XM919 IAM RFP Questions from Industry Final 11-DEC-2023 Amendment 0005.pdf

XM919 Individual Assault Muni on (IAM) Solicita on W15QKN‐23‐R‐0089 Ques ons from Industry

Document/Sec on/Par agraph

Page # Ques on Response

1 A achment 0001, Para 8.(a) and (b)

8 MIL‐STD 1171A is referenced in the Sec on

J A achment 0001 Quality Clauses but SOW C.3.1 and SOW C.5.3.13 reference MIL‐STD 1171B. Which is correct?

MIL‐STD 1171B is the correct reference.

2 A achment 0001, para 6.(f)

3 Sec on J A achment 0001 Quality Clause 6.(f) states the PCO may order an addi onal first ar cle sample whenever there is a lapse in produc on for a period in excess of ninety (90) days. Our typical USG contracts allow up to 360 days lapse in produc on. Can this requirement be updated to 360 days in order to avoid

Contractors and sub‐ er suppliers pricing the poten al of 2‐3 addi onal FATs per year?

Since this requirement flows down to every part in the BOM, the poten al for lapse in produc on a er 90 days is high.

Requirement updated to three hundred and sixty

(360) days.

3 N/A 106 Will the Government consider including FAR

52.216‐4 (Economic Price Adjustment‐Labor and

Material) in the solicita on?

The Government did not iden fy any items/components that warranted inclusion of the EPA clause in the solicita on. However, if a contractor has ra onale suppor ng the poten al for incorpora ng the EPA clause, a contractor may provide that ra onale in their proposal for

Government review and considera on.

4 SOW C.5.3.8 83 SOW C.5.3.8 states “The Contractor shall perform the LAT requirements under this contract IAW Paragraph 7, LAT, in the

Quality Clauses, incorporated as

A achment 0001 in Sec on J.” A achment 0001 Paragraph 7 is

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

EVALUATION (MSE).

What is the correct reference?

Please see revised Sec on J Amended Quality Clauses.

5 Sec on L, A.2.c.vi 167 Sec on L – Instruc ons, Condi ons, and No ces to Offerors, Volume VI (Solicita ons, Offer and Award Documents and

Cer fica ons/Representa ons) requires the

Offeror to complete Sec on J Contract Data

Requirements List (DD1423) "with blocks 17 & 18 completed" as part of the proposal submi al.

Blocks 17 and 18 require pricing each CDRL separately.

Sec on B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs CLIN 6001 (Data Items) and CLIN 6002 (Contract Data Requirement List – CDRLs), are iden fied as Not Separately Priced.

Which is correct?

Not Separately Priced (NSP) is correct. DD1423 Blocks 17 & 18 shall be marked "NSP" upon proposal submission.

6 Sec on F, (a) 108‐109 A delivery schedule is only included for OP1.

Will the USG require deliveries in OP2‐5 to be made within a certain lead me? If so, what delivery window should be assumed for OP2‐5?

(xx months minimum and yy months maximum).

The details of Delivery Orders beyond DO1 are unknown at this me.

7 SOW C.5.3.6 86 SOW 5.3.6 states the Government reserves the right to require PCA "for the XM919 IAM, XM922

SCT, and Tracer Ammuni on Cartridge".

There is no CLIN for

Tracer Ammuni on PCA.

Which is correct?

Please see revised SOW Sec on C 5.3.6.

8 SOW C.5.3.7 87 SOW Paragraph C.5.3.7 requires 15 days’ no ce for a CONUS FAT and 75 days’ no ce of an OCONUS FAT. In Sec on I, I‐119 (52.209‐3) is invoked which requires 60 calendar days’ no ce before a CONUS FAT and 75 calendar days’ no ce for an OCONUS FAT.

Which is correct?

Please see revised SOW Sec on C 5.3.7.

9 SOW C.5.0 83 SOW C.5.0 requires Government approval of PVT prior to ini a ng build of FAT hardware.

Sec on F requires PVT hardware 9 months a er delivery order award and FAT hardware 15 months a er delivery order award. How long should the Offeror assume, the Government will take for PVT of the XM919 IAM, XM922 Subcal Trainer and SCT Trainer Cartridge, respec vely?

This informa on is

The planning meline for PVT is 6 months in dura on.

required to develop an IMS in accordance with Sec on F and Sec on M evalua on criteria.

10 SOW C.5.0 83 SOW C.5.0 states that in the event of PVT failures "The Contractor shall be responsible for providing the updated PVT hardware and tes ng at no addi onal cost to the Government to confirm the corrected design meets the Performance Specifica on." In order to bound the risk to the Contractor, what is the quan ty of PVT hardware required for the XM919 IAM, XM922 Subcal

Trainer and SCT Trainer Cartridge, respec vely?

Each applicable Performance

Specifica on outlines tes ng in Table II.

Quan es for DVT /PVT are iden fied in Table III.

DVT and PVT are synonymous.

