W15QKN21R0025 Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)
- Solicitation number
- W15QKN-21-R-0025
About this file
This is a request for proposal for a Remote Weapon Systems contract. The Army is seeking to procure Common Remotely Operating Weapon Stations to support new and existing requirements. Products to be acquired include RWS variants, spare parts, kits, conversions, shop and line replaceable units, engineering services, and logistics support. The contract will have firm fixed price and time and material contract line items. One hybrid IDIQ contract will be awarded. Proposals are due within 90 days. Initial deliveries must begin no later than 180 days after award. Production will ramp up to 50 systems per month and potentially surge to 150 per month. Conversion requirements include 50 per month initially ramping up similarly. The incumbent contractor holds data rights and there is a $10k per unit royalty for other offerors. Foreign contractors must comply with ITAR regulations to receive technical data.
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
Sheet1
| Date Answered | Section | Question | Answer |
| 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.
| 12/14/21 | -23&P Manual | Provided manual appears to address only the -08 Variant (M153A2E1). | ||
| QUESTION: Will the Government provide the -23&P manuals for all variants required to be bid as part of the contract scope? | Disc1_EM0345_Viewer_IETM_001.zip was provided with the other PDF manuals and is the Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM) 9-1090-219-23&P for the -03 CROWS configuration. In order to open this IETM, you must extract all files to your hard drive, then navigate to file "!OpenIETM_new.hta" within folder "IETM". | |||
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Statement of Work, Section C, Paragraph C.3.4.8 | States: Non-Conformances (NCs). All non-conformances (NCs), including non-conformances on subcomponents and at Subcontractors, shall be identified at the highest level CoC of the product being delivered. All non-conformances, regardless of their classification as major or minor, shall be identified on the CoC along with a reference to the Request for Variance (RFV) (C.3.3.5.9.2.) approved by the USG for each NC. This requirement does not apply for repaired/overhauled item CoCs where the non-conformance has been previously accepted by the Government. | ||
| QUESTION: Requiring a RFV for every non-conformance will be a cost driver and likely result in production schedule delays while the RFV is processed thru both the contractor and Government systems. RFV’s are logical for major non-conformances. Will the Government consider allowing the successful Offeror to document minor non-conformances using the Section/File for Reference Question in the contractor’s NC system and submit a compiled list of minor non-conformances to the Government periodically (suggest quarterly)? | The USG is not willing to change the requirement at this point. However, after award, the awardee may submit an alternative approach for USG approval in their configuration management and quality program plans. | |||
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Statement of Work, Section C, Paragraph C.3.4.8 | QUESTION: Will the prime have the authority to adjudicate NCR on items that are found non-conforming due to Documentation deficiencies, Process Incompatibility, Minor part Obsolescence’s, and Test Processes that result in verification of the same performance specification, reporting Results of actions on a quarterly or otherwise specific periodic cycle? | No, all Non-conformances shall be approved by the USG. The USG is not willing to change the requirement at this point. However, after award, the awardee may submit an alternative approach for USG approval in their configuration management and quality program plans. | |
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Statement of Work, Section C, Paragraph C.3.4.8 | QUESTION: How will the contractor know which non-conformances have previously been accepted by the Government for repaired/overhauled items? | The awardee is expected to maintain a database for approved non-conformances that the awardee introduces. The awardee will not get access to prior non-conformances introduced by any previous contractors. | |
| 12/14/21 | RFP, Statement of Work, Section C, Paragraph C.3.4.8 | QUESTION: What database contains this non-conformance information and how will that database be made accessible to the successful contractor? | The awardee is expected to maintain a database for approved non-conformances that the awardee introduces. The awardee will not get access to prior non-conformances introduced by any previous contractors. | |
| 12/14/21 | TDP, Multiple Documents | When attempting to estimate assembly hours required to manufacture 60201886-08-C02-L01 or equivalent, we noticed that the work instructions, assembly drawings, and any relevant information regarding the following assemblies/sub-assemblies are missing from the TDP. Listed are the sub-assemblies to manufacture the 60201886-08-C01-L01 configuration. |
68113472-02 – Main Processing Unit 60201887-08 - Weapon Station 68113472-09-C35-L01 - Main Processing Unit 60206055-08-C01-L01 - Main Frame Assembly 60242483-01-C01-L01 - Left Side Support Assembly 60242524-04-C01-L01 - Right Side Support Assembly 60243134-01-C01-L00 - Ammo Can Holder Assembly 60246388-00-C01-L00 - VIM Bracket Assembly 60244574-01-C01-L01 - Sight Servo Assembly 60209703-00 - Azimuth Gear Main Assembly 60209392-00 - Azimuth Manuel Release Assembly 68095669-00 - Encoder Disk Assembly 60242625-02 - Elevation Gear Assembly
| 68099550-08 - Stow Lock Elevation Assembly | All available work instructions, assembly drawings, and any relevant information regarding the mentioned assemblies/sub-assemblies are included in the TDP. For example, 60206055-08-C01-L01 - Main Frame Assembly has mechanical assembly work instructions 1DOO60206055-08 and electrical work instructions 2DOO60206055-08 included in the TDP. Some parts do not have work instructions available in the TDP. For those parts, the Offerors shall create their own work instructions as required. | |
| 12/14/21 | 68098388-01 - Rotor Axle Assembly, Servomotor Elevation Assembly, RWS |
60209374-00 - Elevation Release Assembly 60205753-01 – Sealing Support Assembly 60242762-00-C0-L00 – Lever Arm Assembly 60243290-00-C01-L00 – Manual Mode Lock Assembly 60245921-00-C01-L00 – Sight Servo Front Assembly 60245922 – Sight Servo Rear Assembly 60245625-01-C01-L01 – Azimuth Motor Assembly 60245826-00 – Elevation Lock Assembly 60201887-07-C02-L01 – Weapon Station 60262916-00-C02-L01 – Ammo Box Bracket 60262240-00-C02-L00 – Storm Bracket Kit 60262396-00 – Stow Lock Assembly 60276245-00 – Lower Stow Lock Subassembly
| QUESTION: Will the government provide the missing information from the TDP? | All available work instructions, assembly drawings, and any relevant information regarding the mentioned assemblies/sub-assemblies are included in the TDP. For example, 60206055-08-C01-L01 - Main Frame Assembly has mechanical assembly work instructions 1DOO60206055-08 and electrical work instructions 2DOO60206055-08 included in the TDP. Some parts do not have work instructions available in the TDP. For those parts, the Offerors shall create their own work instructions as required. | |||
| TDP, Multiple Documents | QUESTION: If the information is not available, will the government provide plug numbers for all offerors to use in place of pricing the missing assemblies and/or sub-assemblies? | All information required to build/procure all these parts is in the TDP | ||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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) | ||
