Attachment 0004 - M830A1 Recap RFP QAs.pdf

W519TC-23-R-0046

Attachment 0004 February 6, 2023

U.S. Government (USG) Answers in Red

Solicitation W519TC-23-R-0046 M830A1 Recapitalization Questions/Interpretations

1. 19,000 was identified as the minimum quantity to be awarded in the solicitation. Is the 22,052 quantities as identified on page 17 of the SOW the maximum quantity that can be awarded?

ANSWER: No, page 17 is the expected rounds that will be provided for only the first phase of recap.

2. Is the USG’S plan to issue the whole 19,000 at once or spread it over two or three years?

ANSWER: The yield of the quantities on Page 17 is expected to be 19,000. This is expected to be the first phase. These are the cartridges that will be provided within 75 days as described in Paragraph 6.1.5. Similar tables to Page 17 will be provided for following phases.

3. Can we assume the each of three groups identified on page 17 of the SOW will not be awarded in multiple option years?

ANSWER: These are the estimated quantities for the initial award pending changes to the inventory.

4. Can it be assumed that all M830A1’s will all be provided in PA 116 ammunition cans?

Can it also be assumed that all recapitalized cartridges will need to be returned to the USG in PA 116 ammunition cans? What if there is a shortage of PA 116 ammo cans due to damage or other losses, will the USG provide additional PA116 cans if needed?

AMSWER: All rounds will be provided and should be returned in PA116 containers. If there is an excessive number of containers that cannot be refurbished as described in Appendix C, please notify the USG and the USG will pursue acquiring more PA116 containers to maximize yield.

5. Can it be assumed the primers with missing lacquer plugs can be stored in a sealed M548ammo can, used to typically store primers, to not violate the required 4 hours of our time required in paragraph 3.4.2. Teardown will take longer than 4 hours and the worst primers won’t be known until the entire first production lot is torn down. And since static fire testing is not possible at the intended primary LAP subcontractor location, there will be a time lag between static fire and permitted rework of the lacquer plugs.

The use of theM548 ammo cans could alleviate the potential 4-hour issue.

ANSWER: The 50 worst case primers should not be sealed. The intent is to test worst case of missing lacquer. Other primers with missing lacquer holes from the first group which are not part of the 50 worst case can be stored in the ammo can until the test is successful. These primers must be lacquered prior to reusing. If the test is successful and the rework is allowed, a process to fill lacquer holes should be near the teardown line.

6. The requirement is to initially collect 50 primers with missing lacquer plugs. What is the plan if 50 are not found in the first production group as specified in paragraph 3.4.2.

Will anything less than 50 need to be tested?

ANSWER: In this scenario, primers should be collected until there are 50 primers without missing lacquer.

7. What is the approximate size of the production lot from which the 50 missing lacquer primers, as specified in paragraph 3.4.2, will be pulled?

ANSWER: The intent was Group 1 on Page 17. When teardown starts, more discussion can take place on worst case, but the intent is to pull the 50 primers and get data as soon as possible.

8. Will some primers, not missing lacquer plugs, also need to be tested alongside the ones missing lacquer plugs, as specified in paragraph 3.4.2, so that a baseline for the primers can be established?

ANSWER: There wasn’t initially thought to be a need, but this can be considered and discussed after award.

9. At what temperature or temperatures will the missing lacquer plug primers, as specified in paragraph 3.4.2, need to be tested?

ANSWER: -32C

10. Can the propellant stability test and the moisture tests required by paragraph 3.4.1 and paragraph 3.8 be performed by the LAP facility instead of sending to the USG?

ANSWER: Yes.

11. There was no direction on reuse or disposal of propellant container, but please confirm the propellant containers will need to be replaced. They should be included in the list in paragraph 5.1.4 for disposal.

ANSWER: Propellant bags should be disposed and will be added to paragraph 3.19. No tracking is needed for disposed propellant bags. Statement of work (SOW) has been updated accordingly.

12. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the propellant container (bag) 12912216 will be revision “C”?

ANSWER: Yes; 12912216 rev C. The SOW has been updated accordingly.

13. Since the revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph 2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the combustible cartridge case 12524976 will be revision “AB”?

ANSWER: Should be AD (05/09/2018). The SOW has been updated accordingly.

14. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the spring disc 12990826 will be revision “L”?

ANSWER: YES “12990826” rev L. The SOW has been updated accordingly.

15. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the retainer ring MS16624-3177 will be revision “D”?

ANSWER: No, the latest MS16624 is rev E.

16. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the primer “Packing preformed O-ring seal AMS3304 part number AS3582-121 will be revision “2018”?

ANSWER: Yes.

17. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the base coat aluminum epoxy 12912373will be revision “J”?

ANSWER: Yes, 12912373 rev J. (11/27/2017) The SOW has been updated accordingly.

18. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the top coat Epoxy Polyamide will be revision” D”?

ANSWER: Yes, 12953391 REV D. (8/2/2016) The SOW has been updated accordingly.

19. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the Adhesive and Hardener (two-part epoxy used on the skive joint reassembly) will be revision “R” (1/5/2021)?

ANSWER: No. Should be REV U. (9/23/2022) for drawing 12524908. The SOW has been updated accordingly.

20. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the revision of the Flurosilicone grease 12525047 will be revision “G”?

ANSWER: No. Should be Rev H. (9/23/2022) The SOW has been updated accordingly.

21. Since the drawing revision was not specified in the TDP provided or in paragraph

2.0 of the SOW, can we assume that the A-A-00208 revision for the inks required for the case and seal assembly marking and also the can marking will be revision “D”?

ANSWER: Yes

22. Although the case base and seal assembly 12524833 revision is identified in paragraph 2.0 as being revision “AB” can we assume that it could be reworked to the more recent revision “AD” instead of “AB”?

AMSWER: Yes, AD is the latest. The SOW has been updated accordingly.

23. Although the case base and seal assembly QAP 12525833 revision is identified in paragraph 2.0 as being at revision “F” can we assume that revision “G” could be used instead of revision “F”?

ANSWER: Yes, Rev G. (9/18/2018) The Sow has been updated accordingly.

24. To accommodate the current Spring, Disc PN 12990826 the current spring disc retaining ring groove will have to be widened as part of the case base rework process.

Please confirm that the two modified snap ring groove dimensions will be length at 6.85+/-0.1and the diameter at 42.5 -0.25 per Base, Case Dwg 12524834 Rev AH.

ANSWER: Yes. (REV AH. (4/7/2016) The SOW has been updated accordingly.

25. Can we also assume that reinspection of the affected characteristics will be per QAP12524833 revision “G” to include Minor CD 204 from Table C and Minor CD 210 from Table D and that Minor CD 210 shall be reinspected before the Dry Film Lubricant is applied.

ANSWER: Yes.

26. Can we assume that Minor CD 211 does not need to be met as it is recognized the case base snap ring groove rework will widen the width of this groove.

ANSWER: Yes, this is stated in the SOW, paragraph 3.10.

27. To avoid damage to the coating on the reworked case base features, can it also be assumed that the dimensional reinspection of the modified features will take place prior to the application of the coating?

ANSWER: Yes

28. Typically, a 100% reinspection is required on all reworked features on a given reworked part. Can we assume that once a 100-piece sample is 100% inspected and accepted for the two modified snap ring groove features that a sampling inspection would then be permitted at 1:20 frequency in lieu of 100% and that this would to the balance of the lots unless there was a rejection of the reworked case base?

ANSWER: The groove shall be inspected at the frequency stated in QAP12524833.

29. Can the combustible cartridge cases, propellant containers, primer O-rings and retainer clips be disposed of without a USG P-CAR approval or direction?

ANSWER: Yes, inventory should be provided to the PCO as directed in the SOW, Paragraph 5.1.4.

30. What provisions are in place if components or assemblies other than case base or primer exceed the 10% attrition loss value identified in paragraph 6.1.5 of the solicitation?

ANSWER: The USG will look at all opportunities to find additional components to maximize yield. The last alternative would be to reduce the contract deliverable and discuss cost impacts.

31. Can it be assumed that the removed propellant can be stored in excess fiber or metal drums provided the drums are certified empty?

AMSWER: Yes, contractor shall include in the teardown procedure how they will ensure the containers are free of propellant.

32. Can we assume that the 90 selected cartridges in paragraph 3.1.1 should be rechamber gaged to verify they will be able to be inserted in the weapon?

ANSWER: Yes.

33. Can we assume the contractor is responsible for the shipping costs of the 90 selected cartridges from paragraph 3.1.1 and the cartridge LAT’S?

ANSWER: Yes, rounds can ship with test rounds.

34. Can we assume that M1002 cartridges, not M865 cartridges will be the warmer and spotter rounds will be provided by the USG for all testing needed?

ANSWER: This will depend on available rounds and closest match to the M830A1.

