W15QKN-21-R-0025 Master List 20220121 rev.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 62 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)
- Solicitation number
- W15QKN-21-R-0025
About this file
This is a solicitation for the procurement of Common Remotely Operating Weapon Stations (CROWS). The Army Contracting Command - New Jersey is seeking proposals for new and existing CROWS systems, as well as associated spare parts, kits, conversions, shop and line replaceable units, engineering services, depot labor, field service technician support, and logistics services. The acquisition approach is a full and open competitive hybrid firm fixed price and time and material contract to be awarded to one contractor. Interested parties must complete non-disclosure agreements and comply with International Traffic in Arms Regulations due to export control procedures. The Government anticipates making one award and responses are due by the date specified in the solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Formal Answers
| Date Answered | Section | Question | Answer |
| 1/21/22 | Previous Q&A | Q: Are there any items that the government are currently looking at in terms of obsolescence or end of manufacturing? |
A: The USG has procured last/lifetime buy quantities of components known to be obsolete. The list of parts will be provided with the RFP and the parts will be provided as GFM under this contract.
| QUESTION: We are unable to locate the list of parts that are known to be obsolete and will be provided as GFM. Please provide the obsolescence / GFM list. | The Government will provide the GFM list to the Offerors of all parts the Government is planning to provide for use on this contract. | ||
| 1/21/22 | TDP, Multiple Documents | In our request for pricing from a known CROWS vendor, we received indications that some fabricated parts are potentially from China and Germany. |
QUESTION: Will the government accept quotes and subsequent systems with components sourced from foreign countries, to include China?
| For non-domestic sources please consult the applicable clauses in the RFP. Concerning China, also please consult clause 252.225-7007 and 52.204-25 in the RFP. Please be advised that the CROWS falls in the U.S. munitions list and other restrictions may apply as well. | |||
| 1/21/22 | Revised TDP, issued Dec 16, 2021 | QUESTION: The revised TDP issued December 16 does not clearly delineate the changes made since the original TDP issue. The effort required by interested bidders (other than the OEM) to go through each file in detail and make a comparison to the original files is extensive and do not support the govt’s procurement schedule. We request the Government issue a list of the changes between the original TDP and the revised TDP to promote a level playing field and reduce the overall time required for proposal submission. | Document "TDP Exceptions and Bill of Materials Updated 15 December 2021.xlsx" delivered with the new TDP specifies the additional ECPs/NORs provided with this updated delivery in the tab "ECPs and NORs to Baseline List". The same document also provides new vendor exemptions in tab "Vendor Exemptions". It also provides additional exceptions in tab "Other Exceptions". The exisiting techincal data was not changed, and no other new technical data was provided. Native files of the existing tech data were also added in the revised TDP. |
| 1/21/22 | Original TDP and Revised TDP | Earlier questions identified a number of documents and drawings in languages other than English. The Government responded “No, the Government will not provide the drawing in English” and “No, the Government will not re-issue documents that are currently in a language other than English”. |
QUESTION: Will the Government reimburse Offerors who have the TDP documents translated from their current language to English?
| QUESTION: Our estimate for having critical drawings and documents translated to English is 60-90 days. Should the Government agree to reimburse Offerors for having the TDP documents translated to English, will the Government extend the proposal due date to permit the translation to be complete? | ANSWER: The USG acknowledges that there is a very small percentge of TDP documents that are in a language other than English. However, the few TDP documents in question have enough information, including part number and vendor indentification, that are understandable to any english speaking offeror. The Government will not reimburse Offerors for the translation of these TDP documents and the proposal due date will not be extended past 31 January 2022. | ||
| 1/21/22 | C.3.4.2 First Article Test | It is quite evident that several key vendors and suppliers currently supporting RWS will not provide a quote to Offerors other than the incumbent. The inability to obtain quotes from current vendors and suppliers cause Offerors to identify new sources of supply, issue drawings and technical documents in order to obtain a quote, and then receive a quote. C.3.4.2 states “FAT, or portion thereof, may be ordered by the Contracting Officer in writing when (i) a major change is made to the technical data; (ii) whenever there is a lapse in production or Recapitalization /overhaul for a period in excess of 90 days; or (iii) whenever a change occurs in place of performance, manufacturing process, material used, drawing, specification, or source of supply.” | |
| QUESTION: Will the Government waive the FAT or portion thereof for materials procured from a new source of supply caused by the current sources of supply declining to provide a quote from an Offeror other than the incumbent? | The winning contractor is required to perform an initial FAT regardless of sources of supply, current or new. The minimum guaranteed purchase on this contract is a start of contract First Article Test and spare parts. Section C.3.4.2 applies to the start of contract FAT but also applies to the conduct of the contract. New sources of supply proposed to be introduced by offerors as part of this proposal may be qualified via the start of contract FAT. Any changes in sources of supply during the conduct of the contract shall follow requirements of C.3.4.2 for the duration of the contract. The Government has no intention of waiving the start of contract FAT (minimum order) due to materials procured from a new source of supply. | ||
| 1/21/22 | C.3.4.2 First Article Test and Revised TDP | The revised TDP issued on December 16 comes with some number of SolidWorks files, which is helpful. Because current sources of supply (vendors) will not provide quotes to Offerors other than the incumbent, new sources of supply must be found. Without support from the current the sources of supply Offerors are not able to submit a competitive response to the solicitation. Establishing a viable, competitive supply chain will take 120-180 days. |
QUESTION: Will the Government extend the due date of the solicitation 180 days allowing Offerors to establish new sources of supply?
