Question Set 2 for RFP W15QKN-22-R-0008 - final 24 Mar 2022.pdf

10FEB2022 Questions

W15QKN-22-R-0008

1. Page 90 of 123, Section J has no dates listed for the exhibit and attachments. Will the Government provide a fixed baseline for bidders by identify the dates of the documents listed in Section J?

Government Response: For Exhibit A - Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs) – DD1423 – Contains 38 Individual CDRLs, the finalized dates are listed within the appropriate column of the list. For Attachment 0002 - Data Item Descriptions (DID) Index List, it was updated in Amendment 0002 to list the individual dates of each DID.

The following attachments have been updated to include the date within the technical document and in Section J in the forthcoming amendment.

Attachment 0003 - QUALITY ASSURANCE ADDENDUM

Attachment 0004 - LOW LEVEL PROCESS MAP

The dates within the following attachments have been included in Section J:

Attachment 0012 - ECP R21A2023 - 155MM PALLET SPECIFICATION (CLARIFYING

NAILS)

Attachment 0013 - RFV R20K8002 - ADDITION OF MOLD INHIBITORS FOR WOOD

PALLETS

Attachment 0014 - ECP R20K2015 - CLARIFICATION FOR PALLET NAILS

Attachment 0015 - ECP R21A2038 - XM1128 METAL PARTS SPECIFICATION RELEASE

Attachment 0016 - TDP 13071733 - XM1128 METAL PARTS ASSEMBLY

Attachment 0017 - TDP 13082834 - XM1128 BASE CLOSURE

2. Page 90 of 123, Section J states that Attachment 0003 Quality Assurance Addendum consists of 22 pages; however, the actual Attachment 0003 provided as part of the solicitation package contains 17 pages. Are there 5 pages missing from the Attachment 0003 provided or is Section J incorrect?

Government Response: Attachment 0003 is not missing pages; Section J was updated to display the correct amount of pages in Amendment 0002.

3. Page 90 of 123, Section J states that Attachment 0014 is “ECP 21K2015”; however, the actual

Attachment 0014 provided as part of the solicitation package is ‘ECP 20K2015’. Is Section J incorrect or is the solicitation package missing ECP 21K2015?

Government Response: No, Attachment 0014 should read, “ECP 20K2015”; Section J will be updated accordingly in a forthcoming amendment.

4. Page 108 of 123, Section L.4.2.2(ii) states “An Additional FAT is a FAT ordered IAW the Section I First Article Test (Government Testing) and First Article Test (Contractor Testing).”; however, the clauses in Section I, I-132 and I-133, do not contain a requirement for an Additional FAT. Are the clauses in Section I incomplete or should the citation in L.4.2.2(ii) be Section C.3.3.2.2?

Government Response: An Additional FAT is a type of First Article Test. As stated in Section L.4.2.2(ii) “An Additional FAT is a FAT…”. The clauses in Section I, I-132 and I-133 are for a First Article Test regardless of type.

5. Page 108 of 123, Section L.4.2.2 (ii) states “Existing approved CDRL submissions from the initial FAT may be utilized provided they are unaffected by any changes.” Page 33 of 123, Section C.3.3.2.2 states “Existing approved CDRL submissions from the initial FAT may be utilized provided they are unaffected by any changes and the Contracting Officer concurs.” Which is correct, L.4.2.2(ii) or C.3.3.2.2?

Government Response: Section C, Paragraph C.3.3.2.2. is correct: “Existing approved CDRL submissions from the initial FAT may be utilized provided they are unaffected by any changes and the Contracting Officer concurs.” FAT and AFAT CLINs were updated in Amendment 0002

6. Page 111 of 123, Section L.4.5.1 states that fill-ins are required in Section G Contract

Administration Data; however, there does not appear to be any fill-ins in Section G Contract Administration. Will the Government please clarify the requirement?

Government Response: L.4.5.1 states, “Section A through M fill-ins as required,” meaning if there are fill-ins within Section G for the Offeror to fill in then it is required. Currently, there are no fill-ins for the Offeror to complete within Section G at this time.

7. Page 112 or 123, Section L-3 incorporates FAR 52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal. How and where would bidders propose such alternative line items?

Government Response: Clause 52.204-22 is a mandatory provision that is required to be included in all solicitations.