35. To permit shipment of the M830A1 cartridges to be recapped from USG storage, can we assume that propellant stability testing will be performed on each of the propellant lots by the USG prior to shipment of the M830A1 cartridges to the LAP facility?

ANSWER: No, the contractor is required to perform propellant stability prior to teardown of the lot.

36. Will the new ammunition lot number be the same as the old lot number with an “A” suffix? What is the plan for those cartridge lots that have already been reworked and already have an “A” suffix as required in paragraph 6.1.3? Could an example ADC from the previous recapitalization build be provided for clarification of ADC requirements?

ANSWER: The Joint Munitions Command Quality group will provide the lot suffixes.

Typically, the suffix will go to the next letter. A sample Ammo Data Card will not be provided in the solicitation, but the USG will provide guidance as needed after award.

37. Can we assume that the contractor is responsible for the disposal cost of the cartridge case and propellant containers, retainer clips and anything else that does not get shipped to Letterkenny for disposal as required in paragraph 5.1.4?

ANSWER: SOW, Paragraph 3.20 states what should be shipped to Letterkenny including “Residual energetic material including projectiles with tracers and case adapters, propellant, or primers”. The intent is that all inert material will be disposed of and that the energetic material is paragraph 3.20 will be provided to Letterkenny for disposal.

38. Can we assume the CV cartridges should be provided at the maximum charge weight of the nine CE samples so that the CV can downloaded at YPG and not need to be uploaded?

ANSWER: Yes

39. Can we assume that “ghost printing” from the original printing on the case base is permitted to be seen after removal, as required by paragraph 4.11, of the previous marking on the case base?

ANSWER: The USG will review the interpretation of “ghost printing” after award and determine if acceptable. Marking should be removed to the best extent possible and new markings should be clearly legible.

40. Please confirm whether the contractor or the USG will be responsible for the shipping costs of all materials in paragraph 3.20 since only receipt and demil costs were identified. The shipping cost is not specified in this paragraph.

ANSWER: The contractor shall pay for shipment to Letterkenny.

41. Can we assume that all needed IHC’S for the return of energetic materials to Letterkenny per paragraph 3.2 will be created and approved by the USG at no cost to the contractor prior to them being needed for the return of these materials?

ANSWER: Yes

42. Please confirm how many primer cans and how much case base packaging materials should be provided to cover the needs for other GFM case bases and primers from the M829 demil efforts as specified in in paragraph 3.2.4.

ANSWER: The number of cans will be based on fall out and whether the primer lacquer test is successful. It is estimated that the worst case for the phase one would be 4500 primers and a 1000 case bases.

43. Can we assume that once the stability and moisture sample is selected, as required by paragraphs 3.4.1 and 3.8 the primer can be reinstalled, and this is not considered to be the start of the one-year teardown clock?

ANSWER: Yes

44. Can it be assumed that new kraft paper supplier for the combustible cartridge case will be considered to have already been qualified by testing on the M1002 and M865A1 and this would mean that an additional FAAT would not be required for the M830A1?

ANSWER: Yes

45. In paragraph 3.10, will there be an RFV created to reflect the change to make Minor 211 noted as “Not Required”?

ANSWER: No. The recap rounds will be modified as directed by the SOW. Therefore, any direction in the SOW does not require an RFV.

46. What is the minimum required cure temperature in paragraph 3.13.1? Only a maximum is stated. Will there be an RFV to reflect the change to Note 3 of drawing 12912208?

ANSWER: There is currently no minimum cure temperature. The recap rounds will be modified as directed by the SOW. Therefore, any direction in the SOW does not require an RFV.

47. In reference to 3.13.2, What is the expected timing to reference in the IMS for establishing the desired charge weight for CE? If there are delays in the joint decision, would this be a day for day slip in delivery?

ANSWER: Most likely one to two days as Yuma will need a quick turnaround to maintain schedule.

48. Also, in reference to 3.13.2 What happens if the ballistic data from the lot without a CE/CV deviates from the requirement? Will this be an RFV? Would this be a day for day slip in the schedule to allow time for processing RFV and adding to ADC?

ANSWER: If the defect was present before the recap process, no RFV is needed. If the deviation is because of recap it would need to be investigated and the path determined after a root caused is identified.

49. In reference to paragraph 3.15, what is the cure time for adhesive to fill V-groove established in the TDP? Is the application of adhesive for all projectiles or only those that have a loose case adapter?

