Question Set 1 for RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008 - Final 10 March 2022.pdf

Question Set 1

W15QKN-22-R-0008

Question 1

Page 2 of 123, Narrative A0001, Article 2 Acquisition Strategy states “The Government plans to evaluate the following:…”. Does the use of the term ‘plans’ indicate that the Government may evaluate against different factors or change the ranking of the factors currently shown?

Government Response: No, it means the Government plans to/intends to evaluate the listed evaluation factors: Technical, Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation. The ranking and the importance of the factors will not change.

Question 2

Page 2 of 123, Narrative A0001, Article 3 Pricing states “The Offeror shall submit pricing within Section B for each priced Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for all Ordering Periods (1-5), including all quantity ranges (when applicable) for First Article Test (FAT), Additional FAT (AFAT), and all production quantity ranges.” A review of the Section B CLINs for FAT and AFAT does not reveal any quantity ranges. Are there quantity ranges applicable to the FAT and AFAT CLINs or should the bidders understand that the phrase “…including all quantity ranges (when applicable) for First Article Test (FAT), Additional FAT

(AFAT),…” means only those quantities as shown in CLINs 0001, 0002, 0006, 0007, 0011, 0012, 0016, 0017, 0021, and 0022?

Government Response: No, the Offeror is required to submit pricing for the quantity ranges for the Production CLINs only. All FAT and AFAT CLINs do not have quantity ranges and should be priced in accordance to the amount(s) stated in the CLIN narratives.

Question 3

Page 6 of 123, Section B CLIN 0001 Metal Parts Initial FAT states “Upon FAT approval, the additional

2,756 units of XM1128 Metal Parts Assemblies shall be delivered to a location TBD.” Are these 2,756 units part of the deliverable quantity under the production Ordering Period 1 CLIN 0003?

Government Response: As stated in the CLIN narrative, an additional 2,756 units of the XM1128

Metal Parts Assemblies shall be delivered to a TBD location. These units are a deliverable under

CLIN 0001 upon FAT approval.

Question 4

The solicitation uses both the terms “calendar days” and “days”; neither is a defined term. Are both terms defined as calendar days?

Government Response: For this solicitation “calendar days” and “days” are both defined as calendar days. For this solicitation “business days” or “work days” are both defined as any day except Saturday, Sunday, day which is a federal legal holiday, or day on which government institutions are authorized or required by law or governmental action to close. Updated solicitation to add paragraphs C.12.6 and C.12.7 for these definitions as follows:

C.12.6 Calendar Day - Calendar day or day, is every day on the calendar.

C.12.7 Business Day – Business Day or work day, is any day except Saturday, Sunday, day which is a federal legal holiday, or day on which government institutions are authorized or required by law or governmental action to close.

Update to clarify calendar day completed in paragraph C.3.3.6.2.3 and C.11.3.1. Update to clarify business day completed for CDRL A038.

These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Question 5

The ballistic sample quantities for both the FAT and AFAT are stated in Section B as “The ballistic FAT

Samples shall consist of one (1) Lot of the 155mm XM1128 Metal Parts Assemblies…” and “The ballistic

AFAT Samples shall consist of one (1) Lot of the 155mm XM1128 Metal Parts Assemblies…” Is the

Government asking for one (1) Lot of 155mm XM1128 Metal Parts Assemblies to be delivered as ballistic samples for FAT and one (1) Lot of 155mm XM1128 Metal Parts Assemblies to be delivered as ballistic samples for AFAT?

Government Response: The Government requires one (1) lot of XM1128 Metal Part Assemblies delivered for the FAT ballistic sample and one (1) lot of XM1128 Metal Part Assemblies delivered for the AFAT ballistic sample. To clarify the ballistic sample lot revised statement within the CLIN to the following: “The ballistic FAT Samples shall consist of one (1) Lot of

155mm XM1128 Metal Parts Assemblies in accordance with MIL-DTL-32692 requirements…” and “The ballistic AFAT Samples shall consist of one (1) Lot of 155mm XM1128 Metal Parts

Assemblies in accordance with MIL-DTL-32692 requirements …”.