| The Government does not intend to extend the due date past 31 January 2022. | |||
| 1/21/22 | C.3.4.2 First Article Test | QUESTION: Should award of a contract resulting from the solicitation be made to an Offeror other than the incumbent, will the gov’t remediate the current exclusivity agreements between the OEM and current sources of supply? If remediation of the exclusivity agreements isn’t possible then the awardee will have to identify and qualify new sources of supply, which negatively impacts program risk and cost. | The Government is aware of the risk and cost of qualifying new sources of supply. Of the list of parts provided in earlier vendor questions, most of those parts are either build-to-print or COTS type parts. In the updated ""TDP Exceptions and Bill of Materials Updated 15 December 2021.xlsx" the USG has removed the requirement to use the vendor specified in the TDP for these parts. These parts may be built in-house or procured from any vendor, without requiring an ECP to change vendors. For the remaining parts that have vendors specified in the TDP, all the information required to find alternative sources for these parts is provided in the TDP. |
| 1/21/22 | C.3.4.2 First Article Test | C.3.4.2 states “FAT, or portion thereof, may be ordered by the Contracting Officer in writing when (i) a major change is made to the technical data; (ii) whenever there is a lapse in production or Recapitalization /overhaul for a period in excess of 90 days; or (iii) whenever a change occurs in place of performance, manufacturing process, material used, drawing, specification, or source of supply.” |
QUESTION: Are Offerors to presume new sources of supply are required as a result of current vendors and suppliers declining to provide quotes?
| QUESTION: If Offerors are to presume new sources of supply are required, will the Government amend Attachment 0016 Exhibit B+K Price Matrix Mod 1 permitting Offerors to estimate the cost of FAT for new sources of supply as a separate non-recurring expense? | The minimum guaranteed purchase on this contract is a start of contract First Article Test and spare parts. Section C.3.4.2 applies to the start of contract FAT but also applies to the conduct of the contract. New sources of supply proposed to be introduced by offerors as part of this proposal may be qualified via the start of contract FAT. Any changes in sources of supply during the conduct of the contract shall follow requirements of C.3.4.2 for the duration of the contract. The USG does not intend to amend attachment 0016. | |||
| 1/21/22 | Questions and Answers | In the Q&A response of November 9, the Government, in response to the question “States: Government is looking into resolving any perceived exclusivity agreements. Please provide specific part numbers for the affected parts. In accordance with that direction, attached is Rheinmetall sourcing parts list (BOM-Rheinmetall.xlsx) and the following is the email from the company declining support under a Kongsberg no-compete” replied “The Government has received the list BOM-Rheinmetall.xlsx and will add these parts to the exclusivity resolution effort”. QUESTION: Will the Government provide all Offerors a copy of the exclusive parts, components, sub-assemblies, and assemblies and the source of supply? If so, when will the list be provided? Will the list be provided in sufficient time for Offerors to identify and obtain quotes from new sources of supply prior to the submission of offers? | Of the list of parts with exclusivity issues provided in earlier vendor questions, most of those parts are either build-to-print or COTS type parts. In the updated "TDP Exceptions and Bill of Materials Updated 15 December 2021.xlsx" the USG has removed the requirement to use the vendor specified in the TDP for these parts. These parts may be built in-house or procured from any vendor, without requiring an ECP to change vendors. For the remaining parts that have vendors specified in the TDP, all the information required to find alternative sources for these parts is provided in the TDP. A list of parts with exclusivity issues is not relevant, even if it coud be provided, as offerors can obtain alternate sources with the TDP information provided. As stated above the USG has conducted a through review with regard to the vendor requirements in the TDP, and has determined that the TDP provided is adequate for full and open competition. | |
| 1/21/22 | Section M, Basis for Award | |||
| Section M, Factor 4: COST/PRICE FACTOR | The incumbent, having exclusive agreements with sources of supply, has an inherent competitive advantage in that other Offerors have to establish new sources of supply for parts, components, sub-assemblies, and assemblies. The new sources of supply may be able to provide competitive pricing, however there will be significant non-recurring expenses related to programming, fixturing, tooling, process development, First Article Inspection (FAI) and First Article Testing which increases the overall procurement cost from new sources of supply. | |||
| QUESTION: In the instance of parts, components, sub-assemblies, and assemblies currently provided by sources of supply with exclusive agreement to the incumbent, will the Government provide a plug value for these parts, components, sub-assemblies, and assemblies that all Offerors (including the incumbent) use in developing their offers in Attachment_0016_-_Exhibit B + K Price Matrix Mod 1? | The Government does not intend to amend Attachment 0016 at this time. | |||
| 1/21/22 | Attachment_0016_-_Exhibit+B++K+Price+Matrix Mod 1 | Offerors estimating the cost of testing and FAT for parts, components, sub-assemblies, and assemblies obtained from new sources of supply are currently placed in the tab Exhibit E – FAT, line 14 (LIN 0004 FAT – NonRecurring Cost (NRE)). Mixing this estimate with other NRE costs incurred by Offerors other than the incumbent potentially gives a higher total value than should be incurred. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the Government add a separate non-evaluated LIN to Attachment 0016 for Offerors to estimate the cost of new sources of supply? | The Government does not intend to amend Attachment 0016 at this time. | |||
