NGSW_Industry_Questions_&_Comments_90_-_151_Part_1.pdf

Next Generation Squad Weapons: Industry’s Questions & Comments

(Start as of November 7, 2018)

90. Question: Can I share the Limited Distribution Data with foreign vendors or other vendors?

Response: No. Any partners, subcontractors, foreign, and other vendors shall submit the required documentation to the following individuals:

Corey Woodson Agreements Specialist Email: corey.w.woodson.civ@mail.mil Phone: 973-724-2712

Travis James Agreements Officer Email: travis.t.james2.civ@mail.mil Phone: 973-724-4591

The following foreign countries have an ITAR exemption:

Austria Belgium Canada Finland Germany Israel Italy Norway United Kingdom

Additional countries, if approved, may be added by request. Submit your request to the points of contact identified above.

91. Question: If a contractor includes power and data rail in their solution does the battery weight from the power and data rail count against the weapon weight?

Response: No.

92. Question: Since Squad Fire Control is now a separate effort, will you be providing weapon interface specifications?

Response: The interface specifications are captured in MIL-STD-1913 for the Picatinny Rail and the NATO Standard STANAG-4740 for powered rail.

93. Question: Is 100,000 close combat service personnel for DoD or Army only?

Response: The 100,000 Close Combat Force personnel are for Army only.

94. Question: Is USMC on board with the Army on the new process under 804 or will they choose to go Joint Capability Integration Development System (JCIDS)?

Response: This effort is for Army only with coordination with other services including USMC.

The Army does not direct USMC requirements.

95. Question: Is the JCIDS requirement parallel to PON? If not, will that allow a non PON submission during PON 2?

Response: The development of the JCIDS requirement for the NGSW will be conducted in parallel with this PON and updated with the results. The JCIDS will not be a separate PON effort; it is a requirements document.

96. Question: Does the Government have any preliminary case data for NGSW legacy ammunition type design that they would share in an “Example Scenario” only?

Response: There is no NGSW legacy ammunition. Any Government 6.8mm caliber designs will be provided to Industry when available.

97. Question: Did the Government do any preliminary case development that could be shared with Industry as a whole?

Response: Preliminary case development information is currently available to Industry.

Reference FBO announcement W15QKN-18-X-0399 at https://www.fbo.gov/notices/379f13e0ad87304ab848bc8a86cd072f

98. Question: Is the Berry Amendment/Trade Agreement Act or Buy America Act applicable to this PON?

Response: It depends. Funding restrictions may determine if the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.

10a-d) and the Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. 2241) apply to this PON. However, the follow-on production award is anticipated to be a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract award. In FAR based contracts, the Buy America Act and Berry Amendment would be applicable; however, for the DoD the Buy America Act includes DoD Qualifying countries (reference DFARS 225.872 Contracting with qualifying country sources).

99. Question: Is the only time for a company to provide prototypes for the NGSW is at Bid Sample Test (BST)? Will no other time be accepted once BST starts? Is this specific to an OTA (804 authority)?

Response: Reference PON section 3.1, “To be considered for award, a proposal submission should include a written section, Bid Samples, and an oral presentation to be conducted at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. A proposal submission that does not include a written section and Bid Samples will not be evaluated and will be eliminated from the competition.” Late submissions will not be accepted.

https://www.fbo.gov/notices/379f13e0ad87304ab848bc8a86cd072f

OTAs are not specific to 804 authority. Reference PON section 1.4, “’Other Transaction for Prototype Projects’ refers to this type of OTA. This type of OTA is authorized by 10 U.S.C.

2371b for prototype projects…”

100. Question: Can you provide the Lake City point of contract?

Response: A Lake City point of contact will be provided in the final PON.

101. Question: Are the weapon lengths, for desired capabilities, measured without the suppressor?

Response: Weapon Lengths are measured without the suppressor.

102. Questions: Is the suppressor intended to be used on the weapon as the rule or as the exception? Which, if either, will be more common, suppressor on or suppressor off?