Question 6

Page 7 of 123, Section B CLIN 0002 Metal Parts Additional FAT states “Existing approved CDRL submissions from the initial FAT may be utilized provided they are unaffected by any changes.”;

however, Page 33 of 123, Section C.3.3.2.2 Additional First Article Test states “Existing approved CDRL submissions from the initial FAT may be utilized provided they are unaffected by any changes and the

Contracting Officer concurs.” Please confirm that, in accordance with FAR 52.215-8, the language in

Section B CLIN 0002 takes precedence and that Contracting Officer concurrence is not required.

Government Response: The Contracting Officer’s concurrence shall be required as stated in

Section C.3.3.2.2. of the Statement of Work. The language in CLIN 0002 has been revised as follows: “Existing approved CDRL submissions from the initial FAT may be utilized provided they are unaffected by any changes and the Contracting Officer concurs.”

These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 7

Section B CLIN 0006 Metal Parts Initial FAT – Ordering Period 2 contains the language “Mfr CAGE:

81400” and “Mfr Part Number: 6896709”; however, no other CLIN contains this language and the TDPL does not contain the ‘6896709’ part number.

Will the Government clarify?

Government Response: Please disregard the MFR Cage and Part number as it is an error. The listed NSN 8140-01-689-6709 is correct. The CLIN has been updated with Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 8

Page 32 of 123, Section C.3.2.1.2 Government Furnished Material Lifting Plug states “The Contractor shall replace the Ring Gasket if missing and remove foreign material if present.” Request that the

Government confirm that CDRL A028 Product Quality Deficiency Report should be cited at the end of

C.3.2.1.2 and that the DD1423 for CDRL A028 should reference C.3.2.1.2 in Block 5?

Government Response: CDRL A028 will not be cited with respect to replacement of gasket or removal of foreign material. A missing gasket and/or presence of foreign material shall not be considered a quality defect for the purposes of this GFM item. The replacement of the gasket and/or removal of foreign material is within the scope of work for this contract.

Question 9 shall replace the Ring Gasket if missing and remove foreign material if present.” Is it the Government’s intent that this language take precedence over the Government Property regulations, obviating the

Contractor’s requirement to obtain Contracting Officer permission to repair Government property and to submit a procedure for Government approval?

Government Response: The paragraph referenced in the question is incorrect. The paragraph being referenced is C.3.1.2. The language in paragraph C.3.1.2 is providing permission to repair this GFM item only, specifically for ring gasket replacement and foreign material removal. In accordance with Government Property regulations a Government approved procedure is required. The SOW was updated with Amendment 0002 to the RFP to include the following:

“The Contractor shall submit for Government approval the procedure for ring gasket replacement and foreign material removal in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-MGMT-81580).” CDRL

A008 was updated to reference paragraph C.3.1.2 accordingly.

Question 10 shall replace the Ring Gasket if missing and remove foreign material if present.” Is it the Government’s intent that the Contractor perform the aforementioned repair of Government property at the

Contractor’s expense?

Government Response: The paragraph referenced in the question is incorrect. The paragraph being referenced is C.3.1.2. Ring gasket replacement and foreign material removal is in the scope of work of this contract.

Question 11

Page 32 of 123, Section C.3.1.3 Production Planning and Lotting requires the generation of a document which does not appear to be contained in Exhibit A. Request that the Government either identify the associated CDRL or add the CDRL to Exhibit A.

Government Response: First sentence of paragraph C.3.1.3 has been revised with Amendment

0002 to state: “Contractor shall maintain and submit a production plan and schedule as a part of the Monthly Production Status Report in C.5.6.”. CDRL A027 has been updated to include this paragraph.

Question 12

Page 32 of 123, Section C.3.1.3 Production Planning and Lotting states that the Contractor shall demonstrate that the production lot size is optimal. As the term ‘optimal’ is subjective and will vary with each Bidder, yet also a contractual requirement, it is requested that the Government provide parameters for the term.

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.1.3 revised second sentence to clarify as follows: “The

Contractor’s production plan and schedule shall demonstrate the production lot size is optimal and stabilized to support delivery requirements.” The definition of optimal here is “most desirable or satisfactory”, and stabilized is “to hold steady such as to limit fluctuations; firmly established”. These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 13

Throughout the solicitation the requirement for “Contracting Officer” approval and ”U.S. Government” approval is listed. Is the term “U.S. Government” defined as ‘Contracting Officer’? If not, what is the definition of “U.S. Government” in the context of approving entity?