11 SOW C.5.1.1(6)(c) 84 The Ancillary Parts list in the SOW states the Sub‐ Caliber Tracer Cartridge ammuni on "rounds are ballis cally matched to the XM919 IAM". The

XM922 P‐spec paragraph

6.11.14 states "The

XM922 is not required to ballis cally match the XM919…". Which is correct?

Please see revised SOW Sec on C5.1.1(6)(c).

12 SOW C.5.1.1(6)(m) 84 For the Arena Fragmenta on

Configura on, Energe c Projec le (Type 2), is the Government providing the means to simultaneously and remotely detonate both the Forward and Rear Warheads or is the

Contractor responsible for this?

Projec les should be modified for sta c firing using a detonator (e.g.

RP‐80 exploding bridge wire (EBW)) for simultaneously func on of the BIC and MC. The Safety Arming Ini a on (SAI) units should be removed from the BIC and MC and replaced with an aluminum surrogate drilled for detonator rou ng. All modifica ons need to minimize any influence on the normal progression of detona on and fragment forma on and trajectory.

The BIC and MC are intended to be detonated simultaneously for the purpose safe separa on analysis. If RISI compa ble detonators are not suitable, the contractor needs to supply the detonators.

For the MC performance arena fragmenta on tes ng only the MC must be modified in same manner as safety arena tes ng using the same detonator type and iden cal surrogate method for rou ng the detonator.

13 SOW C.5.5.1, C.5.5.4

and C.5.5.5

89‐90 Do the requirements of SoW Paragraphs C.5.5.1, C.5.5.4 and C.5.5.5 apply to OCONUS subcontractors and suppliers, or do they only apply to CONUS subcontractors and suppliers?

SoW Paragraphs C.5.5.1, C.5.5.4 and C.5.5.5 apply to CONUS subcontractors and suppliers.

However, contractors shall make a good faith effort to ensure that their OCONUS subcontractors and suppliers are in compliance with applicable regula ons related to Environmental Compliance/ Pollu on

Preven on/ and Hazardous Waste.

14 SOW C.5.7.10 91‐92 Is the "specialized test equipment required by the Government" already included in the Ancillary

Parts list, or is the Contractor required to provide test equipment above and beyond the Ancillary Parts list?

The Price Matrix for the Ancillary Parts is open to allow the contractor flexibility to add addi onal specialized test equipment only if needed

15 SOW C.5.7.14 92 SOW Paragraph C.5.7.14 cites DI‐SAFT‐80931C but says “(paragraph 3 does not apply).” We aren’t sure what is being referred to as “paragraph 3”. Sec on 3 of DI SAFT 80931C is the en re technical content of the Data Item. Could you clarify what was meant?

Please see revised SOW Sec on C.5.7.14.

"(paragraph 3 does not apply)" statement removed.

16 SOW C.5.10.1, C.5.10.4

and C.5.10.5

95‐96 Do the requirements of SOW Paragraphs

C.5.10.1, C.5.10.4 and C.5.10.5 apply to

OCONUS subcontractors and suppliers, or do they only apply to CONUS subcontractors and suppliers?

C.5.10.1 applies to any prime contractor submi ng a proposal/receiving award. Aside from addressing the prime contractor's SOP/Plan related to safeguarding cri cal informa on, if cri cal informa on must be shared with a subcontractor or supplier, the SOP/Plan shall address this regardless of whether the subcontractor or supplier is

OCONUS/CONUS.

C.5.10.4.1 applies to anyone requiring access to Army installa ons/facili es/co ntrolled access areas.

C.5.10.4.2 applies to CONUS‐based prime contractor employees and associated subcontractor/supplier employees traveling to

OCONUS.

C.5.10.5 applies to CONUS‐based prime contractor employees and associated subcontractor/supplier employees, if performing or traveling outside the United States under this contract.

17 Performance Specifica ons

N/A The three performance specifica ons each contain paragraph 3.1 for Design Verifica on

Tes ng (DVT). However, DVT is not included in

Sec on B or Sec on C. Is the Contractor required

PVT is the same as DVT.

We are using PVT to prove the design.

to conduct DVT? Is DVT the same as PVT?

18 MIL PRF XM919 24 MIL‐PRF‐0032749 Table II indicates that Acous c Energy is verified by analysis and test only during Design Verifica on. Tables IV and V both list it as being required in FAT and

Conformance tes ng as well. Which is correct?

Table IV and V are correct. Table II error will be corrected.

19 MIL PRF XM919 24 MIL‐PRF‐0032749 Table II indicates that Toxic Fumes is verified by analysis and test only during Design Verifica on. Tables IV and V both list it as being required in FAT and

Conformance tes ng as well. Which is correct?

Table IV and V are correct. Table II error will be corrected.

20 MIL PRF XM919 26 MIL‐PRF‐0032749 Table II indicates that Loose

Cargo Repe ve Shock tes ng is conducted only during a DVT. Tables IV and V both list it as being required in FAT and

Conformance tes ng as well. Which is correct?

Table IV and V are correct. Table II error will be corrected.

21 MIL PRF XM919 13 MIL‐PRF‐0032749

paragraph 3.6.9‐d. states the a achment rails

"shall not be collinear." Is this correct?