8. Page 112 or 123, Section L-3 incorporates FAR 52.204-22 Alternative Line Item Proposal. Would the Government evaluate alternative line items in their TEP?

Government Response: In accordance with the provision, “The Offeror may submit one or more additional proposals with alternative line items, provided that alternative line items are consistent with subpart 4.10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. However, acceptance of an alternative proposal is a unilateral decision made solely at the discretion of the Government. Offers that do not comply with the line items specified in this solicitation may be determined to be nonresponsive or unacceptable.”

9. Page 116 of 123, Section M.3.2 states “The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.” Given that the 155mm XM1128 is still in research and development, there are as yet no proven devices and techniques. Will the Government consider revising this evaluation factor to take into consideration that there are as of yet no proven devices and techniques?

Government Response: No, the Government will not revise the evaluation factors. This is applicable to the overarching evaluation for all factors and subfactors as stated in M.3. With respect to the Artillery Metal Parts production there are proven devices and techniques that result in successful performance of artillery metal parts production.

10. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 3.6.2 Projectile Cavity Surface Defects: The RFP requires a forged projectile (RFP para 1. Introduction) and MIL-DTL-32692 para 3.6.2 Projectile cavity surface defects requires there be no scale, fins, burrs, draw marks, laminations, imbedded foreign matter, and pits. What additional information can the USG provide for the size, quantity and location of the expected allowable conditions in the referenced visual standards? Or alternatively, is the USG expecting post-forge processing for the cavity to remove visually-identifiable marks that are inherent to the forging process?

Government Response: As per MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 3.6.2 visual standards for evaluation of surface defects may be established for each production line after the first month of production for each contract. The size, quantity, and location of the allowable conditions are developed after the first month of production. The process for development and use of the visual standards is described in Section C.3.3.5.1. With respect to post-forge processing it is a business decision for the Offeror on how the Offeror will meet the contract requirements.

11. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 3.7.6 Rotating Band Surface Defects (d): What will the USG provide for dimensions for the requirement for "one tightly closed seam in the area of the weld start stop zone" in MIL-DTL-32692 para 3.7.6?

Government Response: There are no dimensional call outs required. Per MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 4.3.2.6 the inspection method is Visual. The requirement states "one tightly closed” which defines the seam requirement in whole.

12. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 3.10 Interior Cavity Finish: Can the USG provide more definition to the term "orange peel" in MIL-DTL-32692 para 3.10 Interior cavity finish?

Government Response: Orange Peel is a kind of finish that may develop on painted surfaces.

Orange Peel is a bumpy surface resembling the texture of an orange peel.

13. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 4.3.1.1 Heat Treatment Inspection Lot: Can the USG please provide more definition to the term "any length of time" in MIL-DTL-32692 para 4.3.1.1 Heat treatment inspection lot?

Government Response: The stated “any length of time” requirement in MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 4.3.1.1 means amount of time greater than zero.

14. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 4.4.3.2.3 Independent verification of mechanical properties, Will the USG please clarify the acceptability of the independent lab referenced in MIL-DTL-32692 para

4.4.3.2.3 Independent verification of mechanical properties? If a certification is required please provide the standard to which it must be certified or if a Government-approved lab is required, please provide a list of labs and contact info in order to provide accurate pricing.

Government Response: Please reference Section C.3.3.10 “Certified Laboratories” which states “The Contractor shall conduct all mechanical properties tests called out in the specification and Independent Verification of mechanical properties at a certified lab…A “certified lab” for the purposes of mechanical properties testing is defined as complying with NADCAP or ISO 17025.”

15. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 4.4.3.3 Plane-strain fracture toughness test: Will the USG please clarify the acceptability of the plane-strain fracture toughness test referenced in MIL-DTL-32692 para 4.4.3.3? If a certification is required please provide the standard to which it must be certified or if a Government-approved lab is required, please provide a list of labs and contact info in order to provide accurate pricing.

Government Response: Please reference Section C.3.3.10 “Certified Laboratories” which states “The Contractor shall conduct all mechanical properties tests called out in the specification and Independent Verification of mechanical properties at a certified lab…A “certified lab” for the purposes of mechanical properties testing is defined as complying with NADCAP or ISO 17025.”

16. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 4.4.3.3 Plane-strain fracture toughness test: Will the USG please provide clarification to the term "a substantially different process" in MIL-DTL-32692 para 4.4.3.3 Plane-strain fracture toughness, subpara (b.)?

Government Response: Updated MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 4.4.3.3 to delete the word “substantially”. Government will process ECP accordingly for incorporation into the technical data package prior to award of contract.

17. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 4.4.3.3 Plane-strain fracture toughness test: Will the USG please provide clarification to the term "substantial change" in MIL-DTL-32692 para 4.4.3.3 Plane-strain fracture toughness, subpara (f.)?

Government Response: Updated MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 4.4.3.3 subparagraph to “f. A change is made in the heat treatment process.” Government will process ECP accordingly for incorporation into the technical data package prior to award of contract.

18. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 6.4.1 Band seat minimum melt standard: Will the USG provide the minimum melt visual comparison standard referenced in MIL-DTL-32692 para 6.4.1 prior to the proposal submittal date so the contractors can understand the process requirement?

Government Response: Yes, the Government can provide the minimum melt visual comparison standard referenced in MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 6.4.1 upon request. The Offeror shall return the minimum melt visual comparison standard upon contract award.

19. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 6.4.2 Contractor produced visual standards: Paragraph 3.6.2 of MIL-DTL- 32692 states that visual standards for scale or pits in the base of the projectile will be evaluated by the USG after the first month of production. Paragraph 6.4.2 of the same documented states "establishment of visual standards shall not waive the requirements for compliance with 3.6.1".

Is this also meant to be the case for paragraph 3.6.2? Will the USG allow for repricing the base after the visual standards are established?

Government Response: The statement "establishment of visual standards shall not waive the requirements for compliance with 3.6.1" is present to communicate that there are no opportunities for visual standards to waive any of the conditions found in MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 3.6.1. Further, paragraph 3.6.1 does not include language for the establishment of visual standards.

20. MIL-DTL-32692 revNA, 6.8 Range and Deflection: Has the USG established a database to statistically show the current XM1128 TDP can consistently meet the range and deflection requirements referenced in MIL-DTL-32692 para 6.8 Range and deflection? What process parameters can the USG share that will positively impact the reliability of the design to meet these performance requirements?

Government Response: As stated in 6.8 “Range and deflection are not technical requirements of this specification.” Therefore, it is not a requirement for this metal parts contract.

21. RFP page 34, C.3.3.5.1.2 Visual Acceptance Standards for Cavity Surface Defects: The requirement states that the contractor shall notify the contracting officer if defects represented by an approved visual standard for cavity surface defects exceed 20% of production in a month, 20% of a lot or increased from the previous month for three consecutive months. Will the USG please clarify if the intent of this requirement is for the contractor to eliminate the visually-identifiable defect or to ensure it does not reach the final inspection point? The purpose of a visual standard is to inform inspectors of the acceptability of a feature, though that feature may not be feasibly eliminated from the process. How does the USG expect the contractor to handle the situation where the cavity surface defect cannot be eliminated but can be removed via visual inspection?

Government Response: For clarity the requirement paragraph quoted in question 21 is C.3.3.5.1.2.3 subparagraph a, b, and c. The intent of the requirement is to ensure the preventative measures presented within the required root cause analysis and preventative measures report (paragraph C.3.3.5.1.2.1) for the Visual Acceptance Standard for Cavity Surface Defect submitted for evaluation remain effective. Further, the intent is to ensure that there are no additional root causes occurring and consequently preventative measures for those additional root causes that were not captured within the report previously submitted. As stated in C.3.3.5.1.2.3 “The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer, initiate an investigation, and revise the root cause analysis with preventative measures report in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-SESS-80255A)…”. This offers the opportunity for the Contractor to investigate and revise the root cause analysis and preventative measures report accordingly.

22. RFP Page 31, C.3.1 Production: The SOW Section states the Lifting Plus is Contractor Furnished

Material (CFM).

RFP page 32, C.3.1.2 Government Furnished Material (GFM) Lifting Plug: The SOW section states the Lifting Plus is Government Furnished Material (GFM)

RFP page 32, C.3.3.2 First Article Test (FAT): The SOW section states the Lifting Plus is CFM

RFP page 37, C.3.3.15.1.3: The SOW section states the Lifting Plug is CFM.

