost share is applicable, at least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

35. Question: Per 4.5, we understand “the SLAs will be evaluated based on the reasonableness of the cost/affordability, minimum quantity to be procured, period of time, and/or other conditions required for Government Purpose Rights and Unlimited Rights”. How does the Government intend to weigh and evaluate cost sharing verses not cost sharing as it pertains to Factor 3 – Special License Agreements? Will the Government consider any compensation (cost share) apart from cost/affordability of the SLA in the rating determination? i.e. will any consideration be given to companies that develop IP at their own expense without any financial assistance from the Government and have more stringent terms and conditions?

Response: Cost share is not an evaluating factor rather an eligibility requirement for this PON.

See question 35 response. The SLAs will be rated in accordance with PON section 4.3 Rating Definitions.

36. Question: Per Question 2 posted on October 4 and the NGSAR PON W15QKN-18-R-01UR section 1.3 Acquisition Approach, we understand this PON (W15QKN19Z042P) is to serve as the “Future Follow-On System Integration Prototype Project” for PON W15QKN-18-R-01UR.

Could the Government please confirm? If that is in fact the case, could the Government please confirm how the release of this PON relates to the timeline of PON W15QKN-18-R-01UR? i.e.

will the System Demonstrators of PON W15QKN-18-R-01UR receive feedback prior to the release of PON W15QKN19Z042P?

Response: If a final PON is released, it will serve as the “Future Follow-on System Integration Prototype Project” as stated in NGSAR PON W15QKN-18-R-01UR. The release of a final PON will be subjected to availability of funds and new start authority. NGSAR PON W15QKN-18-R- 01UR will complete in late June 2019 but proposals may be due prior to receipt of system demonstrator feedback.

37. Question: Based on the milestone chart in Section 1.3 (page 4 of the draft), the Special License Agreements seem to be anticipated/estimated about 45 days after PT#2. Is this the preferred/expected timeline? If so, that seems to severely limit the conditions required for Government Purpose Rights (3.4.3.1) and Unlimited Rights (3.4.3.2), i.e. it will be very unlikely after 45 days any minimum quantity requirement; and/or meeting a dollar threshold value; and/or waiting for period of time will be met in that no production product will be fielded.

Response: The Special License Agreements must be fully executed 45 days after PT #2. Fully executed means the SLA is signed by both parties. However, the data rights would not become effective until the SLA terms and conditions are met. Any minimum quantity requirement, dollar threshold, waiting period, etc would be expected to be met through the production contract.

38. Question: Based on the milestone chart in Section 1.3 (page 4 of the draft) and 2.3.1.1.1, we understand the TDP for NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, and Ammunition are to be delivered 60 days after PT#2 start. The Government projected the estimated duration of PT#2 to be 6 months per

2.2.2.2 and the milestone chart on page 4, which would mean the TDP would be due 4 months prior to the conclusion of PT#2. Through our experience, the Government can seek/request changes to designs or features as an outcome of testing or evaluation; any changes would impact the TDP causing a redundancy of work. We would suggest the TDP be due a period of time after the conclusion of PT#2 testing to allow for more time to develop the full TDP and so that any changes can be accommodated without causing a duplication of efforts or delaying the Program.

Response: Noted. We will take that into advisement.

39. Question: Per the timeline in 3.1 (page 26 of the draft) and 3.4.7, the Bid Sample Safety Assessment is due 15 days after release of the PON (and 45 days prior to sample due date), meaning the bid samples will essentially have to be ready, tested and have a safety assessment started prior to the PON release. While we appreciate a draft to work towards, until there is final PON with requirements, it is not possible to lock in a design/build in that requirements can change that could impact overall performance/functioning. Could the Government please reconsider this timeline and have the Bid Sample Safety Assessment due concurrently with the bid samples as is typically required? We respect the sense of urgency of this Program but by requiring industry to respond in 15 days, competition will be limited to what is currently available without time for innovation, potentially limiting the quality and performance of the submitted product.

Response: Noted. We will take that into advisement.

40. Question: Bid samples (and training) are due prior to oral presentations and revised final proposals (3.4.8). We understand “Offerors will be provided a list of Government questions and comments prior to their Oral Presentation”, by turning in bid samples prior to oral presentations and potential Government feedback, contractors are locked into a design and are limited in the ability to incorporate potential upgrades or rectify shortcomings, which could potentially lengthen the overall program timeline. Would the Government consider moving the bid sample turn in (and training) to after the oral presentations and revised final proposals to allow for Government feedback to be incorporated into the samples? Doing so would allow greater cooperation between the Government and industry and likely result in a superior product.

Response: Noted. We will take that into advisement.

41. Question: When does the Government intend to release Attachments 7 (STP Controllability), 8 (STP Operational Evaluation), and 11 (Model Other Transaction Agreement), will those be with the final PON or will there be an opportunity review a draft?

Response: Drafts will be released when they are available for comment.

42. Question: Per 3.3, we understand we are to use 8.5 inch by 11 inch page size. Are select 11x17 pages permitted as part of the proposal response? For example, Integrated Master Schedules are typically 11x17” in size, which will make it easier for the Government to read and evaluate as opposed to 8.5x11”.

Response: The IMS shall be submitted in a Microsoft Office Project 2013 file and does not count towards the page limit. The IMS does not need to follow the proposal’s written section format (i.e. 12-point Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins on 8.5 inch by 11 inch page size) and may be submitted in 11 inch by 17 inch size.

43. Question: We understand Appendices are not permitted. However, would the Government prefer the Capability Matrix be included as an Appendix? This will allow the document to remain in Excel format as required (as opposed to being embedded in a PDF or Word Document if included in the proposal volume).

