NGSW_Industry_Questions_&_Comments_62_-_89.pdf

Next Generation Squad Weapons: Industry’s Questions & Comments

(Start as of October 29, 2018)

62. Question: Per 2.3.9.6, we understand “The Contractor shall not use cadmium, tungsten, tungsten alloys, hexavalent chromium, or other highly toxic or carcinogenic materials without Government approval”. Tungsten, tungsten alloys, and hexavalent chromium are all commonly used in modern firearms manufacturing. Tungsten and tungsten alloys are commonly used in coatings to provide environmental protection, (specifically Diamond-Like Carbon, DLC) and buffer tubes. Hexavalent chromium is used to chrome barrels in order to provide corrosion protection and increase durability. At what point does the Government require approval (i.e. bid sample, PT#1, PT#2, OTA award?), and does the Government intend to approve these materials?

If unapproved, how does that impact any previous testing, performance specifications or design changes to accommodate removal of these materials? We would recommend changing the requirement from “approval” to “notification”.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Government is still looking into these requirements. Specific guidance will be provided in the final PON.

63. Question: I would like to start the process for secret clearance for facility and personnel, since the NGSW obviously has aspects that require this. Can the Government point me in the right direction?

Response: In order to begin the process, a contractor must have a legitimate need for access to classified information in connection with a US Government requirement. Once this requirement has been established, a facility may be sponsored for a Facility Security Clearance by the Government Contracting Activity. The Defense Security Service Facility Clearance Branch website provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding the process (reference website http://www.dss.mil/isp/fac_clear/fac_clear.html).

64. Question: In Attachment 3 – Ammunition Data, the desired muzzle velocity goal is different than the desired muzzle velocity in Attachment 13 – Capability Matrix. Which one is correct?

Response: Thank you. The desired muzzle velocity in Attachment 13 – Capability Matrix is correct. Attachment 3 – Ammunition Data will be updated to reflect this in the final PON.

65. Question: The DD Form 2345 in the Draft PON is an outdated one, should I look for a newer version online, or is the old one fine?

Response: Thank you. Please use the new version, which can be found at the Joint Certification Program site:

http://www.dla.mil/HQ/InformationOperations/Offers/Products/LogisticsApplications/JCP.aspx Also listed are DD Form 2345 Instructions if you need more information in completing the form.

66. Question: In reference to Attachment 13 - Capability Matrix - Dispersion (Fired from a Test Fixture), what fixture will be used for dispersion testing and/or how will the weapon be supported during firing?

Response: The dispersion test shall be conducted with the weapon in a Universal Mount, molded to fit the weapon. The Government will provide additional information on the Universal Mount in the final PON.

67. Question: In reference to Attachment 13 - Capability Matrix - Ammunition Weight, could the Government consider extending the maximum weight due to fluctuation in propellants and materials?

Response: The Government does not intend to change the Ammunition Weight. Desired capabilities that are presented as a range, reflect a lower and higher capability in that order.

Offerors can propose within and outside the range. Within the range, more favorable consideration will be assessed for great capability. Outside the range, significantly less favorable consideration will be provided for proposed requirements below the lower range, and some additional favorable consideration will be assessed for proposed requirements above the higher range, but only to the extent it provides additional military utility.

68. Question: We believe the Power and Data Rail requirement referenced in Attachment 13 - Capability Matrix should be eliminated from this PON effort. Will the Government please remove the Power and Data Rail requirement of this PON?

Response: No, the Government will not remove the Power and Data Rail Desired Goal.

Vendors are encouraged to submit the weapon design which best addresses the Government’s goals considering the tiered capabilities, the timeline, and funding availability. The Government is aware there is trade space in the Desired Goals and proposed solutions may not provide/ achieve all desired goals.

69. Question: Alternatively, if the Government cannot remove the Power and Data Rail requirement of this PON; could the Government simplify the requirement so to include a data transfer point, which could be incorporated into the system(s) (on the forend, rail, buttstock, or pistol grip) to provide power and data transfer at a future date when the technology is proven and available? We would strongly encourage the simplified power and data rail adaptation be included as Phase II require as to not hinder the weapon development and performance objectives.

Response: The Government will not simplify the requirement to include a data transfer point.

Vendors are encouraged to submit the weapon design which best addresses the Government’s goals considering the tiered capabilities, the timeline, and funding availability. The Government is aware there is trade space in the Desired Goals and proposed solutions may not provide/ achieve all desired goals.