| 1/13/22 | Attachment 0016, Exhibit E - FAT, NRE LIN 0004 | |||
| Section C - C.3.4.2 | QUESTION: Will the Government please clarify if the NRE for First Article Test (FAT) in OPY2-OPY5 is to cover testing for the following configurations: 60201886-03, 60201886-08-C02-L01, 60201886-11-C01-L01? | NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation. | ||
| 1/13/22 | Attachment 0016, Exhibit E - FAT, NRE LIN 0004 | |||
| Section C - C.3.4.2 | QUESTION: Will the Government please clarify if the NRE for First Article Test (FAT) in OPY2-OPY5 is to cover testing on one system or three systems for the following three configurations - 60201886-03, 60201886-08-C02-L01, 60201886-11-C01-L01? | NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation. | ||
| 1/13/22 | Attachment 0016, Exhibit E - FAT, NRE LIN 0004 | |||
| Section C - C.3.4.2 | QUESTION: Since the events that may generate the need to perform subsequent First Article Test as defined by C.3.4.2 are unknown and reasonably unpredictable, will the Government exclude the NRE for First Article Test (FAT) in OPY2-OPY5 in the Total Evaluated Price? | NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation. | ||
| 12/17/21 | Previous Q&A | Q: Is the reset guarantee for reset and new production? Is it feasible to provide a minimum for reset and new production? |
A: There are no minimum guarantees for individual aspects of the contract such as overhaul (reset). The RFP and contract when awarded, will state the minimum guaranteed order. Beyond that the USG can only state non-binding estimates. The USG estimates 1,000-1,600 new production systems and 2,000-4,000 overhauls subject to customer requirements and availability of funds.
| QUESTION: Request the USG provide the actual delivery order quantities for new production systems and overhaul quantities over the last three years to support production and supply chain planning. | The estimates already provided in the referenced answer to the referenced question is the data required to properly plan production and supply chain for this contract. No additional information will be provided. | ||
| 12/17/21 | Q&A, Released 11-03-2021, Question 1 and Question2 | In question 1 and question 2, attention is drawn to t minimum 11,711 missing documents in the TDP. Regarding the missing documents, the Government states the missing documents are not necessary to develop a response to the solicitation and will be given to the successful offeror after award of the contract. |
QUESTION 1: Will the Government confirm it has in its possession at this time a complete TDP, to include the 11,711 missing documents identified by name in the earlier question?
QUESTION 2: Will the Government confirm it has in its possession all documents in their native form listed and cited in the TDP index?
The Government has released an updated TDP which is available upon request which includes all Type 1 and Type 2 native files.
The Government confirms that we believe we have all the native files in our possession and as mentioned above, are releasing to potential Offerors.
| 12/17/21 | RFP, Attachment_0018, Past Performance Questionnaires | QUESTION: With the extension to 23 December, will the Government confirm that the PPQ POC List remains due 15 days prior to due date as amended? | The proposal due date has been extended to 31 January 2022 and the PPQ POC List remains due 15 days prior to the amended proposal due date | |
| 12/17/21 | Q&A, received 19 Nov 2021 | Several requests for extension citing TDP issues were answered (including one with a requested date of 22 Feb 2022 and one with 30 days after provision of complete TDPs) with a response of: The proposal has been extended. It is unclear whether an extension beyond the 23 December date is in process. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the Government confirm that the current due date of 23 December 2021 is extended to 22 February 2022? | The proposal due date has been extended to 31 January 2022. | |||
| 12/17/21 | Section L, amendment 1 | The proposal due date is extended to Dec 23, 2021. As of Dec 2, 2021, there are numerous questions pending response. The Technical Design Packages are not complete and prohibitive in offerors’ ability in obtaining reasonable and realistic costs. Drawings in the TDP are sometimes in languages other than English, many of the technical data and drawings are incomplete, and missing documents continue to be reported regularly. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the Government extend the due date to permit the Government to remedy TDP issues allowing offerors to provide a reasonable and realistic offer in response to the solicitation? | The proposal due date has been extended to 31 January 2022. | |||
| 12/17/21 | Section F, pg 34 | Section F, pg 34 of W15QKN-21-R-0025 States that the “Required Recapitalization/Overhaul/Reset Production Rates: Up to 50 systems per month no later than 180 days after award. |
QUESTION: Please provide the definitions of the specific work scopes required for “Recapitalization”, “Overhaul” and “Reset”. Are there mandatory replacement parts required for these work scopes? Definitions of the different work scopes are required in order to provide accurate pricing. We will require at least 90 days after receipt of the government definitions for Recapitalization/Overhaul/Reset processes to obtain the required costing information and submit a proposal. Recapitalization/Overhaul/Reset production are not currently separate LINs to be proposed within this solicitation. The "Government provided technical data" is the data for the production and test requirements for new hardware. There are currently no DMWR we are sharing for this contract.
The Offeror is responsible for developing their own depot maintenance procedures based on their unique depot setup and the constraints of the TDP.
12/17/21 Section C, para C.3.6.4.3 Para C.3.6.4.3. of W15QKN-21-R-0025 states “Depot repairs shall be performed per the Government provided technical data and any authorized modifications to it.”