ANSWER: While not required, it should typically cure the same time and conditions as the skive joint. As the paragraph states, it applies to all projectiles suitable for recapitalization, i.e. all projectiles that will be reassembled.

50. Can it be assumed that if inert M830A1s are not available for FAAT ADBAT testing as required in paragraph 4.4.1 that inert M1002 case adapters, inert M1002 projectile subassemblies and M830A1 combustible cases could be used for the testing of the skive joint? Also please confirm that the intention of this requirement is to build 5 surrogate samples in addition to the 10 M830A1 FAAT samples.

ANSWER: Yes, M1002 components can be used. Yes, the five samples are in addition to the 10 M830A1 samples including samples before and after the production of the FAAT sample.

51. Please confirm exactly what residual materials will or will not need to be processed through the P-CAR system.

ANSWER: Rejected material tracking should be provided to the PCO as described in SOW, Paragraph 5. P-CAR system not required for processing.

52. Can we assume that if the current supplier will be manufacturing the new combustible case that the FAAT will be waived in paragraph 4.4.2.1.2?

ANSWER: Yes

53. Can we assume that since we are using the same paint supplier as used on other 120mm programs that oil resistance testing is not needed as required in paragraph 4.4.2.3.3?

ANSWER: Yes

54. Can we assume that since the case base and a seal assembly is being recapitalized and that the old rubber seal remains, that the USG will take responsibility for any seal leakage as specified in paragraphs 4.5.3.2 and 4.5.3.2.1 and 4.5.3.2.2 and 4.5.3.3.2.3?

ANSWER: Yes, if the seal was not damaged in the rework process.

55. Since YPG is the designated ballistic test facility please confirm that YPG will have all of the capabilities required to meet all of the requirements of para 4.5.3.3.

ANSWER: The USG confirms that YPG will have all of the capabilities required to meet all of the requirements of para 4.5.3.3.

56. Can we assume that any gaging currently in use can be rolled over for gage approval on this program as required by paragraph 4.6?

ANSWER: Waiver requests will be considered. They must be submitted including previously submitted and approved AIE/AAIE and the applicable contract.

57. Can we assume that only the modified dimensions or those dimensions affected by the rework on the case base and seal assembly will be inspected after rework?

ANSWER: No. Some final inspection of cartridge assembly still applicable.

58. Will the local DCMA need to review and accept the reworked case base and seal assemblies prior to shipment from the rework facility to the LAP facility?

ANSWER: Yes.

59. We believe that the case base and seal assemblies that are to be reworked should be chambered gage tested before and after the rework along with a check of the seal integrity, but this is not required by the SOW. Should the SOW be updated, and costs be included for the 100% rechambering of the case base and seal assemblies before and after the rework or at the least one rechambering inspection?

ANSWER: No.

60. Can we assume that any critical defect found in the propellant as defined in paragraph4.5.1.1 would only be considered a critical defect if it is detected in the final propellant loading process during the final LAP process and that anything found in the prescreening of the propellant would not be considered to be a critical defect since the cartridges are being torn down at the Lap facility and the propellant is being prescreened FOD and metal at the LAP facility and not being re-blended at the propellant supplier?

ANSWER: No. Any metallic impurities find in the prescreening of the propellant will still be considered as critical defect with exception that LAP contractor will not be held liable for the occurrence of the incident.

61. Can we assume that if component lot testing is conducted per paragraph 4.7.1 that it will be conducted during the CV testing at YPG and that YPG will notify the USG and prime contractor of any test failures, and to include any other testing issues?

ANSWER: Yes

62. Can we assume that since M1002’s are more similar to M830A1 than M865’s that they could also be selected as support cartridges as required in paragraph 4.7.2?

ANSWER: This will depend on available rounds and closest match to the M830A1.

63. Can we assume that during case base testing as required in paragraph 4.8, sub paragraphs3.4.13.1, 3.4.13.2, 3.4.13.3 and 3.4.13.4 that all of this case base testing will be for information only since the case bases are being recycled or recapitalized and therefore this performance criteria is the responsibility of the USG?

ANSWER: These paragraphs are identified as "Recapitalization Testing". If the requirement is not met, the Contractor shall conduct a failure analysis to determine the root cause. If it is determined the root cause was not related to the recapitalization process the Contractor will not be held responsible.

64. Can we assume that the workmanship requirements in paragraph in 3.6.1 and 3.8.1 will be rewritten to allow for reuse of the actual recovered components? Previous recapitalization efforts have revealed that there needs to be a greater allowance for scratches, rust, or corrosion etc. on all of the recovered components.