70. Question: Alternatively, if the Government cannot remove or simplify the Power and Data Rail requirement of this PON and will require a powered rail in Phase I; could the Government please identify a preferred Power and Data Rail?

Response: No, the Government will not identify a particular materiel solution. Vendors are encouraged to submit the weapon design which best addresses the Government’s goals considering the tiered capabilities, the timeline, and funding availability.

71. Question: In reference to Attachment 3 - Ammunition Data’s General Purpose Projectile requirements, does the Government intend to maintain the same envelope for the General Purpose Projectile as the Surrogate? The General Purpose Projectile concept is pushing the maximum envelope of our current system, which was designed around the surrogate. If the maximum overall envelop General Purpose Projectile changes, it will greatly impact overall design parameters; significantly altering development.

Response: Yes, the Government intends to maintain the same envelope for the General Purpose Projectile as described in Attachment 3 – Ammunition Data.

72. Question: Please explain the rationale for the substantially reduced velocity requirement from Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) Prototype Opportunity Notice (PON) to this draft Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) PON.

Response: Attachment 13 – Capability Matrix presents the Governments desired goals for this effort. Vendors are encouraged to submit the weapon design which best addresses the Government’s goals considering the tiered capabilities, the timeline, and funding availability.

73. Question: If an offeror from the NGSAR PON demonstrates velocities that exceed the draft NGSW PON velocity requirement, will that be considered in the evaluation? Please explain.

Response: Desired capabilities that are presented as a range, reflect a lower and higher capability in that order. Offerors can propose within and outside the range. Within the range, more favorable consideration will be assessed for great capability. Outside the range, significantly less favorable consideration will be provided for proposed requirements below the lower range, and some additional favorable consideration will be assessed for proposed requirements above the higher range, but only to the extent it provides additional military utility.

74. Question: Are contractors/contractor teams able to attend Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) testing?

Response: In general, Contractors will not be able to attend testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground unless explicitly invited by the Government to witness a particular event. Candidate systems will likely be tested side by side. In order to protect Contractor design performance from other vendors, the Government will restrict access to test events.

75. Question: Is there a benefit to utilizing Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) as the load, assemble, pack (LAP) provider, from a technology transition and implementation aspect?

Please explain why or why not.

Response: No additional consideration will be provided for utilizing LCAAP as the LAP provider in this effort. The potential benefit of utilizing operator at LCAAP may include insight and lessons learned from higher-rate ammunition manufacturing, including manufacturability and reliability.

76. Question: How would utilizing LCAAP as the LAP provider be considered in the evaluation criteria?

Response: The current contractor running LCAAP would be seen as a subcontractor and would be considered and treated the same as all other subcontractors in the evaluation criteria.

77. Question: What is the time and cost expectation for transitioning the manufacture of next generation ammunition to LCAAP?

Response: The Government will begin planning the transition of ammunition from the Vendor to LCAAP upon selection of a final cartridge design based on the agreement in the Special License Agreement (SLA). Aside from the SLA terms and conditions, the Government anticipates it will take up to five years to fully transition from a Vendor production to LCAAP.

78. Question: What is the meaning and expectation of, “Contractor support package shall consist of: c. support and participation in Scoring Conference for Prototype Test (PT) #1 and PT#2.”?

Response: Vendors shall provide personnel to participate in the scoring conference to define incidents/events that occur during testing for use in the analysis of NGSW reliability. The scoring process involves the classification of each incident/event based on the impact of the NGSW operational performance/functionality followed by charging the incident to a particular source in order to identify root causes. The root causes can help explain which events are chargeable to reliability calculations.

79. Question: Because the United States Government (USG) will not provide energetic materials, will awardees be able to procure propellants common to USG small caliber ammunition?

Response: Most energetic materials common to USG small caliber ammunition are commercially available and vendors can purchase or subcontract these materials. The Government will not be involved in providing or procuring propellant.

80. Question: Will the required Reliability Growth Plan, structured to mature the system’s reliability through finding failures and fixing them during the development of the system, be supported with USG funding?

Response: The NGSW Prototype Opportunity Notice will be awarded as a fixed amount to include all PON efforts including the Reliability Growth Plan.

81. Question: Is the contractor expected to self-fund scale-up to meet ammunition production requirements or will the USG fund or cost-share? If self-funding is expected, what options does the contractor have if it is unable to self-fund?

Response: The NGSW Prototype Opportunity Notice will be awarded as a fixed amount to include all PON efforts including the delivery of ammunition as defined on Attachment 2 – Delivery Schedule. The cost of scale-up can be amortized across the cost of the ammunition delivery orders. Milestone payments and lump sum payments for SLAs may also be utilized.