The statement is an error. The rail should be collinear. Specifica on will be corrected.

22 MIL PRF XM919 5 MIL‐PRF‐0032749 Table 1 and Table VII list 15

Cri cal Characteris cs.

Table VI lists 16, with

C010 from Table 1 and VII being split into C010 and C011 in Table VI. Which is correct?

There are 16 total cri cal characteris cs. Table VI is the correct list. Tables

I and VII will be corrected to reflect this.

23 SOW C.5.3.6 86 In SoW Paragraph C.5.3.6 the Government

“reserves the right” to require a PCA on the Tracer Ammuni on

Cartridge, but there is no corresponding CLIN for

PCA of the Tracer Ammuni on. Which is correct?

A PCA will NOT be required for Tracer Ammuni on. SOW Paragraph C5.3.6 corrected.

24 MIL‐PRF‐0032750(AR)

for XM922AMM

9 Paragraphs 3.7.3.1, 3.7.3.2, and 3.7.3.3 all refer to XM919 performance, not the performance of the sub‐ caliber tracer ammuni on for the XM922. Should these be rewri en or deleted?

Paragraphs 3.7.3.1, 3.7.3.2, and 3.7.3.3 all should refer to

XM922AMM

performance. XM919 is listed in error. The document will be corrected.

25 MIL‐PRF‐0032750(AR)

for XM922AMM

5 Minor error: 3.5.1 was renamed from

Uninten onal Detona on to Uninten onal Func on, but not changed in Table II, Table III, or Table IV.

3.5.1 requirement is an error. Will be revised.

26 MIL‐PRF‐0032750(AR)

for XM922AMM

9 Minor error: 3.7.2 was rewri en as a second ESD requirement (3.7.1.2).

Table II has it listed as EM environments and Paragraph 4.7.2 s ll defines an EM test that no longer exists in

Sec on 3.

3.7.1 and 3.7.2 are now PESD and HESD requirements respec vely and verified per 4.7.1 and 4.7.2.

Tables II and Table III will be corrected to reflect the change.

27 MIL‐PRF‐0032750(AR)

for XM922AMM

11 Subcal Ammuni on Spec Table II indicates that Acous c Energy is verified by analysis and test only during Design

Verifica on. Tables IV and V both list it as being required in FAT and

Conformance tes ng as well. Which is correct?

Tables IV and V are in error Acous c Energy will only be verified during PVT/DVT. Tables IV and V will be corrected to remove this verifica on.

28 MIL‐PRF‐0032750(AR)

for XM922AMM

11 Subcal Ammuni on Spec Table II indicates that

Toxic Fumes is verified by analysis and test only during Design Verifica on. Tables IV and V both list it as being required in FAT and

Conformance tes ng as well. Which is correct?

Tables IV and V are in error Toxic Fumes will only be verified during PVT/DVT. Tables IV and V will be corrected to remove this verifica on.

29 MIL‐PRF‐0032750(AR)

for XM922AMM

11 Subcal Ammuni on Spec Table II indicates that Loose Cargo Repe ve

Shock tes ng is conducted only during a DVT. Table IV lists it as being required in FAT as well. Which is correct?

Tables IV and V are in error Loose Cargo

Repe ve Shock will only be verified during PVT/DVT. Tables IV will be corrected to remove this verifica on.

30 MIL‐PRF‐0032751(AR)

for XM922

11 Subcal Trainer Spec Table II indicates that Acous c Energy is verified by analysis and test only during Design Verifica on. Tables IV and V both list it as being required in FAT and

Conformance tes ng as well. Which is correct?

Table II is correct. Table IV and V will be corrected to remove this tes ng.

31 MIL‐PRF‐0032751(AR)

for XM922

11 Subcal Trainer Spec Table II indicates that Toxic Fumes is verified by analysis and test only during Design Verifica on. Tables IV and V both list it as being required in FAT and

Conformance tes ng as well. Which is correct?

Table II is correct. Table IV and V will be corrected to remove this tes ng.

32 MIL‐PRF‐0032751(AR)

for XM922

11 Subcal Trainer Spec Table II indicates that Loose Cargo Repe ve Shock tes ng is conducted only during a DVT. Tables IV lists it as being required in FAT as well. Which is correct?

Table II is correct. Table IV will be corrected to remove this tes ng.

33 SOW C.5.0 83 The solicita on states the Government will approve or disapprove of the

XM919 IAM/XM922

SCT/Tracer Ammuni on Cartridge PVT hardware mee ng Performance

Specifica on requirements but does not define the tests to be conducted, nor does it define how many units of each deliverable will be involved. As a result it is impossible to define the risk associated with this requirement. Please clarify what tests will be conducted and how many weapons will be involved in each test.

Each applicable Performance

Specifica on outlines tes ng in Table II.

Quan es for DVT /PVT are iden fied in Table III.

DVT and PVT are synonymous.