QUESTION: Is the referenced “Government provided technical data” the current US Army Depot Maintenance Work Requirement (DMWR) for the RWS or does this refer to the OEM technical data? Also – the OEM technical data provided under the license agreement appears to only relate to production of new hardware. It does not include the required technical data related to depot maintenance (receiving testing, inspection and wear limits for corrosion, dents & dings, teardown instructions, etc.) Request that the gov’t provide the stated “Government provided technical data” that covers the approved depot repair process. We will require at least 90 days after receipt of the government technical data covering depot processes to obtain costing information and submit a proposal. The "Government provided technical data" is the data for the production and test requirements for new hardware. There are currently no DMWR we are sharing for this contract.
The Offeror is responsible for developing their own depot maintenance procedures based on their unique depot setup and the constraints of the TDP.
12/17/21 Section C, para C.3.2.3 Para C.3.2.3. of W15QKN-21-R-0025 states “The Contractor shall convert RWS systems from the M151 or RWS configurations to any other feasible RWS configuration and test, and deliver to the Government. The parts delivered shall satisfy all the requirements of GSPEC00008 unless otherwise noted in this SOW.”
| QUESTION: No information has been provided to date on the M151 configuration and the differences between that configuration and the other RWS configurations. We will need at least 90 days after receipt of the M151 configuration to obtain costing information and submit a proposal. | Conversion production are not currently separate LINs to be proposed within this solicitation. The Government has already provided a conversion TDP as a reference for the offerors under ECP-10896 and ECP 10919. Conversions will be priced after contract award utilizing the awarded labor rates from exhibit K and material prices in exhibit G. | ||
| 12/17/21 | SOW, Section C.3.2.1 | States: The Contractor shall produce, fabricate, test, and deliver RWS units to the Government per their respective Technical Data Package (TDP). |
QUESTON 1: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents released to offerors as of today (Nov 9, 2021) are complete and not missing parts of drawings or indexes?
QUESTION 2: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents cited in the TDP index will be available and released to the selected awardee upon or shortly after notification of contract award (presumably within 30 days of contract award)?
ANSWER 1: The TDPs are provided to set the parameters within which the contractor shall build the RWS hardware. The Government does NOT warrant that all RWS built to the Technical Data Package will meet requirements or interface seamlessly with the provided software. The Government only warrants that it is possible to build RWS, within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, which meet requirements. This is represented by the RWS provided to the contractor. The contractor shall be responsible for determining how to build RWS within the constraints of the Technical Data Package that (when combined with the provided software executable code) meet all requirements as outlined in this Statement of Work and the Detail Specification.
The Government will address any specific issues identified to the best of its ability.
ANSWER 2: The USG is releasing all Type 1 and Type 2 native files to all offerors.
| 12/17/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Pricing efforts have encountered parts that are available exclusively to Kongsberg and unavailable for purchase. We are compiling a list but provide the following example: sell to Kongsberg only list from one wire vendor TE Connectivity (attached, TE Connectivity No Buy List.png). | ||
| QUESTION: Will the Government arrange for such exclusive parts to be made available for Offeror pricing/purchase or provide these separately as GFE? | Part 50030167-40, EPD122245A is quantity 0 in BOM. For all other TE Connectivity parts labelled as description "EPD", there is enough information in the drawing to make the cable or purchase from TE Connectivity utilizing the drawing under a different EPD request. All remaining identified exclusive parts are being addressed with a TDP update. Offerors shall bring up any currently unidentified exclusivity issues to the USG in a specific manner so they may be addressed. | |||
| 12/17/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | QUESTION: When will the Government provide these documents/ native files? Will the Government amend the solicitation to include when (DAC) the Government will provide these documents/ files? | The USG is releasing all Type 1 and Type 2 native files to all offerors. | |
| 12/17/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Question: Will the Government confirm that the Government CROW Windchill repository contains all native files referenced in the TDP HTML documents? | Yes | |
| 12/17/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Question: Will the Government confirm that the Government CROW Windchill repository contains all 2D drawings? | Yes | |
| 12/17/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Question: Will the Government confirm that the Government CROW Windchill repository contains all 3D models? | Yes | |
| 12/17/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Question: Will the Government confirm that the Government CROW Windchill repository contains all BOMs for CROW assemblies, parts, and components? | Yes | |
| 12/17/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Question: Will the Government describe any limitations of data contained within the Government CROW Windchill repository? | The Government is not aware of any limitations to the data contained within the Government CROWS Windchill repository. | |
| 12/17/21 | RFP, Section L.2 (ii) Volume II, paragraph 3 | States: Offeror shall provide a Quality Program Plan to include a detailed discussion of the Quality Assurance processes that describes the approach for meeting the quality assurance requirements defined in the solicitation. | ||
| QUESTION: Is it the Government’s intention that responses to Section L.2.d.(ii).3 be provided within the body of the Offeror’s Quality Program Plan? | It is the USG intention per L.2.d.(ii) to have a proposal addressing all requirements within L.2.d.(ii). | |||
| 12/17/21 | RFP, Section L.2 (ii) Volume II, paragraph 3 | QUESTION: If yes, is the required stand-alone QA Plan included in the Volume II page count? | The QA Plan described in L.2.d.(ii).3. is considered a portion of the overall requirement L.2.d.(ii) and is included in the page count. | |
| 12/16/21 | Various | QUESTION: Based on lack of responses to date on specific questions provided with affected files concerning TDP artifacts in foreign languages, several incomplete drawings, and undetermined availability of parts identified as sole-source to Kongsberg, will the Government extend the due date to 30 days after the provision of these specific responses to allow the Offeror to prepare competitive pricing? | The RFP due date has been extended to 31 January 2022 on account of a revised TDP now available to be provided upon request. | |
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | QUESTION: Request the government extend the proposal due date at least 30 days after provision of complete TDPs to permit complete screening of the TDP for accuracy and a common build-to-print for all Offerors. | Extension already provided | |
| 12/14/21 | General | Offeror requests the Government to extend the due date of proposals to February 22, 2022 because of the following issues that impact our ability to generate a detailed proposal for US Government consideration. | Extension already provided | |
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | The below listed drawings are of parts that need to be casted. These drawings have missing dimensions that will prevent a vendor from quoting. |
Basic Part 60202057-00 B Housing MPU Cast Basic Part 68095563-00 K Left Side Support, Cast.
