B08 - Attachment 0009 - BLU-109AB - INDUSTRY QA_23JAN2023.pdf

Attachment 0009 - INDUSTRY Q&A

RFP W519TC-23-R-0007

BLU-109 A(D-1)/B Bomb Body Assembly and MHU-212B/E Pallet

Q1. After initial review of the solicitation, I have the following comments and clarification requests regarding DL 8463170-150 Revision J:

o 8463170 Rev AF Listed as requirement on DL (not provided) - 8463170 Rev AE was provided with the TDP o 8463191 Rev P Included with TDP - Not listed as a requirement on DL – Not listed as a requirement on 8463170 Rev AE o 8463199 Rev N Not provided with TDP o 8463232 Rev L Not provided with TDP o 8463234 Rev N Not provided with TDP o 8463241 Rev G Not provided with TDP o 8463242 Rev G Not provided with TDP o 8463247 Rev F Not provided with TDP o SP8463171 Rev F Not provided with TDP o SP8463190 Rev G Not provided with TDP

Please advise and/or provide additional TDP documents.

A1. Please see the below responses regarding DL 8463170-150 Revision J:

• 8463170 Rev AF Listed as requirement on DL (not provided) - 8463170 Rev AE was provided with the TDP – Yes, 8463170, Rev AF should have been included with the TDP. This drawing will be uploaded to view on SAM.gov.

• 8463191 Rev P Included with TDP - Not listed as a requirement on DL – Not listed as a requirement on 8463170 Rev AE – The USG has confirmed that this spacer (DWG 8463191, Rev P) is not used on the BLU-109A/B configuration. The DL is correct. Please disregard this drawing as part of the TDP.

• The below drawings have been confirmed to have been included with all the drawings in the TDP.

- 8463199 Rev N

- 8463232 Rev L

- 8463234 Rev N

- 8463241 Rev G

- 8463242 Rev G

- 8463247 Rev F

- SP8463171 Rev F

- SP8463190 Rev G

Q2. I had a question for a component supplied for W519TC-23-R-0007. The 8463191 Spacer Forward Adapter is listed on page 24 of the solicitation and the drawing was included in the technical data package and is referenced in the critical item fabrication specification. There was no reference to this component in the palletization drawings, can you confirm that this component is not required? If this component is required to be provided as part of the loose parts can you confirm whether -003 or -001 is required.

A2. The USG has confirmed that DWG 8463191, Spacer Forward Adapter, is NOT required on the BLU-109 A(D-1)/B Bomb Body configuration. The RFP will be amended to remove this drawing from the End Item Component Listing in paragraph c of E0010 – Ammunition Data Cards (p.24). Please disregard this drawing as part of the TDP.

Q3. Is the PPQ completed by us or do we send to a contacting command or prime for their perspective on performance?

A3. Section L.4.2.3 of the solicitation (p.76) states the following:

The Offeror must complete PPQ Sections IIA and IIB for each contract reference and send copies of the PPQ to the respondent(s) Point of Contact (POC) as identified in IIA. The Offeror shall include these documents in Volume II, Section 1 of the proposal. If the Offeror fails to provide proof of submission of the PPQ in Volume I, Section 1 of the proposal, then the Offeror(s) proposal shall be deemed noncompliant. The PPQ respondent(s) shall send the completed questionnaire directly to the U.S. Government POC as shown in Section III of the PPQ by the closing date of the solicitation.

Therefore, the Offeror would complete IIA and IIB. Section IIA shall be completed by the Offeror, however, this information shall be for the “RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION / POC”. The respondent is the person that will be completing the PPQ for their perspective on contract performance by your company. The respondent will complete sections IIC and IID. The respondents to the PPQ will then submit their responses directly to the U.S. Government as indicated in Section IV of the PPQ. However, the Offeror must also include a copy of the PPQ’s that were sent for completion with sections IIA and IIB completed as part of its proposal.

Q4. Drawing 6214303, Revision B was included with the TDP, however it is not listed as a requirement on the DL. Please advise.

A4. The USG has confirmed that DWG 6214303 is not applicable to the production of the BLU-109 A(D-1)/B Bomb Body Assembly. Please disregard this drawing as part of the bomb body TDP.