34 SOW C.5.3.8 87 The solicita on states LAT plans "shall be submi ed for all Contractor and subcontractor LATs for the XM919 IAM, XM922 SCT, Tracer Ammuni on Cartridge, and major subassemblies for these items". It further states "The Contractor shall conduct LAT for the following items: the fuze, warhead, propellant, igniter, launch tube, and complete end item system per the approved plans, and specifica ons." Are "major subassemblies" being defined by the subsequent list?

No. The list provided was an example only.

Individual vendor designs define their unique major subassemblies.

35 SOW C.5.3.8 87 The solicita on states "The Contractor shall conduct the system level LAT IAW the procedures contained in the test plan(s) previously approved by the

Government." Are LAT plans and reports required to be submi ed and approved for major subassemblies and/or the specified components on a lot‐by‐lot basis, or only the complete systems? If required, should the prices be included in the LAT CLINs for the XM919 IAM tac cal muni on?

LAT plans for subassemblies and complete systems must be submi ed to the USG for approval. Once approved the plan can be executed as needed to produce each lot contracted. If LAT procedures or processes change for the subassembly or complete system, a revised plan must be submi ed for approval by the Government.

36 A achment_0004_‐

_XM919_IAM_P‐

Spec_Compliance_Matr ix.xlsx

Number 35 Minor Error: 3.7.9.9 Fungus is no longer a requirement in the

XM919 IAM performance specifica on. Should this compliance row be deleted or marked as

N/A?

Item 3.7.9.9 in the Compliance Matrix for fungus tes ng is not required and should be listed as N/A. Revised.

37 Exhibit A CDRL A004 CDRL A004 (Manufacturing Plan) says “Date of first submission shall be 30 days a er contract award." However, Sec ons L and M state the Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed Manufacturing

Plan. Is the Manufacturing Plan an addi onal CDRL that is required to be submi ed with the proposal.

Sec ons L and M specify requirements for submission and evalua ons of proposals.

A er award of the

XM919 IAM contract, the contractor will be required to deliver the CDRLs specified in the solicita on.

38 N/A 106 Will the Government consider including FAR 52.232‐16 (Progress Payments) in the solicita on?

Yes, FAR 52.232‐16 added for considera on.

39 N/A N/A Will unit prices be released as public informa on? And if we object, shall we include a statement in our response to that effect?

Disclosure of Unit Price Informa on is discussed in Sec on A of the RFP.

40 Section B, CLIN 1006 9 Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 1006 states:

“LAT XM919 IAM (YEAR

1)

SERVICE REQUESTED: LAT

XM919 IAM (YEAR 1)

For Lot sizes 1 through

3200: $_______.

Lot Acceptance Testing (LAT) and LAT Test

Report of the XM919 IAM (YEAR 1) shall be in accordance with the Statement of Work

(SOW) and the requirements throughout the contract.”

For Lot sizes greater than 3200, can we perform a different, compliant LAT per our established, quality and test processes?

To reduce program risk, the USG will accept a maximum quantity of 3200 rounds per Lot.

41 Section B, CLIN 1007 10 CLIN 1007 states:

“LAT XM922 SUBCAL

TRAINER (YEAR 1)

SERVICE REQUESTED: LAT

XM922 SUBCAL TRAINER

(Y1) For Lot size 1 through 100 a Lot Acceptance

Test will be conducted.”

For Lot sizes greater than 100 for LAT, can we perform a different, compliant LAT per our established, quality and test processes?

Lot sizes greater than 100 may be performed with Government approval of a CTR LAT

Plan.

42 SOW C.5.3.8 87 The RFP states:

“The Contractor shall perform the LAT requirements under this contract IAW Paragraph 7, LAT, in the Quality

Clauses, incorporated as Attachment 0001 in

Section J.”

In Attachment 0001, Paragraph 7 is Measurement System Evaluation (MSE);

however, the LAT requirement is not included in this paragraph.

See Section C.5.3.8 Lot Acceptance Test (LAT).

Amended Section J Quality Clauses.

43 SOW C 5.2.2 / CDRL

85‐86 Both Section C, C.5.2.2.

provides guidance on

Class I and II Engineering Change Proposals (ECP).

Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) 0001 ECP Block 12 / 16 provide guidance on

Class III ECPs:

“Class III ECPs will be provided on an informational only basis only for administrative changes. If the government determines that the class III ECP is not administrative in nature, the contractor shall be notified within ten (10) days. If this occurs the Government reserves the right to reject the ECP and request that it be submitted as a class I or Class II ECP. If this does not occur, no notice shall be sent.”

Class III is not a recognized engineering change class. The

"Class III ECP" is an incorrect designation and should be “Class I".

Corrected in a revised

CDRL.

government only requires notification of Class I and II ECPs.

44 SOW C.6.i & j 84 Bullets I and J are duplicates:

“ i) Inert Projectile/Live Fuze (Rear Warhead) Projectile that contains no energetics in the warheads or Forward Warhead Fuze, but contains the live Rear Warhead Fuze. (from the

XM919 IAM)

j) Inert Fuze/Live Fuze

(Rear Warhead) Projectile that contains no energetics in the warheads or Forward Warhead Fuze, but contains the live Rear Warhead Fuze. (from the

XM919 IAM)”

Section C.5.1.1, Para 6, items i) and j) revised to address concern.