Will the USG confirm if the Lifting Plus will be Contractor Furnished Material [CFM] or is the Lifting Plug going to be Government Furnished Material [GFM]?

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.1 states “the Contractor shall furnish the Lifting Plug in accordance with all applicable drawings and specifications, if designated as Contractor Furnished

Material (CFM) in the delivery order.” Therefore, the delivery order will designate if the Lifting Plug is CFM. The CLIN structure construct follows with this approach for order execution of projectile assemblies with the Lifting Plug as CFM or Government Furnished Material (GFM).

Paragraph C.3.1.2 is the requirement for the “Government Furnished Material (GFM) Lifting Plug” as reflected in the title of the paragraph.

C.3.3.2 specifically states the requirement as “…MIL-DTL-63268B w/ AMD 1 if the Lifting Plug is CFM in the delivery order…” Therefore if the Lifting Plug is designated as CFM in the delivery order then the requirement within C.3.3.2 is applicable.

For clarity the requirement paragraph quoted in question 22 for Lifting Plug Independent Verification of Mechanical Properties is C.3.3.15.1.2. This paragraph begins “If the Contractor supplies the Lifting Plug as CFM…” Referencing back to the Paragraph C.3.1, “…if designated as Contractor Furnished Material (CFM) in the delivery order…” then Paragraph C.3.3.15.1.2 is applicable “If the Contractor supplies the Lifting Plug as CFM…”.

The Lifting Plug is either CFM or GFM as designated in the delivery order. The requirements outline the scope of work within the contract if the delivery order designated the Lifting Plug as CFM or GFM.

23. Attachment A015 – ECP R21A2038 – XM1128 Metal Parts Specification Release, R21A2Q38 (MIL- DTL-32692): In accordance with Page 4 of MIL-DTL-32692, Paragraph 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, Can visual standards be used from similar products for known potential cavity issues?

Government Response: No, the Government will not permit the use of visual standards from other products or contracts.

24. Attachment A015 – ECP R21A2038 – XM1128 Metal Parts Specification Release, R21A2Q38 (MIL- DTL-32692): In accordance with Page 5 of MIL-DTL-32692, Paragraph 3.7.6.d, are there any measurements to help further define "one tightly closed seam in the area of the weld start stop zone"?

Government Response: This is a repeated question. See the response to Question 11.

25. Attachment A015 – ECP R21A2038 – XM1128 Metal Parts Specification Release, R21A2Q38 (MIL- DTL-32692): In accordance with Page 17 of MIL-DTL-32629, related to Critical 1 and 2 in Table 4.3.2.5, XM1128 body machined (rearward of shoulder), can a Critical that is controlled by an in-process inspection be captured in the Critical Characteristics Control Plan (CCCP) so that if a part was caught at the in-process inspection, and removed from production at that point, it would not be considered a Critical and would then not require a shut down of production?

Government Response: Per MIL-STD-1916 paragraph 4.5 “4.5 Special reservations for critical nonconformance. When a critical nonconformance is discovered at any phase of production or during any inspection, the following immediate actions are required…” Attachment 003 Quality Addendum Item 10 paragraph f states, “In the event that a critical non-conformance is found anywhere in the production process, the contractor, as part of its CCC Plan, shall have procedures in place to ensure…” The Contractor submits the Critical Characteristics Control Plan (CCCP) document with detailed content addressing critical characteristics after award.

The requirements for the contents of the CCCP detailed in Attachment 003 Quality Addendum Item 10 and CDRL A020 contains the following: “Guidance for developing the CCCP can be found at:

https://ac.ccdc.army.mil/organizations/QESA/_files/CCCP_&_CPOA_Review_Guide_Rev- A_Amd_1_UNCLASSIFIED.PDF

The Government will review and comment on the submitted CCCP and its contents after award.

26. Attachment A015 – ECP R21A2038 – XM1128 Metal Parts Specification Release, R21A2Q38 (MIL- DTL-32692): In accordance with Page 37 of MIL-DTL-32629, Paragraph 6.3.1, request that the USG provide a copy of the drawings listed for Non-destructive testing. These drawings are also referenced in Drawing 13071724.