Q5. In reference to Section L.4.1.2.3 (c) - Please make note, ANSI/NCSL Z540.3 was withdrawn and superseded by ISO/IEC 17025:2017.

A5. Section L.4.1.2.3 – Test and Inspection subfactor, paragraph c – states - The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the proposed calibration system addressing measurement standards, traceability, certifications, and test equipment to demonstrate compliance with ISO 10012 and ANSI/NCSL Z540.3.

ANSI/NCSL Z540.3 was, in fact, superseded by ISO 17025. Therefore, for purposes of this solicitation, ANSI/NCSL Z540.3 and ISO 17025, are both acceptable specifications.

Q6. Is there a Quality Assurance Provisions (QAPS) associated with W519TC-23- R-0007?

A6. W519TC-23-R-0007 does not have a separate Quality Assurance Provisions (QAPS) document. The quality assurance provisions are contained within the drawings listed in DL8463170-150, with the exception that all references of MIL-STD-105, MIL- STD-414, MIL-STD-1235, and ANSI Z1.4 appearing in the Technical Data Package (TDP) are replaced by MIL-STD-1916, as stated in section E0001 of the solicitation.

Since there is not a separate QAP document for this procurement, the USG is providing the following clarification: Production lot size is no greater than 1 week’s production and no less than 1 day’s uninterrupted production. See Section E, E012 for this clarification.

Q7. Reference SP8463171 and DWG8463171 – the UT inspection calls out MIL- MIL-STD-2132. Should that be included in the TDP?

A7. Specification SP8463171 does call out MIL-STD-2132, however, it is DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT F – “Further dissemination only as directed by Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 09T) or its authorized representative”. Since MIL-STD-2132 is a controlled distribution document, release of this document requires approval by the Department of Defense approving authority. Since this contract has yet to be awarded to a contractor, written requests supported by a verifiable need-to-know shall be submitted to commandstandards@navy.mil. If approved, the Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion will release.

Per SP8463171, MIL-STD-2132 or ASTM A275 are alternates for forged cases.

Therefore, if a contractor chooses not to request MIL-STD-2132, then the specification says to use ASTM A275 for forged and ASTM E 1444 for cases produced with other methods.

Q8. What is the required Type, Class, and color required for primer TT-P-1757?

mailto:commandstandards@navy.mil

This primer is referenced as find no.52 on drawing 8463170 rev AF and on page 15 of SP8463190 but no reference to the type, class, or color.

A8. If a Type, Class, and color are not specified on the engineering documents then any type, class, and color meeting the base specification are acceptable. In this case, an Offeror can choose the one it prefers as long as it meets one of the TT-P-1757 requirements.

Q9. TDP DWG 8463195 BLU109/B Interface calls out another DWG in note 12 that is not in the TDP,8463185, Pad, Contact Switch. Please advise if this is not in the scope of this solicitation. If it is, please provide a copy.

A9. No, DWG 8463185 is not applicable to this solicitation.

Q10. I understand the alternate below. However, the alternates below only cover Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) which is on the part drawing….my question was or ultrasonic inspection. SP8463171 Para 4.1.2.2.4 requires ultrasonic inspection (UT), but does not give the specification to follow nor requirements to meet. The only NDT spec called on this spec is MIL-STD-2132. Since this is due next week, We will note in our proposal of not being provided with a UT specification required per that clause.

A10. After review of the SP8463171 specification, Sections 4.1.2.2.4 and 4.3.6 define where UT is applicable referencing to drawing 8463171. Both 3.3.5 and Note 31 on drawing 8463171 state the pass criteria requirement to meet (Cracks shall not exceed 3% depth of the bomb case wall thickness at the location of the crack). As long as an Offeror can prove that the method they propose can inspect to the above requirement, the USG will accept that process.

Q11. Has there been a substitution for the coating on both the ID and OD of the case? We have had several coating suppliers no quote due to it being obsolete.

A11. In regard to the ID coating, MIL-DTL-450 is still applicable and is a Bituminous compound also used in other bomb cases and being met by contractors. For the OD, there is currently not an alternate coating for use on the case. Additionally, market research indicates potential options that would meet the requirements of TT-P-664.