ANSWER: The paragraph will not be rewritten but standards can be discussed after contract award. The USG agrees that there should be greater allowance for scratches, rust, or corrosion etc. on all the recovered components compared to new production.

65. Can we assume that all yellowed or “golden colored” case adapters are permitted and acceptable to be used during the course of the M830A1 cartridge rework?

ANSWER: Yes.

66. In reference to paragraph 5.1.4, Please confirm how a cartridge that was considered unusable for recapitalization should be represented: As a Qty 1 cartridge, or a Qty 1 of each item on the inventory list?

ANSWER: As a Qty 1 cartridge. Cartridges not usable for recap should not be removed from the container and returned to the USG at the conclusion of the program as described in paragraph 3.20.

67. Can we assume that a Certificate of destruction is acceptable as the report required by paragraph 5.1.5?

ANSWER: Yes.

68. Please confirm that the primer reinspection criteria required by paragraph 4.10. is fully defined by appendix “A” in paragraph A.3. Can we assume primer resistance testing is not required at the primer reinspection level? What % of reclaimed primers should be assumed to require rework for burrs on exterior threads?

ANSWER: There is no requirement to inspect for resistance prior to inserting in the cartridge. The USG does not have an estimate for % of primers to be reworked due to burrs on the exterior threads.

69. Can we assume that since the propellant bag is cut during the teardown process that criteria in appendix “A.5” is not required?

ANSWER: Yes.

70. Section 3.23 describes the LAT selection process, which is intended to represent a month’s production, also defined in this section as 30-45 days. Please confirm that this approach is dependent on LAP output and could result in multiple LAT’S from the same lot if LAP of the production group exceeds 45 days. Would the USG consider a waiver if the 45 days is exceeded by a week or two or more to avoid performing an additional LAT from the same lot?

ANSWER: The time frame was intended as an example. The groups in the first phase of the recap are laid out in Appendix C. The LAT samples should be pulled based on the quantities of those groups. The example would apply more to follow-on phases where the lots are not clearly identified in groups.

71. In reference to Paragraph 7.1, please provide a list of information the USG deems as "CUI".

ANSWER: The following is considered CUI and shall be handled appropriately:

1. Technical drawings and maps, such as Technical Data Packages (TDPs) marked as limited distribution (Distribution B, C, D, E, F, or X).

2. Capabilities, limitations, vulnerabilities of equipment and ammunition/explosives.

3. Casualty, damage and serious incident reports.

4. Publicly undisclosed movement/transport of explosives.

5. Installation vulnerability assessments, security inspection results, etc.

6. Any media shared by the government for use on this procurement that is marked

“CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION”.

72. In Section E of the solicitation, please confirm that E001 Critical Characteristic Control is only applicable to the Critical Characteristics affected by recapitalization.

ANSWER: Yes

73. Please confirm that Section E0010 Supplemental Warranty Information is not applicable for recapitalized cartridges.

ANSWER: It is applicable to any defects clearly tied to the recapitalization program.

74. With regard to Clause H0004 – Progress Payment Limitation. Will the USG consider removing this limitation?

ANSWER: Clause H0004, Progress Payment Limitation has been removed from the solicitation and updated accordingly.

75. With regard to FAR Clause 52.209-3 First Article Approval – Contractor Testing, we respectfully request that the USG include Alternate II (SEP 1989) of this clause to allow for PCO authorization to acquire materials/components prior to FAAT that can be allocable for progress payments.

ANSWER: 52.209-3 Alternate II will not be included in the solicitation.

76. With regard to FAR Clause 52.209-4 First Article Approval – Government Testing, we respectfully request that the USG include Alternate II (SEP 1989) of this clause to allow for PCO authorization to acquire materials/components prior to FAAT that can be allocable for progress payments.

ANSWER: 52.209-4 Alternate II will not be included in the solicitation.

77. We respectfully request deletion of Clause F-1, 52.211-17 Delivery of Excess Quantities and the U.S. Government (USG) consider replacing it with FAR 52.211-16, Variation in Quantity.

ANSWER: The USG will not replace the clause, however, will add FAR 52.211-16, Variation in Quantity, to the solicitation and resultant award.

78.We respectfully request deletion of Clause I-73, 252.227-7015 Technical Data – Commercial Items (Page 44 of RFP). There is no commercial data that will be developed under this effort.

ANSWER: Yes, the solicitation has been updated accordingly.