Government Response: MIL-DTL-32629 paragraph 6.3.1 includes the following drawings listed “13071724, 13071729, 13071730, 13071731, 13082825, 13082826, and 13082827”. Drawings 13071724, 13071729, 13071730, 13071731, 13082825, 13082826, and 13082827 are all contained within Attachment 0016 TDP 13071733 - XM1128 METAL PARTS ASSEMBLY and the certified Technical Data Package.

27. Attachment A015 – ECP R21A2038 – XM1128 Metal Parts Specification Release, R21A2Q38 (MIL- DTL-32692): In accordance with Page 38 of MIL-DTL-32629, Paragraph 6.3.1.1, if there were to be an issue with the recertification of the Ultrasonic testing standard, request clarification from the USG as to the status of parts completed thru that operation since previous certification.

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.3.6.1 states “…At a minimum, the Contractor shall recertify the standards annually and submit recertification to the Government. Recertification submission shall include measurement of the targets in each standard.” This is a minimum requirement. It is a business decision of the Contractor to recertify at the stated minimum requirement or more. Parts inspected since the previous successful certification are suspect. In order to clarify that the parts inspected since the previous successful certification are suspect C.3.3.6.1 updated with the following language “…At a minimum, the Contractor shall recertify the standards annually and submit recertification to the Government. Recertification submission shall include measurement of the targets in each standard. If the recertification of the standards is unsuccessful, all parts made since the previous successful certification are suspect. The

Contractor shall not submit any suspect material for acceptance. The Contractor shall conduct a root cause investigation and document the investigation within a report. The Contractor shall submit the complete investigation report with the Contractor’s proposed corrective actions and preventative measures plan in writing to the Government in accordance with the DD Form 1423 (DI-SESS-80255A). The Contractor’s investigation results and proposed corrective actions require approval by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer shall approve final disposition of the suspect parts.”

28. Attachment A015 – ECP R21A2038 – XM1128 Metal Parts Specification Release, Drawing Number 13071726, Rev. - (ECP R21A2038 NOR 4 of 8 Sheet 2 of 3): Per Note 3 of this drawing, it states "If Induction is employed the maximum hardness of the heat affected zone after tempering shall be RC 40". Request clarification between this statement and Paragraph 3.7.5.2 and Paragraph 4.4.4.3.4.1 of MIL-DTL-32629, where it states 39 HRC.

Government Response: Drawing 13071726 Note 3 update as follows: “"If Induction is employed the maximum hardness of the heat affected zone after tempering shall be RC 39". Government will process ECP accordingly for incorporation into the technical data package prior to award of contract.

29. Attachment A015 – ECP R21A2038 – XM1128 Metal Parts Specification Release, Drawing Number 13071726, Rev. - (ECP R21A2038 NOR 4 of 8 Sheet 2 of 3): Per Note 11, if a shell body is stamped prior to UT with the welder number and the stamp is detected by the UT inspection system as an indication, request clarification as to the acceptability of the shell at the UT inspection operation.

Government Response: Per drawing 13071726 Note 9 states "STAMP WITH ROUND

BOTTOM LOW STRESS STEEL STAMP APPROXIMATELY .118" HIGH X .01"

MAXIMUM DEEP....". Note 9 is applicable to the Welder Stamp as detailed in the drawing block area A,6. Given the notch depth requirements found on the UT standard drawings for this zone and the detailed design requirements found within the TDP, there is no issue with the presence of welder stamp prior to UT inspection when the inspection is conducted by UT system meets the requirements of the TDP.

30. RFP page 35, C.3.3.6.1.2 Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards – Contractor shall provide USG with 24 additional projectile bodies from dimensionally acceptable parts at the point of UT inspection. The paragraph goes on to describe the notches and holes to be machined in the bodies. Are these notches and holes to be machined by the Contractor or the USG?

Government Response: Section C.3.3.6.1.2 states “…the Contractor shall provide the Government with 24 additional projectile bodies to support Government Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards.” The Government will be responsible to machine the notches and holes for the Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards in C.3.3.6.1.2 only.

31. RFP pages 34-35, C.3.3.6.1.2 Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards – Contractor shall provide USG with 24 additional projectile bodies from dimensionally acceptable parts at the point of UT inspection. The paragraph goes on to describe the notches and holes to be machined in the bodies. Are these notches and holes to be machined by the Contractor or the

USG?