The Government may consider adding a production set-up line item in the follow-on production contract so not to amortize the cost over the deliverables.

82. Question: Would transferring the next generation ammunition technology to LCAAP be funded under the NGSW effort, or would it be contracted separately, perhaps as an Army

Ammunition Plant modernization project? If contracted separately, are the contracting mechanism and timeline(s) planned, at least in a draft?

Response: The transfer of the next generation ammunition technology to LCAAP is not specifically included in this effort and will be planned as a separate activity. Planning has been initiated but the transition plan will be dependent upon the Special License Agreement terms and conditions.

83. Question: Is it preferred for awardees’ ammunition to utilize the USG projectile during PTs rather than a surrogate projectile?

Response: The NGSW effort will utilize both the USG General Purpose and Surrogate Projectiles during Prototype Testing. Please see Attachment 9 Prototype Test Outline provides details on the quantity and projectile type used in each test.

84. Question: Are bids samples for NGSW PON expected to be the same end deliverables from the NGSAR PON? If no, please explain.

Response: No, the Government has no expectation that the NGSAR PON end deliverable will be used as bid samples for the NGSW PON. Vendors are encouraged to submit the weapon design which best addresses the Government’s goals considering the tiered capabilities, the timeline, and funding availability.

85. Question: Is there potential for awards solely for ammunition, regardless of the weapon? If yes, please explain the solicitation and award process. Would this occur under the NGSW PON solicitation or something different?

Response: No, the Government intends up to award 3 OTAs to develop Next Generation Squad Weapons utilizing a systems approach to develop the NGSW-R, the NGSW-AR and 6.8mm ammunition common to both weapons.

86. Question: Would the USG consider having a next generation ammunition supplier offer its ammunition to multiple weapon providers (NGSW-Rifle and/or NGSW-Automatic Rifle) as a non-team member, perhaps as a separate type of award, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), other? Rationale - if a next generation ammunition subsystem can meet requirements across multiple weapon systems, it could provide a significant cost and time savings or other optimization to the USG.

Response: No, the Government intends up to award 3 OTAs to develop Next Generation Squad Weapons utilizing a systems approach to develop the NGSW-R, the NGSW-AR and 6.8mm ammunition common to both weapons.

87. Question: With the potential for the USG to award two weapon systems to two offerors (an NGSW-Rifle to one offeror and an NGSW-Automatic Rifle to another offeror) would ammunition providers have the opportunity for an award to redesign its ammunition for the specific weapons of the two offerors?

Response: No, if the Government awards separate production contracts for the NGSW-Rifle and the NGSW-Automatic Rifle, each production contract would include the ammunition developed for the particular weapon. In this unlikely scenario, we would no longer maintain the common cartridge requirement.

88. Question: Understanding that there are several ongoing or potential next generation ammunition projects/programs, what is the impact from inter-relationships and dependencies?

Example: If the Lightweight Small Caliber Ammunition (LSCA) Program down-selects to Technology A, what would be the impact upon Technology A for the NGSW program (Positive Impact, No Impact, Negative Impact, Other)? Could there be an opportunity for collaboration or leverage of synergies across programs? Please explain. With NGSAR/NGSW weapon system expected to become a program of record, what is the expectation for an ammunition-specific program of record? Please explain.

Response: There are no interrelationships or dependencies. The NGSW is a developing ammunition specifically designed for operation in the NGSW-R and the NGSW-AR. This is independent of the other programs that are or may be explored by the Government in existing calibers.

89. Question: Does the USG desire future flexibility and potential velocity improvements from a base NGSW ammunition technology? Please explain. Example: If future changes in terminal performance are desired, it may not be feasible for all ammunition technologies to achieve increases in velocity, pressure, etc. It seems that proof of capability improvement and optimization (weight, performance, other) should be considered in the evaluation factors, especially now that the velocity requirements have been substantially reduced.

Response: Vendors are encouraged submit the weapon and ammunition design which best addresses the Government’s goals considering the tiered capabilities, the timeline, and funding availability. Desired capabilities that are presented as a range, reflect a lower and higher capability in that order. Offerors can propose within and outside the range. Within the range, more favorable consideration will be assessed for great capability. Outside the range, significantly less favorable consideration will be provided for proposed requirements below the lower range, and some additional favorable consideration will be assessed for proposed requirements above the higher range, but only to the extent it provides additional military utility.

(End as of November 6, 2018)