45 SOW C.6 d) 84 The text reads “XM919 IAM Target Practice munition” The Training (TP) weapon is built in same process as the live weapon.

Shall a LAT CLIN be added based on this guidance?

No LAT CLIN is required.

The TPT round is a test round for purposes of soldier fired accuracy testing during the User Excursion and will be consumed in testing.

46 SOW C.6 r). 84 The RFP reads: “XM919 Virtual Trainer Shell Inert Launch Tube with the exact dimensions as the XM919 IAM complete.”

Is it Ok to use an FHT solution with brackets attached with screws?

This solution requires an inner fixture tube to fasten the screws. Inner diameter 71,8 mm.

Possible additional protrusion from screws.

The benefit is that Spare Parts are available for

FHT system.

Yes, a FHT can be a possible solution for the

Virtual Trainer.

Providing the internal volume is maximized to the fullest extent possible to adequately secure outer components and the SVT engine can fit in the reduced space. The minimum space requirement for SVT is 60mm.

47 Section L, 2.C.I.1 & 1.e 159 Does the completed Attachment 0004 count toward the 50‐page limit for Volume I Technical or is it excluded from page count along with the other excluded documents listed in Section L, 1, e?

Section L states:

“The Offer shall complete Attachment 0004 ‐

XM919 IAM Performance Specification Compliance Matrix with proposal data reference location annotated in Column I.”

Please refer to revised Section L.1.e.

48 Section L, 1.d. 158 Is the minimum font size for text 10 point or 12 point?

Section L, 1, d states:

“Each paragraph should be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12‐point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8‐point and may be produced in landscape mode.”

While Section L, 2, e related to documents excluded from page count, such as the WBS, IMS, etc. states:

Pages should not exceed 8‐1/2 inches in width by 11 inches in length;

foldout may be used, with each fold counted as one additional page. The font used shall not be less than 10 point.

Minimum font size varies depending on if it is the response, chart illustration, or pages/data that do not count towards page limitation. Please refer to Section L.

49 Section L, 1.e. & 2.a. 158‐159 Are 11 inches in width by 17 inches in length allowable, which is inferred by the instructions related to “each fold counted as one additional page” guidance in Section L?

RFP states:

“Pages should not exceed 8‐1/2 inches in width by 11 inches in length;

foldout may be used, with each fold counted as one additional page.”

“All proposal volumes shall be marked with the

Please refer to revised Section L.1.e.

appropriate Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) markings. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins Top, Bottom, Left, Right 1 Gutter 0

From Edge Header, Footer 0.5

Page Size, Width 8.5 Page Size, Height 11”

50 Section L, Volume III Past Performance

162 The following restrictive language mandates use of Microsoft (MS) Excel format while preparing

Volume III Past Performance narrative.

RFP states” “Submission of the identified contracts shall be in Excel format to include contractually scheduled delivery dates, actual delivery dates, quantities and how many days over/under (i.e., early/late deliveries).

Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code

(332993) required by the RFP. that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (332993) required by the RFP.”

Please see revised language in Section L.

51 Section L, Volume III Past Performance, e.6.

162 RFP states: "(1) Section 1 Contract Descriptions.

This section shall include the following information in the following format…

(e) Government contract administration activities Pre‐Award Monitors name, and current e‐mail address, telephone and fax numbers."

Section 1 (b), (c), and (d) require ACO/PCO and

COR contact information.

Item (e) Pre‐Award Monitor contact information of the

Government contract administration activity is most cases not disclosed to contractors.

No. The Government is not removing this requirement. If the Contractor does not have this information, they should advise the

Government.

52 Exhibit A ‐ Contract Data Requirements List

A012 A012 Test Report, Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) includes a clerical error.

It states FAT and it should be LAT.

CDRL A012 amended to read Lot Acceptance

Test (LAT)

53 Exhibit A ‐ Contract Data Requirements List

A015, A016 A015, A016 Certification/Data Report (Material) respectively read:

“BLOCK 12: The

Contractor shall submit Energetic /Material

Certifications Report 30 days prior to FAT/LAT.”

“BLOCK 12: The Contractor shall submit Energetic /Material

Certifications Report 30 days prior to FAT/LAT.”

The Contractor's suggested revision is unclear, however the language in the CDRLs is accurate.

54 Exhibit A ‐ Contract Data Requirements List

A017 A017 Critical Characteristics Control Plan (CCCP) reads:

“Block 12 & 13:

Submission for

“Block 12 & 13:

Submission for

Government approval due NLT sixty (60) days prior to FAT.” A017

Government approval due NLT thirty (60) days prior to FAT.”

There is a clerical error. Is A017 due NLT 30 or 60 days prior to FAT?

revised with the corrected suspense ‐ due NLT 60 days prior to

FAT.

55 Exhibit A ‐ Contract Data Requirements List

A029 A029 Hazardous Waste Report CDRL states:

“Block: 12 & 13:

Submission for

Government review and approval is due NLT ninety (180) days after contract award and annually following first submission.”