Government Response: The terms “Contracting Officer”, “U.S. Government”, or “Government” in the context of approving entity is the Contracting Officer. The terms are used interchangeably and the term used is dependent on the clause and/or the narrative. Only the Contracting Officer has the authority to bind the Government.

Question 14

Page 32 of 123, Section C.3.3.1 Quality Management System states “The Contractor shall not implement changes to their established QPP without notification to and acceptance by the Contracting Officer.”;

however, the DD1423 indicates that Contracting Officer approval is not required. Is the DD1423 correct?

Government Response: C.3.3.1 updated the last sentence of the first paragraph as follows: “The

Contractor shall not implement changes to their established QPP without notification to the

Government, submission of the changes for Government review, and approval of the changes by the Contracting Officer.” The sentence in Paragraph C.3.3.1 now clearly states approval is required. CDRL A005 updated to include the submission and review requirements for changes to the QPP. These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 15

Page 32 of 123, Section C.3.3.1.1.1 Phosphate and Painting Coating states “On all applicable items and components, the Contractor shall…”. What Applicable Document determines the applicability?

Government Response: The Technical Data Package clearly indicates those items with phosphate and/or painting coating application requirements. Paragraph C.3.3.1.1.1 is applicable to the items and components containing phosphate and/or painting coatings requirements. For clarity the first sentence of paragraph C.3.3.1.1.1 was updated as follows “On all items and components with phosphate and/or coating application, the Contractor shall submit to the Government for review and approval all written procedures, along with panel submission, and any test data as required in specification TT-C-490 and in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-MGMT-81580). The

Contractor shall submit prior to initial or additional First Article Test, production start-up, or production restart.” These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 16

Page 66 of 132, I-138 52.244-2 is required when unpriced contract actions are anticipated. How are unpriced contract actions anticipated under the resultant production IDIQ contract and what unpriced contract actions does the Government anticipate will be issued?

Government Response: The Government does not anticipate unpriced contract actions for this requirement; the clause has been removed as shown in Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

Question 17

The time allotted for Government review of revised CDRL submittals is not reflected in all DD1423s where revisions are indicated. What is the turn-around-time for Government review where it is not shown on a DD1423?

Government Response: Updates to the following CDRLs completed to address submission timelines: A001, A002, A003, A005, A009, A013, A014, A023, A025, A029, and A038. These updates are also referenced in Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

Question 18

Page 62 of 123, Section I-132 (b) states “The Contractor shall submit the first article test report within

300 calendar days from the date of this contract…” and CDRL A010 DD1423 states “The Contractor shall submit the FATR 300 calendar days after award.”; however, CLIN 0001 states that FAT is due 345 calendar days after award. Which is correct?

Government Response: Section I-132 (b) and CDRL A010 clearly state “the first article test report” (FATR) is due within 300 calendar days. The CLIN narrative is describing the completion and approval of First Article Test (FAT). To achieve FAT approval there is a FATR submission, ballistic sample submission, review of the FATR, and ballistic testing of the samples. Timelines for response from the Government for each submission is located within

CDRL, clauses, and Attachment 0003. The FAT CLIN is therefore scheduled 345 calendars days after award to align with all submission requirements and response timelines.

Question 19

Attachment 0003 Article (5) requires the submittal of an agenda and meeting minutes; however, there is no DD1423 for the agenda nor does the DD1423 for CDRL A034 reference Attachment 0003. As deliverable documents under the contract, request that the Government add them to Exhibit A.

Government Response: Submittal of an agenda and meeting minutes is not listed in Item 5 -

Measurement System Evaluation (MSE) of Attachment 0003. Item 4: Quality Post Award details the Post Award meeting also included within in paragraph C.6.3. Paragraph C.6.3 goes into further detail on timelines for conduct of the Post Award Meeting. Item 4 has been updated to clarify as follows: “Post Award Meeting (definition) - …”. CDRL A034 updated to include

Item 4 of Attachment 003. This has been included in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 20

Attachment 0003 Article 5(f) does not appear to be complete. It indicates that AIE for Minor characteristic inspections shall be submitted for approval “as required below:”; however, none of the three boxes have been checked. Which of the three boxes reflect the requirement?