Basic Part 60215084-00 C GYRO COVER EXTENDED, CAST Basic Part 68095599-00 G Housing, Cast Basic Part 60215087-00 A End Cover, Cast Basic Part 68095662-00 K Right Side Support, Cast.
Basic Part 60215088-00 A Handle, Cast Basic Part 68095562-01 G Sight Motor Housing, Cast Basic Part 68112445-05 E Sight Bracket, Cast Basic Part 68095792-00 F Right Bracket, Cast
QUESTION: Will the government provide complete drawings for these parts?
The below listed drawings are of parts that need to be casted. These drawings have missing dimensions that will prevent a vendor from quoting.
| The exchange model has all the casting dimensions and the machining drawings have all the final machined dimensions. For your convenience, we will provide the models for these parts. | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Review of the TDP identified the part below with two different screw descriptions. |
o Pan Head Screw 50033917 A Hexagon Socket Head Cap Screw ISO 4762-M5x12-A4-70 Blackening KVS-50
QUESTION: Will the Government identify the correct description?
| Pan head is a typo in this case. The correct description is hexagon socket head cap screw. | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Review of the TDP has identified the following drawing in a language other than English. See attached drawing. |
o A104550 QUESTION: Will the Government provide the listed drawing in English?
| The Government will not be able to provide the drawing in English | ||
| 12/14/21 | Previous Q&A | Q: Is data available on historical parts consumption in support of remanufacturing / repair activity? |
A: Depot maintenance cost reports (without cost data) will be provided as at attachment to the RFP.
| QUESTION: It does not appear as if the USG provided the Depot maintenance cost reports (without cost data) as promised in the Industry Day Q&A response. This data is also listed as being provided in the solicitation as Attachment 0025 (ref pg 75, Ref J of solicitation W15QKN-21-R-0025). This data is required in order to properly plan for the procurement of parts in support of the depot activity. We will need at least 90 days after receipt of the Depot Maintenance Cost Reports to obtain costing information and submit a proposal. | This was omitted in error and is now on SAM.GOV for download | ||
| 12/14/21 | Attachment 0016, Exhibit K | Solicitation Attachment 0016, Exhibit K – Depot (Pricing Matrix) states: “Material costs will be proposed on a task/delivery order basis, utilizing the unit prices negotiated and incorporated of the resultant contract in Exhibit G - SRUs. The Government provided amounts are shown in the chart below for evaluation purposes only.” | |
| QUESTION: Our interpretation of Exhibit G is this only includes pricing for “new production” SRU’s. There are no provisions in Attachment 0016 to provide overhaul/repair pricing for SRU’s (or LRU’s) for use in depot maintenance of the Systems, Attachment 0016, Exhibit K. Standard Depot Maintenance practices are to utilize overhauled or repaired material for LRU’s and SRU’s where allowed and practical as this practice results in lower costs and lead times. Please clarify the acceptability of overhauled / repaired LRU’s and SRU’s for the depot operations and provide guidance on where these items are to be priced in Solicitation Attachment 16. | Exhibit G is the Government's expected material needed at depot based on historical operations. if the Contractor chooses to repair at a different level and is bilaterally agreed to by the Government, then the material cost shall be invoiced at the actual labor hours and cost of the material used for the SRU repair. | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP | In Section 1, pg 4-5 and Section 7, pg 99 of Document 1DOO60201888-01 (Work Instruction for Mechanical assembly of Main Frame Assembly, Part Number 60201888-01) there is a reference to a test document “4DOO68095598, Work Instruction for Leakage Test of Main Frame Assembly”. We are unable to locate the 4DOO68095598 document anywhere in the supplied technical data. |
Please provide the missing 4DOO68095598 document ASAP to support the estimating for the Main Frame Assembly testing.