There is a clerical error. Is the review and approval date due 90 days or 180 days after contract award?

“Block: 12 & 13:

Submission for

Government review and approval is due NLT ninety (90) days after contract award and annually following first submission.”

A029 revised with the corrected suspense ‐ due NLT 90 days prior to

FAT.

56 Exhibit A ‐ Contract Data Requirements List

A036 Correct CDRL A0029 A0036?

CDRL A036 amended to read: "The Contractor shall describe the reliability and maintainability program used to develop and ensure the specified reliability of the XM919

IAM."

57 Attachment 0008 ‐ Price Matrix

FFP Labor Tab How are engineering services intended to be ordered? Will they be requested via a purchase order with hours identified for pricing?

The Government intends to issue Task Orders with a Statement of Work for Engineering Services.

The Offeror would then propose to the SOW using the Labor Rates proposed under the applicable Engineering Services CLIN. Please refer to Sections L and M for line items relating to Engineering Services.

58 Attachment 0008 ‐ Price Matrix

Spare Parts CLINs Tabs On the Spare Parts CLINs Tab of Attachment 0008, not all spare parts apply to our pricing.

Additionally, there are spare parts missing from the Tab.

1) Can spare parts be deleted and added to the Spare Parts CLINs Tab of

Attachment 0008?

2) Can extra columns be added to distinguish which of the spare parts apply for the Sub Caliber Trainer and/or Field Handling Trainer.

(Several of the spare part apply to both systems.)?

1) Spare parts can be deleted and added to the Spare Parts CLINs

Tab.

2) Extra columns can be added to distinguish which of the spare parts apply for the Sub Caliber Trainer and/or Field Handling Trainer.

59 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

4.2 p. 28, Table 2, p. 19 Table 4, p. 29

In 3.4.6.2, it is unclear if the Bunker is test optional or not?

It is included in Table 2 for FAT, but the test is also required during the

Government PVT according to 4.4.6.2.

Bunker testing is not optional for PVT, it is required.

60 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 4, p.

29 / Table 5, p. 31

In the verification matrix in Table 2, should the verification class Box “B” and Box “C” be checked referenced in 3.5.10.4?

P‐Spec Table II, boxes B and C will be updated.

61 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 4, p.

29 / Table 5, p. 31

Toxic fumes referenced in 3.5.9 and acoustic energy referenced in

3.5.8 are not part of FAT or LAT, according to the Verification Matrix, Table

2.

Table II is in error and boxes B and C should be annotated with and (X).

Both the toxic fumes and acoustic energy are validated during

FAT/LAT (Table 4 and 5).

Table II, boxes B and C will be updated.

62 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 4, p.

29 / Table 5, p. 31 / Para

6.18, p. 52‐53

Loose cargo repetitive shock referenced in

3.7.5.2.3 is not part of FAT or LAT, according to Verification Matrix, Table

2. The temperature requirements do not correspond to the flowchart in 6.18.

Table II is in error and boxes B and C should be annotated with and (X).

In addition, for 3.7.6.6 Thermal shock box C should be checked.

63 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 4,

p. 29 / Para 6.18, p. 52‐

Tactical drop/impact referenced in 3.7.5.4 is not part of FAT, according to the

Verification Matrix, Table 2, nor does this requirement correspond to the flowchart in.6.18.

Additionally, the Tactical drop/impact requirement in 3.7.5.4 is verified at design verification and not part of FAT.

Table II (Box B) was missing an X and has been adjusted for

Tactical drop (FAT) in the updated interim P‐Spec.

The Flowchart in section

6.18 does include Tactical drop so no change was made for the flowchart with tactical drop.

64 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 4, p.

The Logistic drop 3.7.5.5 requirement is verified at design verification and is not part of FAT

Yes, 3.7.5.5 Logistic Drop requirement is not part of FAT. Will be removed from Table IV (FAT).

65 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 5, p.

Accuracy and note 1/2,

3.4.5 LAT: Is minimum 30

samples still applicable or should it be determined by lot size according to ISO 2859 and be equally divided for hot, ambient, and cold temperature?

Accuracy in note 1/2 p.

31 ‐ It is determined by lot size AND the minimum of 30 total rounds (10 for each temp). Contractor submits plan to show the different amount of firing depending on lot sizes. The Government cannot enforce/request the use of AQL (ISO

2859) in specification, per MIL‐STD‐961.

66 Attachment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specification

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 4, p.

Please verify the total number of weapons samples included in FAT based on:

30 samples, accuracy, 8 samples, humidity/immersion/salt fog, 2 samples Armor 2 samples Building = 42 samples FAT 2 samples Bunker if required = 44 samples

FAT

42 weapons total per Table IV. Flowchart in

6.18 is an example (Not prescriptive). Ambient Testing should be 12 systems. Note in flowchart states: All target shots performed at any temperature conditioning at the request of the USG. Per note 2, demonstrate successful function for each mode (armor and delay/instant).

Contractor may propose surrogate targets to demonstrate each mode. Bunker firing option.