Government Response: Attachment 003 Item 5(f) updated with option “(1) Listed Minor

(characteristics displayed on specifications and/or drawings)”. This has been included in the changes listed in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 21

Attachment 0003, Article 5(g)(6) indicates that that all AAIE shall pass a Government-approved

Acceptance (Prove-Out) Test and that a test analysis report shall be submitted for approval, referencing

“CDRL (DI-QCIC-81960)”. CDRL A013 (DI-QCIC-81960) does not speak to submittal of either an acceptance test nor test analysis report and there is no other CDRL associated with DI-QCIC-81960).

Request that the Government provide the CDRL required by Attachment 0003, Article 6.

Government Response: CDRL A013 explains the submission requirements in whole for all

Acceptance Inspection Equipment under MSE clause requirements. CDRL A013 explains the submission timelines while the TDP, DID (DI-QCIC-81960) in CDRL A013, and Item 5 detail information for the submission content. Data Item Description (DID DI-QCIC-81960) paragraph

3 “Content. An AIE package shall include the following (as applicable).” This paragraph describes what a complete AIE package shall include. As described in Item 5(2) AAIE is “AIE in which the inspection and acceptance determination of the product is performed, in whole or in part, in an automatic manner.” Data Item Description (DID DI-QCIC-81960) paragraph 3.6.d

“Automated Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AAIE) & Complex Design” paragraph 3.6.d.ii.b describes those things to be submitted before performing the test to qualify, specifically stating

“The final test plan”. The test plan is a part of the AIE package. Therefore, the test plan timeline is already stated within CDRL A013 “The Contractor shall submit a complete, comprehensive

AIE package no later than 120 calendar days after contract award.”. DI-QCIC-81960 paragraph d.iii(1) describes those things submitted for the final design, specifically stating “Results of the test…”. Since the test analysis report is complete at some point after the test plan approval and execution, CDRL A013 updated to include a separate timeline for the test analysis report. This update is provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 22

Attachment 0003, Article 5(k)(1) states “Personnel performing NDT examinations shall be qualified and certified in accordance with the standard practices prescribed by NAS 410 (NAS Certification &

Qualification of NDT Personnel), ANSI/ASNT-CP-189 (ASNT Standard for Qualification and Certification of

NDT Personnel), or SNT-TC-1A (Recommended Practice for Personnel Qualification and Certification in

NDT), and additional procedures that may be identified by the Government.” The language “…and additional procedures that may be identified by the Government.” Is an open-ended and undefined requirement which cannot be achieved by a contractor. Request that the Government revise

Attachment 0003, Article (k)(1) to a quantifiable and measurable requirement.

Government Response: For clarity updated Item 5(k)(1) as follows: “…and any additional procedures identified by the Government within the contract clauses, quality addendums, statement of work or technical data package.” This is a general addendum requirement paragraph applied across multiple contracts within the Government. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to work through the solicitation documents for understanding of the full requirement. This update is provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 23

Attachment 0003, Article 5(k)(2) states “…and the current nationally recognized standard practices…”

Request that the Government confirm that the term “current” is defined to mean ‘current at the time of base contract award’.

Government Response: For this solicitation Attachment 0003, Article 5(k)(2) term “current” is defined as ‘current at the time of base contract award’.

Question 24

Attachment 0003 Article 9(d) states that the final acceptance of a lot shall not occur until such time as

BLAT approval has been received; however (f) states that the provisions of any warranty clause shall apply where the ballistic test sample fails to meet the contractual requirements. Please explain how the warranty clause applies to product to which title is held by the Contractor and has not been accepted by the Government.

Government Response: The provisions of any warranty clause contained in the contract are applicable to suspect product delivered. Revised Item 9(d) sentence as follows: “In addition, the provisions of any warranty clause contained in the contract shall apply to all items delivered and suspect for the deficiency/nonconformance.” This update is provided in Amendment 0002 of the

RFP.

Question 25

Attachment 0003 Article 9(g) states “If the contractor fails to deliver any ballistic test sample within the time specified, or if the test sample is disapproved and an acceptable replacement is not provided within the time specified, the contractor shall be deemed to have failed to make delivery within the meaning of the Default clause of this contract.” Given that Attachment 0003 9(f) states that the lot from which a failed ballistic test sample was taken is rejected and that corrective action shall apply to all items which have been produced or in production since the last successful ballistic test, it is impossible for the Contractor to present the acceptable ballistic test sample referenced in Attachment 0003 Article

9(g). Is the Government therefore saying that the contractor shall be deemed to have failed to make delivery within the meaning of the Default clause of this contract when a ballistic test sample failure occurs?