Response: The weapons are intended to be used primarily with the suppressor on.

103. Question: Is the flash signature base of comparison the M249/M4A1 as they are now, with the current muzzle attachments/compensators?

Response: Yes, the flash signature based in the M249 short barrel and the M4A1 firing M855A1.

104. Question: The cartridge design will require a new cartridge with its own safety test requirements. Can 270WSM be used in the Bid Sample with the understanding that the cartridge and therefore the prototype, will change slightly?

Response: Yes. The bid sample is not required to be the final configuration. The proposal will need to discuss the changes between the bid sample and the proposed final configuration.

105. Question: Does LCAAP have a cartridge design developed (with safety report) which meets the government's requirements? Can I get POC information for LCAAP in the short term, to allow for early cartridge design?

Response: No, LCAAP does not have a cartridge designed for the 6.8mm projectile.

106. Question: Can I get an example safety report? Are there any agencies, government or private, that you could refer me to, who could assist in completing the required safety report?

Response: See MIL-STD-882E and DI-SAFT-80102C for guidelines on developing a SAR.

107. Question: Can we get enough surrogate projectiles to LAP, test, and provide with the Bid Sample?

Response: Surrogate projectiles for the Bid Sample will be the responsibility of the Offeror and will not be provided by the Government.

108. Question: Can the Government sign NDAs so we can reserve the ability to patent our IP internationally?

Response: Reference PON Section 6, “ACC-NJ policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information, and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation.”

Offeror’s IP rights will be stated in the proposed SLAs. The Government does not plan on signing Offeror’s NDAs.

109. Comment: I think suppressors should be left out of the NGSW PON like the fire control units seem to have been. The suppressor requirement adds an extra layer of difficulty where the suppressor of a high performing prototype may be less functional than the suppressor of a low performing prototype and it would be better for the government to consider suppressors separately and at least not weigh suppressor performance.

Response: Thank you for the comment; however, these are the desired capabilities by the User.

110. Question: Prior to the first and second tests, I think that weighing error rates on functions that are sure to be improved during later phases may lead the government passing over what could be better weapons. Getting the geometries for feeding mechanisms and systems right is one example of a challenging and costly task in prototyping.

Response: Thank you. We will take this into consideration for the final NGSW PON.

111. Question: So far, I'm under the impression that the government will be supplying it's 6.8mm ammo to the 3 selected vendors, unless the vendor opted to create 6.8 ammo of their own design. Is this correct? Is surrogate ammo as referenced in the Draft PON the 6.8mm ammo the government will supply for testing?

Response: The Government is only providing 6.8mm projectiles up to three selected vendors for them to LAP ammunition. The 6.8mm referenced in the Draft PON will be supplied to the Awardees for testing.

112. Question: So far, I'm under the impression that the government's 6.8mm ammo will not be physically furnished to interested parties preparing bid samples but that the data of the ammo including dimensions will be. Producing a live fire capable prototype that is ALSO chambered for the governments cartridge is a task better suited in the PON for after being selected and as part of preparing for the first test.

Response: Government provided 6.8mm projectiles will not be provided to Offerors. For Bid Sample Testing, Offerors may propose a different caliber of ammunition for testing. Offerors should highlight the differences in Bid Samples and the proposed designs if any and how the differences will impact the user acceptance risk. Additionally, the system description shall clearly identify all differences between the proposed configurations and the Bid Samples. The impacts should be supported with trade studies, analysis, or other supporting data. Bid Samples that more closely match the proposed designs are more reliable. Bid Samples that vastly differs from the proposed designs undermines the credibility and may discount the validity of the assessment.

113. Question: Is it the Government’s future intent to require the NGSW, as a host weapon, to accept and/or be compatible with the type classified M320 40MM grenade launcher?

Response: Currently, the NGSW is not planned to be compatible with the M320 40MM grenade launcher.

114. Question: Is it the Government’s future intent to require the NGSW, as a host weapon, to accept and/or be compatible with M26 underbarrel shotguns?