67 RFP / Attachment 0008 ‐ Price Matrix

Section B / Price Matrix In Section B, CLINS 1009, 1010, 1011, and 1012 for

Ordering Period 1 Production do not have any quantities associated with them.

However, the following quantities are provided in

Attachment 0008:

Refer to Section F, Required Delivery

Schedule.

68 N/A N/A If there is a delay in receiving export authorization from the Government to share the XM919 IAM P‐Specs with foreign partners, will the Government grant a further extension for proposal submission?

Under Amendment 0002 to the XM919 IAM solicitation, the deadline for proposal submission has been extended to 14

December 2023.

69 N/A N/A Who do we contact if you are furloughed?

TBD

AMENDMENT 0003 dated 07 November 2023

70 SOW C.5.3.10 Page 9 Can a bidder propose alterna ve test methods to the requirements in SOW Requirement C.5.3.10 so long as they ensure structural integrity verifica on?

Yes, alterna ve burst test methods are acceptable provided the methodology is presented to and approved by the

Government. Test methods must address the overarching requirements to provide an acceptable level of traceability to 100% of the launch tubes produced, as well as a sta s cally relevant sample for burst tes ng conducted on a sample of the launch tube(s) lot.

AMENDMENT 0004 dated 20 November 2023

71 W15QKN‐23‐R‐0089

RFP Sec on L (iii) Volume III

Past Performance

RFP states: “Submission of the iden fied contracts should be in Excel format to include contractually scheduled delivery dates, actual delivery dates, quan es and how many days over/under (i.e., early/late deliveries).

Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classifica on System (NAICS) code (332993) required by the RFP. that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classifica on System (NAICS) code (332993) required by the RFP.”

“Please confirm that Contracts that are in adjacent NAICS to 332993, such as 332999, may be used as an iden fied Contract for Past Performance.”

Answer: Yes, relevant contracts (same or similar NAICS) will be considered for Past Performance purposes.

72 W15QKN‐23‐R‐0089

RFP Sec on L (iii) Volume III

Past Performance

“Please advise if when using an excel spreadsheet for only Sec on 1 Contract Descrip ons ( to include to include contractually

Answer: Excel Spreadsheets will not count towards page count restric ons.

scheduled delivery dates, actual delivery dates, quan es and how many days over/under (i.e., early/late deliveries), how page count will be assessed to ensure we are compliant to the page count of 25 pages for the Prime Offeror and 5 pages for each major subcontractor? Or would the Government consider changing the requirement for this data to be outside of page count?”

73 W15QKN‐23‐R‐0089

RFP Sec on L (iii) Volume III

Past Performance

The submission of the contractually scheduled delivery dates, actual delivery dates, quan es and how many days over/under (i.e., early/late deliveries) is a significant amount of date to submit.

Would the Government consider changing the requirement for this data to be outside of page count?

Answer: Excel Spreadsheets will not count towards page count restric ons.

Amendment 0002

Amendment 0003 Sec on A, P. 2

Sec on A, p.2

Amendment 0002 indicated that a new version will be provided with the next amendment, but it was not listed in Amendment 0003.

When will an updated A achment 0004 – CUI ‐ XM919 IAM P‐Spec Compliance Matrix be provided?

Answer: Per Amendments 0002 and 0003 please contact the appropriate POCs for a copy of all CUI a achments to include A achment 0004.

A achment 0005 ‐ CUI ‐ XM919 IAM Interim

Performance Specifica on

Table 2, p. 19 / Table 4, p.

29 /

Table 5, p. 31 / Para 6.18, p.

52- 53

Original Ques on: Toxic fumes referenced in 3.5.9 and acous c energy referenced in 3.5.8 are not part of FAT or LAT, according to the Verifica on Matrix, Table 2.

Answer: Both toxic fumes and acous c energy during FAT/LAT answers cri cal characteris cs of C009

USG Answer: Table II is in error and boxes B and C should be annotated with and (X). Both the toxic fumes and acous c energy are validated during FAT/LAT (Table 4 and 5). Table II, boxes B and C will be updated.

Follow up Ques on: Toxic fumes and Acous c energy requires specific test setups and posi ons according to the referenced standards and cannot be conducted during FAT or LAT using the samples for the FAT/LAT.

Can the Toxic Fumes and Acous c energy tests be moved to the PVT for verifica on of the requirements?

and C015 respec vely in Table VI. Note 7 states that “The composi on and weight of the propellant (AAIE) and pressure, forecoil/recoil and high‐speed video data collected during the successful dynamic firing of the samples validates this requirement.”

CDRL A049

CDRL A050

N/A

For both CDRL Items A049 and A050, Block 12 refers to Block 16, which states, “Block 12: Included with Request for Proposal.”

Does this mean that dra s of CDRL Items A049 and A050 shall be submi ed with the XM919 IAM proposal?

Block 13. Date of Subsequent Submission for both CDRL Items A049 and A050 states, “As Required.”

Please define “As Required;”

how many days a er contract award are the final copies of CDRL Items A049 and A050 due?

Please clarify when CDRL Items A049 and A050 are due.