Response: The Offeror shall provide a completed Capability Matrix (Attachment 13 – Capability Matrix; does not count towards page limit), in Excel 2013 format, of its proposed threshold requirements for weapons and the ammunition. The Capability Matrix shall not be changed or modified otherwise. Since this is requested by the Government, it may be submitted as an appendix or as an attachment.

44. Question: Since the ammunition will be interchangeable between NGSW-R (proposal Section 2, Factor 1) and NGSW-AR (proposal Section 3, Factor 2), where should it be discussed in the proposal (SOW 3.4)? Should we limit the discussion to just one Factor, or include in both Factors 1 and 2?

Response: Offerors shall not assume information submitted in one area of the evaluation will be considered in other areas of the evaluation. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize information submitted in one area of the evaluation in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion.

45. Question: Per section 3.4.2 sub-factor 2, we understand that the Capability Matrix itself is not page limited. Is the substantiating data required with the Matrix page limited?

Response: The Capability Matrix substantiating data will be included in the combined page limit of 100 pages.

46. Question: Is the substantiating data required as part of Sub-Factor 3 included within the 100 page limit?

Response: Yes, the substantiating data required for Sub-Factor 3 is included in the combined page limit of 100 pages.

47. Question: Would the Government accept referring to substantiating data provided as part of Sub-Factor 2 to satisfy the requirements in Sub-Factor 3? Or is it the Government’s intent for the data to be in both Sub-Factors 2 and 3?

Response: Offerors shall not assume information submitted in one area of the evaluation will be considered in other areas of the evaluation. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize information submitted in one area of the evaluation in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion.

48. Question: Are Basis of Estimates (BOEs) required with the proposal?

Response: No, Basis of Estimates are not required with the proposal.

49. Question: Should the IMS include the first of any regularly recurring delivery?

Response: No, regular recurring deliveries do not need to be included.

50. Question: With regard to the Monte Carlo simulation, what is a “three point estimate?”

Response: The three-point estimation technique is for the construction of an approximate probability distribution representing the outcome of future events utilizing an optimistic estimate, a most likely estimate, and a pessimistic estimate.

51. Question: Since there may be a difference between weapons submitted for PT#1 and PT#2, is the Offeror permitted to change proposed threshold requirements submitted as part of the proposal prior to PT#1 and/or PT#2?

Response: An Offeror’s proposed threshold requirements will become the OTA’s threshold requirements. Changes to the OTA’s threshold requirements (as well as other within scope changes) are permitted through negotiations with the Government. Different threshold requirements may be proposed in the follow-on production solicitation.

52. Question: Is the Offeror required to submit a risk management plan as part of the proposal?

Response: No, the Offeror is not required to submit a risk management plan as part of the proposal.

53. Question: Is it the Government’s intent for Offerors to provide a separate IMS for the NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, and Ammunition?

Response: The Offeror shall provide a separate IMS for the NGSW-R and the NGSW-AR.

Both weapon schedules shall include Ammunition development.

54. Question: Is a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) required as part of the proposal submission?

Response: Yes, reference DRAFT PON section 2.3.2.5.

55. Question: Using Attachment 4, GFM Projectile delivery dates, and the notional timeline to OTA award on page 26 of the Draft PON, a formal NSGW PON RFP could be released as early as February 2019 to award OTAs prior to initiating GFM deliveries. Is it the Government’s intention to issue the NSGW PON RFP prior to completion of the existing NGSAR OTA awards?

Response: The NGSW PON is independent of the NGSAR OTAs. The release of a final PON will be subjected to availability of funds and new start authority.

56. Question: The overall length requirement states that the measurement will be taken with the stock fully collapsed. If weapon architecture provides a folding stock solution, will overall length be measured with the stock folded?

Response: No, the overall length will not be measured with the stock folded.

57. Question: Is suppressor length measured as an overall length for the stand alone suppressor, itself? Or is the suppressor length the length the suppressor adds to the firearm when attached?

Response: Thank you. The Government will clarify the measurement of the suppressor length and the relationship to overall weapon length.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

58. Question: Will flash measurements be performed according to the Draft NGSW-AR PON Test Plan in that the test will account for the first round “pop”? Method taken from the Draft Test Plan is as follows:

“Flash measurements for first shot will be made for single shot data. Flash for last shot will be measured from 5 round burst (this allows for first round “pop” in the suppressor influence to be negated). Flash will also be recorded with an open shutter digital camera to the side and down range of the weapon.”

Response: The DRAFT Test Plan for NGSAR PON W15QKN-18-R-01UR is not applicable to NGSW PON W15QKN19Z042P. Refer to Attachment 14 – Bid Sample Test Overview and Attachment 9 – Prototype Test Outline for NGSW testing information.

59. Question: Is the barrel accuracy requirement of 4MOA – 1MOA expected to be maintained throughout the weapon’s barrel life (5,000 – 10,000 rounds), or is accuracy expected to shift with the number of rounds fired? It is our experience that barrel accuracy will decrease as round count increases.

Response: Thank you. The Government will clarify the barrel life goal.

60. Question: Flash hider and suppressor life requirement states “between barrel life equivalent and 25,000 rounds.” Please confirm the Government expects 25,000 rounds to be the maximum flash hider and suppressor life expectancy.

Response: Some additional favorable consideration will be assessed for proposed requirements above the higher range, but only to the extent that it provides additional military utility.

61. Question: Is suppressor point of impact shift expected to remain between 2MOA and 1MOA throughout the life of the barrel flash hider and suppressor, or does the Government expect point of impact shift to increase with round count? It is our experience that point of impact shift will significantly increase after severe firing schedules and will continue to increase as round count increases.

Response: Thank you. The Government will clarify the point of impact shift goal.

(End as of October 28, 2018)