Government Response: A contractor does not fail to make a delivery within the meaning of the

Default clause of this contract when a ballistic test sample failure occurs. An acceptable replacement is not specifically identified as product that underwent corrective action as a result of the ballistic test sample failure. Acceptable replacement product is conforming product whether corrective action taken to make that product acceptable or new product. The failed delivery within the meaning of the Default clause of this contract is the failure to provide an acceptable replacement.

Question 26

Attachment 0003 Article 9 Performance Verification Testing (Government) requires ballistic test samples and Attachment 0003 Article 13 Production Lot Acceptance Testing (Government Facility) also requires ballistic test samples. Is this a redundant requirement or are there indeed two distinct sets of ballistic test samples required from each production lot?

Government Response: It is one sample set with two applicable clauses.

Question 27

Page 34 of 123, C.3.3.5.1.2.1 uses the term “Government technical agency”. Please advise which

Government technical agency is being referred to.

Government Response: “Government technical agency” is the Government Integrated Product

Team (IPT) members representing technical disciplines.

Question 28

Page 36 of 123, C.3.3.11 states “The Contractor shall provide and maintain an inspection system acceptable to the Government covering all items and components under this contract.” What is meant by the term “items” beyond ‘components’?

Government Response: The items purchased on this contract are collectively referred to as the

155mm XM1128 Artillery Metal Parts Assembly. Per C.1.0 the 155mm XM1128 Artillery Metal

Parts Assembly consists of the Projectile Metal Parts Assembly and the Base Closure. Delivered

Projectile Metal Parts Assemblies and the Base Closures contain or use components (two examples are lifting plugs, pallets).

Question 29

Page 36 of 123, C.3.3.11 states “Immediately upon request, the Contractor shall submit those inspection and test records as objective evidence of all inspections performed and their outcomes to the

Government in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-NDTI-80809B Tailored).” As the generation of a CDRL is required to fulfill this requirement and that CDRL must be transmitted via DoD SAFE, response cannot be immediate. The referenced DD Form 1423 required delivery within 1 business day of request.

Request the Government delete the term “immediately’.

Government Response: C.3.3.11 updated to remove “immediately”. These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 30

Attachment 0003, Article 12 conflicts with Page 39 of 123, Section C.4. Which takes precedence?

Government Response: Please specifically identify the conflict referenced in question. For clarity and alignment with Attachment 0003 Item 12(d), paragraph C.4.2.1 was updated as follows: “For

Pallet Cover and Pallet Base…”. These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 31

Page 41 of 123, C.8.2 requires the Contractor to destroy Contractor-owned property: “C.8.2 During the conduct or at the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor shall destroy all excess unaccepted components, subassemblies and material, and all excess energetic and non-energetic waste such that they are no longer usable or reclaimable for their original purposes. Once the Contractor destroys the material, it shall be disposed of only as scrap. The Contractor shall use DODD 4160.28-M Volume W/

Change 2, Defense Demilitarization: Procedural Guidance for accomplishment of this task.”

We believe that the Government intent is that Contractor-owned scrap, energetic waste, and non-energetic waste be destroyed.

Will the Government consider replacing C.8.2 with the following language which would allow the

Contractor to retain material it owns, e.g., steel, copper, and which meets the intent of the demilitarization mission?

‘At the conclusion of this contract, all Contractor-owned components, subassemblies, and materials at the point upon which those materials fall under the Munition List and which are dispositioned as scrap, plus all excess energetic waste, and non-energetic waste shall also be destroyed, such that they are no longer usable or reclaimable for their original purposes. Once it is destroyed, it shall be disposed of only as scrap. DODD 4160.21-M-1 CE-01 RPT, Defense

Demilitarization Manual shall be used as a reference guide for accomplishment of this task.’