Government Response: This is a repeated question. See response to Question 30.

32. RFP page 32 C3.3.1.1.1 Phosphate and Painting Coating – The Contractor will provide test panels as required by TT-C-490. Can the USG confirm that phosphate and paint coated parts are not required?

Government Response: Phosphate and paint coated parts are not required or included within C.3.3.1.1.1 or the associated CDRL A007.

33. RFP page 33, C.3.3.2.3 First Article Test (FAT) Variable Data – This paragraph states that variable data for “all dimensions, listed and unlisted, on the applicable drawings in the TDP” will be provided as part of the FAT report. Please provide the definition “listed” and “unlisted” dimensions.

Government Response: “Listed” are those identified within the specification inspection requirements as Minor, Major, or Critical Inspections. “Unlisted” are those that are on the drawing requirements but not identified within the specification inspection requirements.

34. RFP page 33, C.3.3.2.4 Ballistic First Article Test (BFAT) – Will the USG provide notice of test date(s) to allow the Contractor personnel to witness the ballistic testing?

Government Response: The Government will notify the Contractor of tentative testing schedule throughout execution of the contract. Attendance by Contractor personnel is dependent upon any regulations or restrictions for visitors at the time of scheduled firing.

35. RFP page 33, C.3.3.2.4 Ballistic First Article Test (BFAT) – Will the USG conduct a Test Readiness Review prior to the BFAT?

Government Response: Test Readiness Review (TRR) is a standard Government process to ensure preparedness for test events. TRR process will occur for the XM1128 Metal Parts.

36. RFP page 33, C.3.3.2.4 Ballistic First Article Test (BFAT) – Which USG test ranges will be / are likely to be utilized to conduct the BFAT?

Government Response: As identified in the solicitation the ballistic test samples shall be shipped to Picatinny Ballistic Evaluation Center (BEC). It is anticipated all firing for Ballistic First Article Test and Ballistic Lot Acceptance Test to occur at Picatinny BEC.

37. RFP page 34, C.3.3.5.1.1 Visual-Acceptance Standards – which characteristics require visual acceptance standards?

Government Response: Revised paragraph C.3.3.5.1.1 to the following: “The Contractor, with Government approval, may establish visual acceptance standards specifically for each individual production line using FAT samples approved during the respective production line FAT.” For clarity, the following sentence has been added to paragraph C.3.3.5.1.1: “The Contractor may submit the approved FAT samples for approval as visual acceptance standards in accordance DD Form 1423 (DI-QCIC-81960). The Contractor shall identify the applicable inspection characteristic for each visual acceptance standard submitted for Government approval.” Since the submission for approval of these visual acceptance standards occurs after FAT approval CDRL A013 has been revised to include the above paragraph and incorporate separate line for timeline.

38. RFP page 34, C.3.3.5.2 Automated Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AAIE) – During an approved phased in approach to Measurement System Evaluation (MSE) approval, is the acceptance of product by AAIE proven to be acceptable to 99.6% reliability at 90% confidence acceptable? Can the USG confirm that upon completion of the AAIE phase-in period and approval of the AAIE submittal report, product acceptance would continue, from that point forward, at 99.8% reliability and 90% confidence?

Government Response: If the Contractor elects to use and the Government approves a phased-in approach as described in paragraph C.3.3.5.2 then the requirement is “The phased-in approach to demonstrate the MSE paragraph (g) requirements shall not to exceed 90 calendar days from the date of first article approval or from initiation of production when first article is not required.”

Acceptance of product by AAIE proven to 99.6% reliability at 90% confidence is acceptable within the stated 90 calendar day requirement. After the aforementioned 90 calendar day requirement, acceptance of product is by AAIE proven to the reliability and confidence requirements stated in MSE paragraph (g) and approved by the Government.

39. RFP page 34, C.3.3.5.2 Automated Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AAIE) – Does the allowance for a phased in approval of AAIE also apply to Major characteristics as shown in MSE paragraph (g)?

Government Response: No. Paragraph C.3.3.5.2 specifically limits the applicability to Critical Characteristic Automated Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AAIE).