| Test procedures will not be provided. Test requirements are provided in the TDP. For the MFA 60201888-01, the leak test requirements are provided in A124313. | |||
| 12/14/21 | RFP, page 117, d. Total Evaluated Price: | States: The total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the evaluated prices for the Service LINs, the weighted evaluated prices for the Supply LINs and the price evaluation preferences for HUBZone Small Business Concerns and the Royalty adjustment, when applicable | |
| QUESTION: Will the government confirm the Royalty adjustment is applied to new production items only and is not applied to repair or depot repair items? | Correct, royalty adjustment is only applied to new production. | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | A thorough review of the TDP has not resulted in an identifiable Bill(s) of Materials. | |
| QUESTION: Would the government point us to the indented BOM for each CROWS variant? | Each CROWS variant is described by a part number starting with 60201886. Within the TDP HTML structure, these are defined as type "System Part". The parts list icon ( ) can be clicked next to the "System Part" to show the BOM for the configuration. | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Attached files (ASSY60205483_H.pdf, A23351_H.pdf, DDWG8095563_K.pdf) relate to a vendor request for pricing on casting. Vendor response: “To do this properly, it is much better to quote with the CAD model so we can spin it around and view it from different angles, click on certain walls to measure thicknesses, measure various dimensions, arc radii, fillets, which are not called out on the print, and the list goes on, all to assess the best way to cast the part. A small feature, like a bypass issue can totally change whether a core is required or how the part is oriented on the mold and change the quote. We even view the CAD model with AR render, for a virtual view of the part. It is a detail-oriented process that is greatly aided by information in the CAD model. This print was produced from a CAD model, so I would expect that you should be able to track it down.” | |
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide the CAD drawings for all parts requiring casting? | The exchange model has all the casting dimensions and the machining drawings have all the final machined dimensions. For your convenience, we will provide the models for this part. | ||
| 12/14/21 | Q&A’s released 11-02-2021 | States: We will provide the approved LCSP and CPD. The LCSP should contain information pertaining to sustainment metrics. We do not have a baseline of the 12 IPS elements that we can share. We will answer any specific questions with respect to the 12 IPS elements that the LCSP does not address. | |
| QUESTION: To support generating the required draft ISP for the response, when will the Government provide the LCSP and CPD? | These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE | ||
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Section C, Performance Work Statement, C.3.6.4 Depot Setup and Operation | States: The Contractor shall manage and maintain a depot-level maintenance and repair capability for components to include overhaul, recapitalization, warranty repairs, all Subcontractor repair actions, and other support required to return the system (new, existing, and recapitalized), assemblies or components to a serviceable condition | |
| QUESTION: Is the word ‘depot’ in Section C.3.6.4 defined to be an existing U.S. Army depot facility? If the definition is an existing U.S. Army depot facility, is the Offeror expected to establish a support relationship with a specific U.S. Army depot? If Offerors are expected to establish a support relationship with a specific U.S. Army depot, would the Government provide which U.S. Army depot the relationship is to be established? | No, the word depot is not defined to be an existing U.S. Army depot facility. Offerors are required to establish their own depot facility. | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | A review of the TDP has discovered that the documentation for 50031661-00 |
CABLE TWINAX 0026A0024-9X 100OHM WHITE, attached (A31137_-.pdf), is incomplete and lacks reference to the part.
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide the complete / correct document? | Updated document will be provided. | |||
| 12/14/21 | States: The Government is currently updating the technical manuals for the tech refresh versions. For information purposes the Government will provide the TM 9-1090-219-10, TM 9-1090-222-10, TM 9-1090-219-23&P, and TM 9-1090-222-23&P as attachments to the RFP. | |||
| QUESTION: To support generating the response, when will the Government provide the listed Technical Manuals? | These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE | |||
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Section C.3.3.5 Configuration Management and Control | Ideally CM would be supported by a real-time interface between the Government and the Contractor’s CM systems, or by Contractor access to the Government’s tools. | ||
| QUESTION: What are the government’s tools for configuration management? | The USG uses a collaborative data environment called Windchill. This is also the same environment used for CDRL delivery. | |||
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Section C.3.3.5 Configuration Management and Control | QUESTION: Will the contractor have access to the government’s CM tool(s)? | Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the winning contractor will be given access to all relevant tools. | |
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Section C.3.3.5 Configuration Management and Control | QUESTION: Will the contractor also have digital connectivity to pass data to/from the government’s CM tool(s). | Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the winning contractor will be given access to all relevant tools. | |
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Pricing and execution necessarily include assessing the contractor’s performance risk after contract award. To that end: |
QUESTION: Does the Government own and possess the TDP documents/ native files that were not originally released with the solicitation?
| Yes | ||
| 12/14/21 | SOW, C.3.3.5.5 | SOW C.3.3.5.5 states to procure all hardware/software/firmware to a single design. |
QUESTION: When there is an Engineering Change or a variant of the single design (i.e., an option/change would classify as a variant to the single design), does the requirement need the Offeror to:
(1) rev dash each variant (meaning there is a single design for the RWS, but if the option for a specific caliber was activated the result would be the same core part number with a different dash number (e.g., main design is XXXXXX-001 and the one with the specific caliber option would be XXXXXX-004);
or (2) wrap the entire design in a single rev dash number with options (meaning there is a single design for the RWS, and if the option for a specific caliber was activated the same part number would be utilized with no differentiation, therefore main design and the option activated designs will be XXXXXX-001 and the Serial Number will determine if the option is enabled or not)?
| The Offeror will need to deliver everything to the one design contained in the TDP unless there is an approved ECP. If there is an approved ECP, there would be a change in Revision or part number. It is also possible that through engineering services the Government would add additional designs, but when the Government buys to a given design, the Offeror cannot make changes to it without an ECP (that is then reflected through a change in Revision or part number) | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Drawing A104550_-.pdf (attached) is in a language other than English. |
QUESTION: Will the Government provide the drawing in English?
| No, the Government will not provide the drawing in English. | ||
| 12/14/21 | Q&A, Released 10-23-2021 | In an earlier question from 10-22-2021, the question was asked about a number of drawings written in a language other than English. In response to the Government reply “The alleged issues are stated generally and without specifics, thus preventing the GOV from addressing or explaining any perceived issues,” we provided specific examples of documents in the TDP that are in a language other than English. |
QUESTION 1: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents released to offerors as of today (Nov 9, 2021) are in English language only?