The Demilitarization language, C.8, in the current 155mm M795 W15QKN-19-D-0084 contract is provided below for ease of reference:

“C.8 Demilitarization: At the conclusion of the contract the Contractor shall provide the

Government with an inventory of all excess unaccepted Government-owned components, subassemblies and material for disposition instructions, including shipping instructions, and shall be dispositioned in accordance with those instructions. Items dispositioned as either scrap or destroy shall be destroyed, such that they are no longer usable or reclaimable for their original purposes.

At the conclusion of this contract, all Contractor-owned components, subassemblies, and material dispositioned as scrap, plus all excess energetic waste, and non-energetic waste shall also be destroyed, such that they are no longer usable or reclaimable for their original purposes.

Once it is destroyed, it shall be disposed of only as scrap. DODD 4160.21-M-1 CE-01 RPT, Defense Demilitarization Manual shall be used as a reference guide for accomplishment of this task.

C.8.1 Specifically for the M795, demilitarization processing shall apply to Contractor-owned materials at the point upon which those materials enter the finish turn operation. Contractor-owned materials generated prior to entering the finish turn operation do not require any demilitarization processing.”

Government Response: The concern appears to be with destruction of unprocessed raw material.

C.8.2 updated as follows to address the specific concern with unprocessed raw material:

C.8.2 During the conduct or at the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor shall destroy all excess unaccepted components and subassemblies such that they are no longer usable or reclaimable for their original purposes. In addition, during the conduct or at the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor shall destroy all excess unaccepted material, excluding unprocessed raw material, such that they are no longer usable or reclaimable for their original purposes. The

Contractor shall also destroy all excess energetic and non-energetic waste such that they are no longer usable or reclaimable for their original purposes. Once the Contractor destroys the components, subassemblies, material, energetic waste, and non-energetic waste it shall be disposed of only as scrap. The Contractor shall use DODD 4160.28-M Volume W/ Change 2, Defense Demilitarization: Procedural Guidance for accomplishment of this task. These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 32

Page 119 of 123, M.3.4 .1.a states that “Prices proposed in Attachment 0001 Price Matrix will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price” (TEP) , however, there does not appear to be a TEP sheet, nor reference to how items, ranges, and years contribute to this calculation within the Pricing Matrix and weights are not provided. Will the Government provide its full evaluated pricing formula to enable bidders to fully understand how proposals will be evaluated?

Government Response: No, the Government will not provide its pricing formula(s) to any

Offeror.

Question 33

In reference to Attachment 0001 Price Matrix, we have noted the base closures have a separate CLIN.

Does the Government foresee buying these base closures on other than a one-for-one basis with the

XM1128 Projectile Assembly, i.e, one and not the other, or more one than the other? The answer may affect price of each if not purchased as a set.

Government Response: The Government expects to purchase the items on a one for one basis.

However, incorporating as a separate CLIN creates flexibility to support replacement of either item due to downstream loss by purchasing the individual item.

Question 34

In reference to Attachment 0001 Price Matrix, Ordering Periods 2-5: Will the Government create an additional quantity range in Order Periods 2-5 in order to optimize its buying power, specifically between the 8,000 and 30,000 quantity range? The price difference between 8,000 and 30,000 is expected to be notable for both the body and base closure since up-front setup, work force mobilization, line prove-out, learning, and durable tooling/spares can be spread over larger quantities, especially in an IDIQ environment where gaps between production can occur.

Government Response: Your comment is noted; however, the Government will not create an additional quantity range.

Question 35

In reference to Attachment 0001, Price Matrix: Since the requested products are still in development and production capabilities have not been established, we believe the Government would benefit from the inclusion of an optional NRE CLIN for ramping up monthly throughput from 2,000 to 6,000, thus ensuring that the Government only incurs this cost once and would receive the benefit in lower recurring unit prices. This would also establish a baseline from which the Government could fairly and openly evaluate the bidders.

Government Response: Your comment is noted; however, the Government will not establish an optional NRE CLIN.

Question 36

Attachment 0011 Proposal Adequacy Checklist is the FAR Part 15 Checklist: Given that this is a competitive solicitation and certified cost or pricing data is not required, we respectfully request the removal of Attachment 0011 – Proposal Adequacy Checklist from the solicitation.

Government Response: As stated in L.4.2.7, certified cost or pricing data is not required as the

Government anticipates adequate competition. However, the Contracting Officer has the right to request certified cost or pricing data if there is inadequate pricing or if there is a single responsible offeror. Attachment 0011 – Proposal Adequacy Checklist has been included to assist the Offeror(s) if certified cost or pricing data is requested.