Response: Currently, the NGSW is not planned to be compatible with the M26 underbarrel shotguns.

115. Question: UPDATE TO QUESTION 62: 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: Government approval to use cadmium, tungsten, tungsten alloys, hexavalent chromium, or other highly toxic or carcinogenic materials in the design should be secured as soon as possible, but no later than PT1 and/or updated as necessary for PT2. Government Approval will be based on the rigor of the Contractors analysis of alternatives and the analysis results that justify the material selection.

116. Question: In relation to Attachment 13- Capability Matrix, Tier I Accuracy and Dispersion requirements, would the Government consider increasing the automatic extreme spread of the

NGSW-R?

Response: Thank you for the comment; however, these are the desired capabilities by the User.

117. Question: Is there a small business point of contact that can help with networking, contract questions, and other opportunities?

Response: The small business point of contact is:

Gherin Fracasso Director Office of Small Business

JM&L LCMC

Bldg # 1610 Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 P# 973-724-2775 gherin.fracasso.civ@mail.mil

118. Question: The dollar amounts provided on Attachment 17 – NGSW Pricing spreadsheet, was that for total program among three awards or individual?

Response: The FY Available Funds per line item numbers 0001, 0002, and 0003 are per award, not the total for all three.

119. Question: Transitioned to FAR based contract, when do you intend for that to occur?

Response: The transition to an expected FAR based contract is planned for the follow-on production award and is after the three OTA awards.

120. Question: For release of RFP for follow-on contract, is the RFP geared toward top three vendors coming out of PT2?

Response: Only the vendors who receive an OTA award from the NGSW PON are eligible to compete in the follow-on production contract award, which will come after PT 1 and PT2.

121. Question: Is the muzzle velocity measured with the surrogate projectile?

Response: Yes.

122. Question: Are there plans for a tracer round?

Response: There are no plans for a tracer round at this time.

123. Question: Will projectile need AA&E storage requirements?

Response: Yes, AA&E needs to be stored in accordance with DOD Directive 5100.76-M, which outlines physical security guidance for the protection of DOD Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunition, and/or Explosives.

124. Question: Original FBO announcement used standard requirements language but current one doesn’t. Will we retain current format or revert back to standard requirements language?

Response: The final NGSW PON will maintain the current DRAFT NGSW PON format;

however, the Government reserves the right to use the Joint Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS) or another format.

125. Question: How do we define lethality?

Response: Lethality is defined through the desired goals of the muzzle velocity and dispersion.

126. Question: Why isn’t muzzle velocity tier 1?

Response: The capability matrix (to include muzzle velocity) developed by the Government reflects the introduction of the NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, and common cartridge and provides industry trade-space to optimize the NGSW program desired goals. The Government is considering all input from Industry Day and One-on-Ones to improve the PON and other required documents.

127. Question: Muzzle velocity should be tier 1. Soldiers are only going to see/feel weight but not lethality.

Response: The capability matrix (to include muzzle velocity) developed by the Government reflects the introduction of the NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, and common cartridge and provides industry trade-space to optimize the NGSW program desired goals. The Government is considering all input from Industry Day and One-on-Ones to improve the PON and other required documents.

128. Question: Besides Power and data rail, are there other sensor and charging capabilities required?

Response: No, however the Government is looking into providing more favorable consideration for increased capabilities of military utility that are not included in the capability matrix.

129. Question: Do we have to use a previously awarded rail system or open ended?

Response: Offerors are allowed to propose any rail systems.

130. Question: Is muzzle velocity is a hard requirement?

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

131. Question: Can we provide threshold and objective for muzzle velocity?

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.

132. Question: Common cartridge performs the same for both systems but at different muzzle velocities? Why are the muzzle velocities different?

Response: The NGSW-R and NGSW-AR have different capabilities which will affect the muzzle velocity goal for each weapon. The NGSW-R and NGSW-AR have different roles within the squad which result in different desired capabilities.