QUESTION 2: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents in their possession are in English and not in a language other than English?
QUESTION 3: Will Government re-issue those documents in the TDP that are in a language other than English to Offerors prior to the current proposal due date of 22 November?
ANSWER 1: The Government acknowledges that there are documents in our TDP in languages other than English.
ANSWER 2: The Government acknowledges that there are documents in our TDP in languages other than English.
ANSWER 3: No, the Government will not re-issue documents that are currently in a language other than English.
12/14/21 C.3.4.2.3.First Article Test Plan The Contractor shall develop a First Article Test Plan that is acceptable to and approved by the Government prior to implementation. The plan shall address all information necessary for accomplishing the FAT as described herein and in Section 4 and the FAT table of the respective Specification. (CDRL A020, DI-NDTI-81307A, First Article Qualification Test Plan and Procedures)
Question 1: Please confirm that the term “respective Specification” as used in Para C.3.4.2.3 refers to document GSPEC00008. Para C.3.4.2.3 as currently written is not clear on which document the term “respective Specification” refers to.
| ANSWER 1: The Government confirms that the only current specification is GSPEC00008. | |||
| 12/14/21 | C.3.4.2.3.First Article Test Plan | Question 2: Please confirm that the First Article Test Plan and Requirements ONLY apply to the top level CROWS Systems (IE: there are no FAT requirements that apply to the individual LRU’s that will be provided as part of the CROWS Systems or as spare LRU’s.) | ANSWER 2: Initial FAT will be done at the system level but in the future, new LRUs or altered LRUs may be subjected to system FAT at the Government discretion. |
| 12/14/21 | Attachment 0011 is CROWS DETAIL SYSTEM SPECIFICATION GSPEC00008 | Question: The Solicitation Documents for W15QKN-21-R-0025 published on Sam.gov DO NOT currently include an Attachment 0011. Please publish the Referenced Attachment 0011 to the appropriate Sam.gov website for the this solicitation. | Attachment 011 was sent as requested by interested vendors. |
| 12/14/21 | Draft GSPEC0008 | Per Draft GSPEC0008 provided with the draft solicitation – Table I, Inspection Class B, Units 1, 2, 3, 4 include tests that would be normal for a “FAT”, but ALSO include many tests that are typically required for Design Verification Testing or Qualification Testing – not FAT. Examples of these “Qualification Type” tests include 3.14.1.4 Basic Shock, 3.14.1.5 Altitude, 3.14.2.1 Storage Temperature, 3.14.2.2 Temperature Cycling, 3.14.2.4 Salt Fog, 3.14.2.5 Sand and Dust, 3.14.2.6 Rain, 3.14.2.7.1 Submergence, 3.14.2.8 Thermal Shock along with several other tests specified in Table I. |
Question 1: Please confirm that the term First Article Test / FAT as used throughout W15QKN-21-R-0025 refers toALL of the First Article Inspection tests included in Table I, Inspection Class “B”, Units# 1, 2, 3, 4.
| ANSWER 1: The Government confirms that the term First Article Test refers to all of the First Article Inspection tests included in Table I, Inspection Class “B”, Units# 1, 2, 3, 4. | |||
| 12/14/21 | Draft GSPEC0008 | Question 2: Production of CROWS systems is a “Build To Print” program using Army provided data. Given that fact – what would a contractor do if a FAT test (for example Salt Fog per 3.14.2.4) fails? If the contractor has followed all the provided technical data to build the system, a test failure indicates a design issue – not a fabrication/assembly/test issue. How would a contractor resolve a “Qualification Type” or “Design Verification Type” test failure given the lack of contractor design authority? | ANSWER 2: The TDPs are provided to set the parameters within which the contractor shall build the RWS hardware. The Government does NOT warrant that all RWS built to the Technical Data Package will meet requirements or interface seamlessly with the provided software. The Government only warrants that it is possible to build RWS, within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, which meet requirements. This is represented by the RWS provided to the contractor. The contractor shall be responsible for determining how to build RWS within the constraints of the Technical Data Package that (when combined with the provided software executable code) meet all requirements as outlined in this Statement of Work and the Detail Specification. |
| 12/14/21 | Draft GSPEC008 | Question 3: The costs and schedule required to set-up and conduct the numerous “Qualification Type” and “Design Verification Type” tests included in Table I, Inspection Class B, Units 1, 2, 3, 4 will be extensive and would seem to be non-value added to the Government Customer, given that this is a Build To Print program using provided technical data. Please review the tests required in Table I, Inspection Class “B”, Units# 1, 2, 3, 4 and eliminate any tests not required to validate the Build To Print configuration and performance of the CROWS Systems. | ANSWER 3: The Government is not going to eliminate any tests at this time. |
| 12/14/21 | Reference Work Instruction 1DOO60201887-01 for WS 60201887-01, Para 3.3 | Check Nitrogen Levels for TIM, VIM and LRF. This para states ”This operation is performed according to the requisite procedure: see document P10250. |
Question: Document P10250 is required per the above referenced WI as well as other WI’s associated with different WS configurations. Document P10250 appears to be missing from the Government provided technical data packages. Please provide a copy of the referenced P10250 document.