Question 37

Section L invites the bidding contractor to disclose cost information under a competitive solicitation seemingly at its discretion and is not clear on what the minimum submission for adequacy is or how this voluntary disclosure weighs in to the evaluation. Is it accurate to say Price Volume submission compliance consists of a completed Pricing Matrix Excel file with EPA baseline values, a completed section B, and detailed calculations for any Government-owned equipment usage?

Government Response: Yes, a completed Pricing Matrix (completed in its entirety), completed

Section B, and detailed calculation of any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) usage.

Question 38

The RFP clearly states that minimum monthly production is 2,000 XM1128 bodies. The ramp up to 6,000 appears to be a desired rather than direct contractual requirement. Whereas the basis for award in

Section M is a best value tradeoff with no known TEP and that price is the second award factor, would meeting the minimum rate be considered responsive should the bidding contractor deem the affordability of the desired state uncompetitive given the IDIQ nature of the solicitation?

Government Response: The Government discovered that paragraph L.4.1.1 is found twice within the RFP. Paragraph L.4.1.1 Subfactor 2: Management Plan on page 107 has been changed to

L.4.1.2 Subfactor 2: Management Plan. In addition, the Government is lowering the stated rate from 6,000 to 5,000 in the following paragraphs L.4.1.1.h, L.4.1.1.h.6, L.4.1.2.b, L.4.1.2.b.2, L.4.1.2.b.3, M.3.3.2.h, M.3.3.2.h.6, M.3.3.3.b, M.3.3.3.b.2, and M.3.3.3.b.3.

L.4.1.1.h requires the Offeror to “provide a throughput analysis to meet, at a minimum, a monthly delivery rate of 2,000 XM1128 Artillery Metal Parts Assemblies and the ability to achieve a monthly delivery rate of 5,000 XM1128 Artillery Metal Parts Assemblies.” M.4.1.1.h describes the evaluation approach for L.4.1.1.h as “the adequacy, feasibility, and completeness of the Offerors throughput analysis to meet a minimum monthly delivery rate of 2,000 XM1128

Artillery Metal Parts Assemblies and the ability to achieve a monthly delivery rate of 5,000

XM1128 Artillery Metal Parts Assemblies.” Therefore, the proposal provided will be evaluated for the presence of both the minimum rate of 2,000 and ability to achieve 5,000 jointly, and the adequacy, feasibility, and completeness of both the minimum rate of 2,000 and ability to achieve

6,000 jointly. These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 39

Will the Government add a more effective order limitation clause to clearly state 60,000 XM1128 bodies per Ordering Period, should the winning contractor not be able to demonstrate the desired throughput for a round that has never been produced, as well as maintain consistency to the pricing matrix max quantities?

Government Response: No, the Government will not revise the language for this clause.

Question 40

What is to preclude the Government from making multiple max quantity awards at a single unit price within an Ordering Period over 15 days apart, thereby work loading a facility through the entire period of performance at a single price?

Government Response: Nothing is precluding the Government from issuing multiple delivery orders with max quantities of a single unit price. As stated in (b) of FAR 52.216-19, “The

Contractor is not obligated to honor--” and the clause provided three (3) extreme scenarios of different types of delivery orders.

Question 41

RFP page 47, Section D states delivery of production should start 420 days after award and further clarifies that this only applies to Order Period 1. What is the required time to produce after award notification for the other Ordering Periods, understanding that this is an IDIQ contract with no guarantee of annual orders (i.e., line can go cold for periods of time)?

Government Response: The correct reference for the question is Section F 52.211-8 “Time of

Delivery” on page 47. Note 1 states “420 days only apply to the first delivery order award” and is not specifically tied to an Ordering Period. Update incorporated to table “Requirement

Delivery Schedule” to address requirement for deliveries after the first delivery order as follows:

Item Quantity Days After Date of Contract

First Article Test 1 LOT ** 345 days after the Delivery

Order Award

Additional First Article Test 1 LOT ** 165 days after the Delivery

Order Award

155mm XM1128 Projectile

Metal Parts Assembly

Various Beginning 420 days after the

Delivery Order Award at a rate of at least 2,000 per month *

155 XM1128 Metal Parts

Base Closure

Various Beginning 420 days after the

Delivery Order Award at a rate of at least 2,000 per month *

155 XM1128 Projectile Metal

Parts Assembly

Various Beginning no earlier than 120 days after delivery order award at a rate of at least

2,000 per month***

155 XM1128 Metal Parts

Base Closure

Various Beginning no earlier than 120 days after delivery order award at a rate of at least

2,000 per month***

Addition to narrative of “*** Note 3: For all delivery orders following the first delivery order.”