133. Question: Is the safety release required at the point of Bid Sample Testing?

Response: Safety Assessment Report is needed for the firing event in the User Acceptance.

134. Question: Are changes allowed between PT2 and first delivery order?

Response: In order to meet fielding schedule, the design configuration at PT2 cannot be changed. Any changes would have to be retested which will impact the fielding schedule.

135. Question: How do we define suppression and how will it be assessed?

Response: Reference Attachment 14 – Bid Sample Test Overview, section 2.12 Weapon Signature (Flash) on page 12 and section 2.13 Acoustic Signature on page 12 for definitions of suppression.

136. Question: During user acceptance, how will we eliminate confirmation bias?

Response: During user acceptance a broad range of users (experienced and inexperienced) with weapon and operational expertise will evaluate the weapons. Additionally a different set of users will be utilized for each weapon so the users cannot compare weapons.

137. Question: AMRDEC Safe site may be offline permanently. What is our backup plan for transmitting materials?

Response: ARMDEC-SAFE site continues to be down. ACC-NJ has been utilizing ARL-SAFE site to transmit materials. Additionally unmarked documents may be sent through email.

138. Question: Are weapons expected to pass drop test?

Response: Yes, the weapons will be expected to pass a drop test.

139. Question: Is compatibility with other ammunition types of value to the Government?

Response: The Government is looking into providing more favorable consideration for increased capabilities of military utility that are not included in the capability matrix.

140. Question: How do over barrels suppressors play into the gun and suppressor lengths?

Response: The final PON will detail the length requirements for over barrel suppressors.

141. Question: What is the repeatability of the suppressor point of impact shift?

Response: The final PON will detail the test procedures for the repeatability of the suppressor point of impact shift.

142. Question: Is bore sighting required with the suppressor?

Response: Yes, bore sighting is required for both suppressed and without the suppressor.

143. Question: How will the Government aim the weapons for controllability?

Response: The Government is planning on using a GFP fire control for PT2. Prior to PT2 the Government is planning on using the M68 Close Combat Optic, M150 Rifle Combat Optic, and/or iron sites.

144. Question: Can an Offeror submit one rifle or automatic rifle for two proposals?

Response: Yes, an Offeror can submit one rifle or automatic rifle for two proposals so long as the written proposals are separate. For example, Offeror A submits proposal X and proposal Y with the same rifle and two different automatic rifles. The Government will use the evaluation of the rifle for both proposal X and Y. However both proposals shall be independent of each other where information in proposal X will not be used in proposal Y and vise-a-versa.

145. Question: Would one weapon system configuration be acceptable for both NGSW-R and

NGSW-AR?

Response: Yes, one weapon configuration may be submitted for both the NGSW-R and NGSW- AR; however, two weapons are needed as each will go through different test events.

146. Question: Can an Offeror still sell their designs with the SLAs?

Response: Yes, the Offeror can still sell their designs so long as Offerors follow the applicable rules and regulations. The SLAs allow the Government to compete their designs. The Government provided projectiles may not be sold; however, a vendor developed projectile may be designed and sold with the same cartridge.

147. Question: Is 210 rounds the intended load for the NGSW-AR or for evaluation only?

Response: No, the 210 rounds is the intended load for the NGSW-AR.

148. Question: Does the Government have a preference for a traditional or bullpup weapon?

Response: No, the Government does not have a preference for a traditional or bullpup weapon.

149. Question: Have we considered future growth plan?

Response: The Government is looking into providing more favorable consideration for increased capabilities of military utility that are not included in the capability matrix.

150. Question: Is the schedule tied to funding?

Response: Yes, funding needs to be appropriated by Congress. The final PON issue date is still scheduled for January 2019.

151. Question: Why did the Government choose 6.8mm caliber instead of leaving it open?

Response: The 6.8mm caliber projectile cannot change. A 6.8mm caliber is large enough to achieve Government’s required outcomes whereas a 6.5mm caliber cannot.

(End of Part 1 of 2 as of December 7, 2018)