40. RFP page 34, C.3.3.5.3 Non-Destructive Testing – Can the inspection system design, descriptions of equipment, setup procedures, maintenance and troubleshooting plans, where common with current approved programs, be submitted for roll-over approval?

Government Response: Section C.5.1 states, “Prior approval of CDRLs, i.e. MSE, PCCI, CPOA, CCCP, ADCs, on other USG contracts shall NOT guarantee rollover approval of any CDRL, DD Form 1423.” Although submission of rollover approval requests is allowed, approval of any rollover requests is not guaranteed.

41. RFP page 34, C.3.3.5.1.2 Visual Acceptance Standards – have cavity surface defect requirements been established for the XM1128 which is still under development? What is the expectation for how the contractor will develop these standards during the first 30 days of production?

Government Response: No Visual Acceptance Standards for Cavity Surface Defects are currently established. The expectation for how the contractor shall submit Visual Acceptance Standards for Cavity Surface Defects is described in C.3.3.5.1.2 and C.3.3.5.1.2.1. For further clarification on how the Contractor shall submit a Visual Acceptance Standard for Cavity Surface Defect, the first two sentences in C.3.3.5.1.2.1 are updated. The update is as follows:

“The Contractor shall submit a root cause analysis and preventative measures report in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-SESS-80255A) for each visual acceptance standard for cavity surface defect. At a minimum, for each visual acceptance standard for cavity surface defect the Contractor shall submit six samples for evaluation in accordance with DD Form 1423(DI-QCIC-81960). The six samples shall be representative of the visual acceptance standard for cavity surface defect the Contractor is submitting for evaluation. The six samples shall exhibit the same defect condition with respect to defect the severity, location, quantity, and appearance.” In addition, CDRL A013 has been updated to include Government response timeline for the submission of samples for each cavity surface defect visual standard.

42. RFP page 34, C.3.3.5.1.2.1 Root Cause Analysis for Visual Acceptance Standards – What cavity surface defect severities, locations and appearance will be required for the root cause analysis and the selection and submittal of the six representative samples? Will the USG be defining these required characteristics prior to the start of production?

Government Response: As clarified in C.3.3.5.1.2.1 (refer to revision described in Question 41) “The Contractor shall submit a root cause analysis and preventative measures report in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-SESS-80255A) for each visual acceptance standard for cavity surface defect.” The root cause analysis and preventative measures is the responsibility of the Contractor to perform for each of the Contractor’s Visual Acceptance Standard for Cavity Surface Defects submitted for evaluation. As clarified in C.3.3.5.1.2.1 (refer to revision described in Question 41) the selection of six samples representative of the visual acceptance standard for cavity surface defect is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Government is not defining severity, location, quantity, and appearance. The Contractor shall select the six samples submitted such that “All six samples shall exhibit the same defect condition with respect to the defect severity, location, quantity, and appearance.”

43. RFP page 35, C.3.3.6.2.3 Government Verification of Ultrasonic Inspection Equipment – How will the USG manufactured ultrasonic standards differ from those specified in the XM1128 TDP? Will the use of these standards require different settings to the equipment as required for the ultrasonic standards included in the XM1128 TDP?

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.3.6.1.2 describes the Government Manufactured Ultrasonic Defect Standards as containing “…notches and holes referenced in MIL-DTL-32692 paragraph 3.9.1; however, the notch and hole locations will vary to some degree within the respective zones of the ultrasonic test standard Drawings 13071730, 13071731 and 13082827.”

These standards do not change the ultrasonic equipment design requirements contained within the TDP.

44. RFP pages 35-36, C.3.3.15.1.6 – Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness Testing – The contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer if there is any large discrepancy between the original certification and the independent certification of mechanical properties, or failure of any independent test sample or specimen to meet the minimum yield strength, percent elongation, or fracture toughness required by the TDP. What is the definition of “large discrepancy”?

Government Response: The definition of “large discrepancy” for each mechanical property test required is located in paragraphs C.3.3.15.1.6.1, C.3.3.15.1.6.2, and C.3.3.15.1.6.3.

45. RFP page 38, C.3.3.15.2 Chemical Composition Analysis – This section states that components fabricated using steel that fails the independent composition verification shall be rejected however at the end it states that the contractor shall segregate and hold these components for disposition by the Contracting Officer. What is the intended action for the contractor?