| Q1: 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. | A1: The Government confirms that the only current specification is GSPEC00008. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: C.3.4.2.3.First Article Test Plan | Q2: 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.) | A2: 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. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: Attachment 0011 is CROWS DETAIL SYSTEM SPECIFICATION GSPEC00008 | Q: 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. | A: Attachment 011 was sent as requested by interested vendors. If you need a copy please email the contract specialist. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | ||
| Q1: 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. | A1: 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. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: Draft GSPEC0008 | Q2: 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? | A2: 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. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: Draft GSPEC0008 | Q3: 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. | A3: The Government is not going to eliminate any tests at this time. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | ||
| Q: 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. | A: 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 | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. Q: Request the Government add this vendor to the exclusivity resolution effort. | A: The Government has received the list BOM-Rheinmetall.xlsx and will add these parts to the exclusivity resolution effort. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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.” |
Q: Will the Government confirm that para 13.2.3.4.4. of the CPD is no longer valid?
| Q: 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? | A: The CPD is provided for reference only. The requirements of this contract are provided within the solicitation. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | ||
| Q: Does the requirement for tools, materials, and methods apply to LRUs? | A: Yes, the requirements for tools, materials, and methods apply to LRUs and systems. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents | Q: 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 anda common build-to-print for all Offerors. | A: Proposal due date has been extended. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: General | Q: 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. | A: Proposal due date has been extended. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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
| Q: Will the Government identify the correct description? | A: Pan head" is a typo in this case. The correct description is "hexagon socket head cap screw. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents | Review of the TDP has identified the following drawing in a language other than English. See attached drawing. o A104550 | ||
| Q: Will the Government provide the listed drawing in English? | A: The Government will not be able to provide the drawing in English | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | |
| 11/19/21 | Q: 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. | A: This was omitted in error and is now on SAM.GOV for download. | ||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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.” | ||
| Q: 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. | A: 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. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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.” | ||
| Q: 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. | A: 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. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | ||
| Q: Please provide the missing 4DOO68095598 document ASAP to support the estimating for the Main Frame Assembly testing. | A: 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. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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 | ||
| Q: Will the government confirm the Royalty adjustment is applied to new production items only and is not applied to repair or depot repair items? | A: Correct, royalty adjustment is only applied to new production. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents | A thorough review of the TDP has not resulted in an identifiable Bill(s) of Materials. | ||
| Q: Would the government point us to the indented BOM for each CROWS variant? | A: 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. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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). | ||
| Q: Will the Government arrange for such exclusive parts to be made available for Offeror pricing/purchase or provide these separately as GFE? | A: The government will provide direction at the conclusion of its resolution effort on this matter. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | ||
| Q: To support generating the required draft ISP for the response, when will the Government provide the LCSP and CPD? | A: These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE, if you did not receive a copy please request the documents with the contract specialist. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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 | ||
| Q: 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? | A: 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. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | ||
| Q: Will the Government provide the complete / correct document? | A: Updated document will be provided. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: Q&As 11/03/2021 | 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. | ||
| Q: To support generating the response, when will the Government provide the listed Technical Manuals? | A: These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE, if you did not receive a copy please request the documents with the contract specialist. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: 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. | ||
| Q1: What are the government’s tools for configuration management? | A1: The USG uses a collaborative data environment called Windchill. This is also the same environment used for CDRL delivery. | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: RFP, Section C.3.3.5 Configuration Management and Control | Q2: Will the contractor have access to the government’s CM tool(s)? | A2: Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the contractor awardee will be given access to all relevant tools. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: RFP, Section C.3.3.5 Configuration Management and Control | Q3: Will the contractor also have digital connectivity to pass data to/from the government’s CM tool(s). | A3: Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the contractor awardee will be given access to all relevant tools. | |
| 11/19/21 | Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents | Pricing and execution necessarily include assessing the contractor’s performance risk after contract award. To that end: | ||
| Q: Does the Government own and possess the TDP documents/ native files that were not originally released with the solicitation? | Yes | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: SOW, C.3.3.5.5 | SOW C.3.3.5.5 states to procure all hardware/software/firmware to a single design. |
Q: 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)? | A: 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) | |||
| 11/19/21 | Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents | Drawing A104550_-.pdf (attached) is in a language other than English. | ||
| Q: Will the Government provide the drawing in English? | A: No, the Government will not provide the drawing in English. |
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 .