79.We respectfully request deletion of Clause I-75, 252.227-7019 Validation of Asserted Restrictions – Computer Software. This clause is not applicable to this solicitation.

ANSWER: Yes, the solicitation has been updated accordingly.

80.We respectfully request deletion of Clause I-77, 252.227-7027 Deferred Ordering of Technical Data or Computer Software (Page 44 of RFP) This clause is not applicable to this solicitation.

ANSWER: Yes, the solicitation has been updated accordingly.

81. Solicitation and Attachment 0002, Section 3.23, “A sample of 30 cartridges is to be randomly selected from each of three designated lots (one from each Group) and used for ballistic lot acceptance testing. However, it also states that this sample is meant to represent approximately one month of production.” If the LAT sample is meant to represent the entire designated lot, it cannot be pulled from one month of production because the recap of the entire lot will not be completed in one month. It is assumed a random sample of 30 recapitalized cartridges shall be pulled after completion of recap LAP for that designated lot and that there will be a total of 90 LAT rounds, 30 from each of the designated lots, for the entire effort. Suggest removing the one-month timing from the SOW. Please provide concurrence or clarification. 70.Section 3.23 describes the LAT selection process, which is intended to represent a month’s production, also defined in this section as 30-45 days. Please confirm that this approach is dependent on LAP output and could result in multiple LAT’S from the same lot if LAP of the production group exceeds 45 days. Would the USG consider a waiver if the 45 days is exceeded by a week or two or more to avoid performing an additional LAT from the same lot?

ANSWER: The time frame was intended as an example. The groups in the first phase of the recap are laid out in Appendix C. The LAT samples should be pulled based on the quantities of those groups. The example would apply more to follow-on phases where the lots are not clearly identified in groups.

82. Solicitation Section A.5 and H0001(b) states M8301A. Should be M8301A1?

ANSWER: Yes, the solicitation has been updated accordingly.

83. Solicitation and Attachment 0002, Section 3.13.1 states 121912208. Should be 12912208?

ANSWER: Yes, the SOW has been updated accordingly.

83. Solicitation and Attachment 0002, Section 4.4.2.1.1 states cartridge PN as 12944287. The correct PN is 12524976.

ANSWER: Yes, SOW has been updated accordingly.

84. Solicitation Section E0002, Section states: MIL-STD-191. Should be MIL-STD- 1916?

ANSWER: Yes, the solicitation has been updated accordingly.

85. Solicitation and Attachment 0002, Section 3.13 states to reuse the existing propellant containment bag. Due to high attrition rates all previous M830A1 recap efforts have used new propellant containment bags. Suggest RFP modification to require the use of new propellant containment bags in all recap cartridges.

ANSWER: Propellant bags should not be reused. The SOW has been updated accordingly.

86. Solicitation Sections A.6 and H0001 states, 100% of the nitrocellulose in the combustible cartridge case is restricted to the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RFAAP). Due to RFAAP PWS cost variability and length of this contract, we suggest a RFP modification to provide surrogate nitrocellulose pricing for the combustible cartridge case.

ANSWER: Due to the insignificant amount of NC in the cartridge case (.82 lbs per cartridge case), surrogate pricing will not be included.

87. Solicitation Section L0001, 2.c.(i), The offeror may choose between option A or B for any sub-factor within its Technical factor proposal. Should the offeror choose Option A, is Sub-factor 4: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) required?

ANSWER: Yes, an IMS is required for either option.

88. Volume I Technical Factor, Option A - Sub-factor 5 Obturator Modification Plan.

Will the USG consider “documentation of previous successful lathing and milling obturators on loaded M830A1 projectiles” from a subcontractor? Does this documentation have to be at the prime contractor level?

ANSWER: Yes, if the subcontractor is expected to be the obturator slotting place of performance during the contract.

89. Volume I Technical Factor, Sub-factor 4 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Option B under Section L states, “If relevant, the Offeror will submit in its proposal its IMS for recapitalization to meet the solicitation requirements which demonstrates its achievability and realistic execution.” Option A does not include this same language as it relates to an IMS. Please confirm that an IMS is required if proposing under Volume I Option A. If so, can the USG specify where in the solicitation the contractor can find the delivery schedule requirements?

ANSWER: The delivery schedule should be broken out by the groups identified in the SOW. Below is a table with that information:

Provided Yield Delivery Group 1 10,380 9,342 15 Months After Award Group 2 7,264 6,537 18 Months After Award Group 3 4,408 3,967 21 Months After Award

This delivery schedule has been added to Section B of the solicitation.