These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 42

Section D states that inspection\acceptance for production is at origin and delivery is considered complete at destination. How does this impact DD250 invoice timing?

Government Response: The correct reference for this question is Section F 52.211-8 “Time of

Delivery” on page 47. The solicitation specifically states:

“For FAT, AFAT, and Production Quantities, it should be noted that INSPECTION and

ACCEPTANCE are at Origin and F.O.B. is at Destination.”

This means that the FAT, AFAT, and Production Quantities are inspected and accepted at

Origin. DD250 is completed upon acceptance at origin. F.O.B. at Destination indicates that shipment is responsibility of the Contractor.

Question 43

Since the delivery term for production is FOB Destination, can the Government provide a potential list of destinations so the contractor can properly estimate freight costs and timing?

Government Response: Currently, the location of the delivery destinations are TBD, for pricing purposes only, the potential locations are Iowa, Canada, and/or Arkansas. These locations are subject to change. These updates are provided in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 44

What is the acceptance criteria and DD250 timing for base closure CLINs in relation to projectile bodies?

Government Response: The criteria for product acceptance requirements is within the statement of work, technical data package, and CDRLs. The timing is the same as the projectile bodies.

Question 45

RFP Page 57, Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) Clause, we recommend that the Government include coverage for Order Period 1 CLINs as well, as the contractor will be exposed to multiple years of market volatility from the onset of the contract given that there will be both a FAAT before production and that there is nothing in the solicitation which prevents the Government from placing delivery orders in Order

Period 1 which require deliveries in the out years.

Government Response: The Offeror’s recommendation has been noted. However, no updates to

Ordering Period 1 CLINs will be made at this time.

Question 46

RFP Page 57, Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) Clause, Since the base closure is a separate CLIN and uses a different steel type and weight, should the EPA include a separate table for its applicable steel price changes?

Government Response: Yes, it should be included; a separate table for the Base Closure has been included in Amendment 0002.

Question 47

RFP Pg. 105, L.3.2.1: This paragraph provides instructions for submitting digital copies on CD/DVD. RFP

Pg. 105, L.3.3 provides instructions for submitting one original paper and six paper copies of the proposal in addition to two CD copies. Can the Government confirm that proposals are to be submitted only via DoD SAFE?

Government Response: No, the requirement is for submitting one original paper and six (6) paper copies; however, the additional two CD copies are not required and can submitted via

DOD Safe.

Question 48

Page 61 of 121, I-95 252.215-7002 is required when the resultant contract is to be awarded on the basis of certified cost or pricing data. Whereas the Government has the full expectation of competition, W15QKN-22-R-0008 having been issued as a competitive solicitation, it appears that this clause is not applicable. Request that the Government confirm that 252.215-7002 is not required or explain why it is required for a competitive solicitation.

Government Response: The request has been denied. Although the Government anticipates adequate competition, the Government and the Contracting Officer reserve the right to request certified cost or pricing data if there is inadequate pricing or if there is only a single, responsible offeror.

Question 49

Page 62 of 123, I-120 252.242-7004 is required when the resultant fixed-price contract contains progress payments. Neither progress payments clause 52.232-13 nor 252.232-7016 is included in the solicitation.

Is the Government offering progress payments and, if so, under what clause, or is 252.242-7004 not applicable?

Government Response: DFARS Clause 252.242-7004 is not applicable and has been removed as shown in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.

Question 50

Page 62 of 123, I-124 252.244-7001 is required when 52.244-2 is invoked. 52.244-2 is required when unpriced contract actions are anticipated. How are unpriced contract actions anticipated under the resultant production IDIQ contract and what unpriced contract actions does the Government anticipate will be issued?

Government Response: The Government does not anticipate unpriced contract actions for this requirement; this clause has been removed as shown in Amendment 0002 of the RFP.