Government Response: For clarity, the final two sentences of paragraph C.3.3.15.2 has been updated as follows: “The Contractor shall segregate and hold these rejected components for disposition until the investigation is complete and the root cause to the test discrepancy resolved.

The Contracting Officer shall approve final disposition of the segregated components.”

46. RFP page 38, C.3.3.16.3 PCCI Additional Critical Characteristics – how will the existence and definition of additional critical characteristics be determined and by which organization (contractor or USG)?

Government Response: Paragraph C.3.3.16.3 states, “If at any point during production the Critical Characteristics Control Plan (CCCP) does not demonstrate or provide adequate control of the critical characteristic processes and operations, addition of those critical characteristics to the PCP will be required by the Government.” The CCCP is a document that addresses critical characteristics identified within the technical data package. Paragraph C.3.3.16.3 is not adding additional critical characteristics. This paragraph is stating the Government will add existing critical characteristics to the PCP requirement if CCCP does not demonstrate or provide adequate control of those critical characteristic processes and operations.

47. RFP page 38, C.3.3.16.4 PCCI Process Capability – is this requirement to demonstrate process capability separate from those defined for AIE/AAIE in the MSE requirement? What are the requirements and criterial to be satisfied to demonstrate acceptable process capability?

Government Response: The Measurement System Equipment (MSE) Attachment 003 Quality Addendum Item 5 defines requirements for Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AIE). Automated Acceptance Inspection Equipment (AAIE) is a type of AIE as defined within Item 5 paragraph (a)(2). Item 5 paragraph (b) states “Scope: This addendum establishes requirements for design, supply, performance, and maintenance of AIE used for product inspection and acceptance.” The PCCI in Attachment 003 Quality Addendum Item 11 paragraph (d) defines a capable process that influences the quality of a characteristic for process control as having a Cpk of at least 2.00 for Critical characteristics, 1.33 for all other characteristics selected for control.

48. RFP page 38, C.3.3.16.6 PCCI Noncompliance to PCP – How will a noncompliance be defined?

We respectfully request the USG provide acceptance and/or requirements defined for the PCP.

Government Response: The PCCI requirement includes a submission and approval of a Process Control Plan (PCP). The PCP requirement description is located in Attachment 003 Quality Addendum Item 11 paragraph (d). CDRL A024 includes “Guidance for developing the PCP can be found at CCDC Public Website https://ac.ccdc.army.mil/organizations/QESA/ in the application of the PCCI.” Noncompliance means “failure to comply”. Section C.3.3.16.6 has been revised as follows, “When there is evidence or finding of noncompliance to the approved PCP, the Contractor shall prepare and submit a Failure Summary and Analysis Report with corrective actions plan to the Government in accordance with DD Form 1423 (DI-SESS- 80255B).”

49. Attachment 0003, Quality Assurance Addendum: 5) Measurement System Evaluation (MSE) (7)h: Measurement System Analysis (MSA) – The table listing characteristics for the application of MSA is empty. Will the USG confirm that MSA is not required?

Government Response: Attachment 003, Item 5 paragraph (h) states “Measurement System Analysis (MSA). The contractor is responsible to ensure all AIE is, at a minimum, stable, repeatable, and reproducible for all characteristics. Refer to ASTM E2782 and/or AIAG MSA for guidance. The contractor shall provide objective evidence, including the MSA assessment plan, associated data, and analysis, which demonstrates the AIE is, at a minimum, stable, repeatable, and reproducible for the following characteristics (MSA CDRL):”. The table listing within paragraph (h) specifically identifies characteristics for the MSA CDRL requirement “The contractor shall provide objective evidence, including the MSA assessment plan, associated data, and analysis, which demonstrates the AIE is, at a minimum, stable, repeatable, and reproducible for the following characteristics (MSA CDRL):”. However, the N/A within the MSA CDRL requirement table this does not negate the requirement stated in the first sentence, “The contractor is responsible to ensure all AIE is, at a minimum, stable, repeatable, and reproducible for all characteristics. Refer to ASTM E2782 and/or AIAG MSA for guidance.” For clarity, Attachment 003, Item 5 paragraph (h) has been updated to include a subparagraph (1) for the MSA CDRL requirement. There are no MSA CDRL submission characteristics listed for this contract.