Answer: Both CDRL Items are to be submi ed with the ini al proposal. Launch Tube Integrity Safety Analysis and Projec le Flight/Metal Parts Integrity Report shall only be resubmi ed “As Required” if relevant design changes are made which trigger an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP).

A achment 0004 – XM919 IAM P‐Spec Compliance Matrix – Amendment 0002 (Corrected)

No. 20, Requirement paragraph 3.7.6.3

3.7.6.3 is duplicated in No.

20 and No. 29. A achment 0005 XM919 IAM Interim Performance Specifica on states that paragraph

3.7.6.3 is Humidity, which is No. 29.

Please clarify No. 20, Air Transport Dynamics should be deleted and No. 29, paragraph 3.7.6.3 Humidity is the correct performance specifica on.

Please amend A achment 0004‐XM919 IAM P‐Spec Compliance Matrix‐ Amendment 0002 (Corrected) to reflect correct USG requirement.

Answer: Item #20 on the P‐Spec Compliance Matrix is changed to number 3.7.5.3 ‐ the correct reference for Logis c Air Transport Dynamics.

A achment 0004 – XM919 IAM P‐Spec Compliance Matrix – Amendment 0002 (Corrected)

No. 21, Requirement paragraph 3.7.6.4

Paragraph 3.7.6.4 is duplicated in No. 21 and No. 30. A achment 0005 XM919 IAM Interim Performance Specifica on states paragraph 3.7.6.4 is Water Immersion, which is No. 29.

Please clarify No. 21, Land Transport Dynamics should be deleted and No. 30,

3.7.6.4 Water Immersion is

the correct performance specifica on.

Please amend A achment 0004‐XM919 IAM P‐Spec Compliance Matrix‐ Amendment 0002 (Corrected) to reflect correct USG requirement.

Answer: Item #21 on the P‐Spec Compliance Matrix is changed to number 3.7.5.2 ‐ the correct reference for Military Land Transport Dynamics.

A achment 0004 – XM919 IAM P‐Spec Compliance Matrix – Amendment 0002 (Corrected)

No. 56, Requirement paragraph 3.6.9

3.6.9, Item d states the A achment Rail “Shall not be collinear.” The USG answers to previous ques ons, “XM919 RFP Ques ons from Industry Final 31 OCT 2023,” item 21, page 7, states that is in error; rather, the rail ‘should’ be collinear, and will be corrected.

Answer: A achment

0004 – XM919 IAM P‐

Spec Compliance Matrix

– No 56 is corrected to read: A achment rails.

The XM919 shall have one US Army standard interface rails, per MIL‐ STD‐1913, that:

Please confirm the answer referenced is s ll correct.

Amend A achment 0004‐ XM919 IAM P‐Spec Compliance Matrix‐ Amendment 0002 (Corrected) to reflect correct USG requirement.

a. shall be an integral part of each item,

b. shall provide a means for moun ng, without tools, all of the night sigh ng devices,

c. shall not be a achable or removable, and

d. shall be collinear.

AMENDMENT 0005 dated 11 December 2023

W15QKN‐23‐R‐0089

Amendment 0002 RFP

Sec on L, (iv) VOLUME IV Small Business

Par cipa on, page 31 of 35

Amendment 0002 Sec on L,

iv) VOLUME IV Small Business Par cipa on states:

“(2) This provision applies to every Offeror (U.S. and non‐U.S.), regardless of size status or loca ons of working facili es or headquarters. For proposal prepara on purposes, the Offeror's Small Business Par cipa on proposals shall be consistent with any subcontrac ng references/iden fica on contained elsewhere in any other Factor Volume.

Percentages are calculated using proposed total contract price as calculated in accordance with D.5.b.v.”

Is D.5.b.v. in reference to an RFP sec on?

Answer: The reference to D.5.b.v. has been removed and replaced with the following instruc ons in Sec on L of Amendment 5 to Solicita on W15QKN‐23‐ R‐0089. For the purpose of evalua ng Small Business Par cipa on, the total contract price is determined by mul plying the unit price for each item mes the maximum quan ty for each CLIN and calcula ng the sum of these numbers.

W15QKN‐23‐R‐0089

Amendment 0002 RFP

Sec on L, A. (vi) VOLUME VI

SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND

AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESEN

TATIONS, page 35 of 35

Amendment 0002 Sec on L, A. (vi) VOLUME VI

SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND

AWARD DOCUMENTS AND

CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESEN

TATIONS:

“Cer fica ons and Representa ons Each Offeror shall complete (fill‐ in and signatures) the solicita on sec ons

Answer: If blocks 17 & 18 are un‐editable due to document security, Offerors may use a printed copy to complete and submit the Contract Data Requirements List (DD1423) in accordance with the solicita on.

indicated below using the file (without modifica on to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all cer fica ons requiring original signature.

An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.”

For Sec on J Contract Data Requirements List (DD1423), the USG is requiring the Offeror to fill in blocks 17 & 18 with “NSP,” upon proposal submission.

However, the files within DD1423 are signed, and therefore locked for any further edi ng. In addi on, the instruc ons above indicate to use the files provided without modifying the file.