| The Government will not provide document P10250. The Offeror is responsible for establishing their own procedures. The current IETM 9-1090-219-23&P contains specifications for some of the sensors. The additional sensor specifications will be provided after contract award. | |||
| 12/14/21 | Q&A, Released 11/09 | States: Government is looking into resolving any perceived exclusivity agreements. Please provide specific part numbers for the affected parts. In accordance with that direction, attached is Rheinmetall sourcing parts list (BOM-Rheinmetall.xlsx) and the following is the email from the company declining support under a Kongsberg no-compete. QUESTION: Request the Government add this vendor to the exclusivity resolution effort. | The Government has received the list BOM-Rheinmetall.xlsx and will add these parts to the exclusivity resolution effort. |
| 12/14/21 | CPD, page 28, paragraph 3.2.3.4.4 | The July 2008 (provided 11/15/2021); para 13.2.3.4.4 on page 28 states, “No General Support or Depot maintenance is planned.” |
QUESTION: Will the Government confirm that para 13.2.3.4.4. of the CPD is no longer valid?
QUESTION: If para 13.2.3.4.4 of the CPD is still valid, will the Government provide clarification on what is to be provided to replace General Support or Depot maintenance operations?
| The CPD is provided for reference only. The requirements of this contract are provided within the solicitation. | ||
| 12/14/21 | SOW, Section 3.4.2.2 | States: The production units shall be manufactured with tools, materials, and methods that are the same as the tools, materials, and methods used to manufacture the First Article. |
QUESTION: Does the requirement for tools, materials, and methods apply to LRUs?
| Yes, the requirements for tools, materials, and methods apply to LRUs and systems. | ||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | Review of the TDP has identified 50 unique obsolete items currently shown. See attached list. |
QUESTION: Will the Government verify these parts are no longer required and/or have replacements contained in the current TDP?
| See responses to each component in "Unique obsolete item response.xlsx" file. | |||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | We currently have a partnership with the Tobyhanna (TYAD) depot. We are asking Tobyhanna for quotes on specific LRUs/SRUs. Surprisingly TYAD cannot obtain the CROWS drawings in the JEDMICs system. Thus they need copies of the drawings provided in the TDP. Do they need to sign the NDAs we signed to get access to specific drawings? It is unclear to us since they are part of the govt. | The Offeror can provide the documents to Tobyhanna (TYAD) depot as if Tobyhanna (TYAD) depot was a sub-supplier. |
| 12/14/21 | C.3.3.5.6 | Also, we would like to obtain the BOM data from Windchill as referenced below |
Caution-https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/edge.pica.army.mil/CROWS-Projectlink/__;!!EhqYCQ!Nf_VZAohMACxgirT6OMbK8hhmXnTVfuuu1jYvSXrWZYIOx1zNt-hr5dbKqYY$ The Government has uploaded the Initial Baseline TDPs to the USG Product Data Management (PDM) system on Windchill
| We do not have access to this system but TYAD does. Can we have permission to have TYAD download the data out of Windchill and provide the results to us? | The BOM data has been provided in the TDP HTML structure. The Windchill access will be available to the contract awardee after contract award. | |||
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Section C, Paragraph C.3.4.2 | The provided Factory Acceptance Test procedures do not address all the specifications of GSPEC00008. | ||
| QUESTION: Will the government confirm that Section 4 of the GSPEC is the requirement for government acceptance of our product? | Section C.3.4.2 refers to the First Article Test. Section C.3.4.2.3 specifies the Contractor is responsible for developing the test plan for First Article to conform to section 4 of GSPEC00008. The Factory Acceptance Test procedures provided in the TDP are referenced in C.3.4.5 as the production test requirements for acceptance testing of each system under the performance of this contract. | |||
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | QUESTION: Will the government confirm that Kongsberg has no active waivers to the TDP that was issued to offerors? | The USG cannot confirm that there are no active waivers to the TDP. | |
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | QUESTION: If active waivers have been made to the TDP, will the government issue the same waivers to the TDP to the awardee? | The awardee, after contract award, will have to submit a request for changes/waivers per C.3.3.5.9. on the contract for any changes/waivers required by the awardee. | |
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | QUESTION: Are there any customer sanctioned parts substitutions currently in place with the incumbent? | All sanctioned parts/vendor substitutions/alternates are listed within the TDP. | |
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Section C, Paragraph C.3.2.5.3 | QUESTION: Will the government confirm the most recent version of software and firmware with all changes will be provided to awardee post award? | Confirmed | |
| 12/14/21 | RFP. Section C, Paragraph C.3.3.5.3.2.1. | States: Government approval for changes to CIPD documents is not required, if there is no change to the items Form, Fit, or Function as a result. | ||
| QUESTION: Please confirm that contractors are allowed to identify and source alternate parts or assemblies, either due to obsolescence, long lead times, high cost or other factors – and that the contractor may properly document the alternate parts on their CIPD (IE: BOM) without Government approval, provided that there is no impact to Form, Fit or Function. | C.3.3.5.1.2. states that "For the purposes of this Contract, the Contractor Internal Production Data (CIPD) is defined as all technical data (including Subcontractors) used in the production of any part under this contract; excluding any technical data that is part of the USG TDP. For example, CIPD shall include, all work instructions (excluding work instructions that are part of the USG TDP), test documentation, production processes, specifications, etc." |
Under performance of this contract, the awardee shall not introduce alternate parts or assemblies without Government approval regardless of the impact to Form, Fit, or Function.
To clarify, the BOM is contained within the HTML structure of the TDP and is considered a part of the USG TDP.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .