Follow Up Q and A Responses Final.pdf

# Question USG Response

What is the availability of storage for both energetics and inert materials during "pre" and "post" production at IAAAP not inclusive of the new line?

Q1 is a clarification to question 63 of the previously distributed Q&A set. Generally speaking there will be available storage capacity elsewhere on IAAAP for both inert and energetic materials to include finished product. For the purposes of storage of inert and energetic materials on the new line itself, the USG points industry partners to DODM 4145.26 paragraph C3.4 as a guide or planning factor as to what the USG expects at a minimum. The USG is not prescriptive in determining how much finished product will be held on the new line post production. The USG anticipates finished product to be transported to long term storage elsewhere on IAAAP and managed by the operating contractor and JMC. The USG is interested in the most cost efficient design solution.

What is the planning factor for storage capability of both inert and energetic material at the new line? How much material should be at the line at any given time?

The USG refers you to question 1 and DODM4145.26 para C3.4. The USG is asking for the most efficient design and process solution that adheres to DODM4145.26.

What are the limitations of rail transport on IAAAP from the new LAP line to any storage availability elsewhere on IAAAP?

There are no limitations to rail and road network availability and encourages the most efficient cost effective design solution.

Burlington Junction is the operator of the rail network on IAAAP and use of rail would need to be coordinated with this ARMS tenant.

Does the USG have a preference to whether we use rail or road to move inert, energetic, and/or "finished" rounds throughout IAAAP?

The USG has no preference as to whether a design solution uses the rail network on IAAAP or the road network to transport materials throughout. The most efficient cost effective solution is of interest and the USG is looking to industry to help us understand this better.

Does the USG have a preference on whether we use electric or gas package boilers The USG has no preference, and is asking industry partners to inform the USG on the most efficient cost effective solution.

Quality control; Is it safe to assume testing to include notch drop and facing should be conducted at the new line?

Notch drop and facing must be part of your design solution in support of the new LAP line.

Quality control; Will the current chemical lab on IAAAP be available for use by the new LAP line?

yes

Can the USG share how many days/months/lots of finished product they desire? The baseline is 3600rds/month of production. For storage purposes the USG directs industry partners to DODM4145.26 and question 1 above. The USG is interested in lean manufacturing principles that is an efficient cost effective solution that adheres to the DOD manual.

What is the average size of one delivery of TNT to IAAAP? How many rail cars/truck loads and what is their capacity?

There is a sufficient supply of TNT coming into IAAAP for all current and planned operations. The operating contractor is responsible for the flow of TNT into IAAAP and its demand signal. For the purposes of the source sought, assume there is sufficient TNT on hand at any given time to allow for the baseline of 36000 rds/month. The USG is interested in lean manufacturing as it pertains to flow of materials through out IAAAP and the new line.

Will the USG include economic price adjustment clauses to the UCA contract? The USG may consider EPA for specified raw materials especially those originating out of country. This will be finalized prior to definitization. For long lead items (major end items and/or machinery) especially those originating out of the country the USG anticipates an industry partner will work to place long lead items on contract upon award so as to lock in direct costs so as not to exceed the NTE price.

Will the USG release the TDP's for any IMX rounds such as 1128 and 1113? At this time the USG is not releasing additional TDP's. The USG is interested in risk to cost and schedule if the USG decides to LAP 1128 and 1113 on the new line. This will likely be determined prior to definitization. The USG is not interested in going back to carbon steel equipment processing equipment due to the corrosive nature of energetics, it should be stainless steel. The USG will likely perform trade analysis to help inform a decision.

Are the ARC's for yard G and yard E as depicted in the ARC map be reduced to accommodate the new LAP line?

The USG routinely adjusts ARC maps as conditions on the ground change. We anticipate the ARC's for yards G and E to be reduced as a result of the new LAP line, but are interested in design solutions that have the least impact on adjacent storage.

Will the USG require the new facility to be built/operated in accordance with LEED standards? Will there be waivers available?

The USG expects that the new facility will need to meet UFC requirements. If a project team can demonstrate that meeting a specific LEED requirement would cause an unreasonable hardship, such as significant cost increases or technical difficulties, a waiver might be granted. The PL JS team is interested in LEED aspects for the purpose of employee comfort where applicable as long as it does not interfere with core operations such as melt pour. The USG team is asking our industry partners to help identify opportunities to design a efficient cost effective solution.

Is First Article Test an absolute requirement or can we do a modified or streamlined FAT process?

At this time the USG is asking for a full FAT as part of the commissioning process. Please refer to Q113 of the previous Q and A set. At this time ballistic first article will not be considered as part of FAT as part of the commisssioning process.

Will we receive from the USG any additional documents prior to a qualified proposal due date such as a SOW?

Please refer to question 29 below. Yes an SOW will be provided prior to qualified proposal due date.The USG anticipates additional documents, to include previous FAC effort / 60% design solutions, to be made available prior to the SSN closing.

It is important to note that all previous FAC efforts were deemed unaffordable/unexecutable and a stop work order was submitted. Any prospective offeror must proceed with caution when reviewing/incoporating previous design solutions as they were unexecutable (out of scope for the new requirement as laid out in current ssn).

Do we include change houses and break areas for production employees on the new line?

Yes. The new LAP line will require its own perimiter fence and access points (as part of the design solution). Change houses, parking and break areas should also be included in the design solution. The USG directs industry partners to DODM 4145.26 to better inform placement of such support infrastructure within a design solution.

Can the USG give any more insights on how the relationship with the current operator should or could be managed during design build commmission and transition?

The USG is looking to industry to articulate how best to commission and transition the LAP line to the operating contractor. The USG has identified there to be risk in this critical aspect of the project if in the event the design/build firm is different from the operating contractor. The USG is looking to reduce/mitigate risk and asks industry partners to inform the government how best to do this.

Does the USG have any more information around type and level of automation to include process control technology they would prioritize for this effort?

The USG is interested in an efficient design solution that incorporates proven techology and process to include process controls. This effort is not an R&D project. With that said automation that allows for an efficient layout, efficient process, and reduction in risk to personnel while maintaining a competitive price per round is important. The USG will not be prescriptive on this topic.

Spacing Requirements: Does the USG have a preference or planning factor for K factors on the new LAP line?

The USG is not prescriptive on any one design solution but is looking for the most efficient operation/layout that adheres to DESR 6055.09, DOD Manual 4145.26. The USG would also point you to the DDESB slide deck (Process Safety and Hazard Analysis Lessons Learned) previously distributed to help inform your approach. No, the USG does not have a K factor preference, this will be determined by your design solution and associated analysis to balance process efficiency and safe separation planning factors. Process Safety Management 29CFR 1910.119 can also be a helpful tool informing design and process solutions.

There is a cemetery identified on Google Earth to the west of the new site. Can the USG confirm that there is no public access to this area, and it may be considered within the IBD arc?

The cemetery is restricted access. Visiting of the site must be requested ahead of time coordinated with JMC and AO and any visits must be during offline operations. Cultural activities can be allowed in IBD and appropriate risk assesments and mitigation procedures are in place so as not to impact overall design solutions and operations.

Do the roads passing through the site need to be treated as PTR (public traffic routes) for Quantity Distance considerations?

The USG expects the site to have its own perimiter fence and access points. Road network currently crossing the proposed site will not be accessible to operations of the wider IAAAP installation.

22 What is the site’s history with regards to unexploded ordnance?

No UXO's have been discovered/identified on the proposed site.

It is considered a green field.

Per the site maps and diagrams, a 69kV line runs over the site’s footprint. Is this a concern regarding setback requirements for explosives? If so, which entity will be responsible for its relocation? Is there a concern or plan for potential facility-wide outages due to relocation?

The 69KV line has already been moved and will not impact a new LAP line in the proposed site.

What is the status of any property adjacent to the site with regards to overlapping of QD arcs?

Refer to Q12 above. The ARC's for yard G and E are currently in revision and resulting ARC's are TBD. The USG routinely revises ARC's as conditions on the ground change. With that said, the USG asks any design solution to minimize impacts to adjacent yard's.

25 Is the method of delivery for materials expected to be via rail spurs or trucks?

The USG has no expectations as to whether rail or road is used when transporting inert and energetic materials within IAAAP.

Materials delivered to IAAAP is on both rail and road. The USG asks industry to present the most efficient and cost effective design that achieves the baseline while maintaining a competitively priced round.

Can USG provide clarity on how live commissioning and FAAT will be executed? See Q17 above, and other questions regarding commissioning.

The USG has identified commissioning and transition to be a critical aspect on this project and has identified there to be risk involved if the design/build firm is different from operator firm.

We are asking industry to help the USG understand the best way forward to mitigate this risk. Solutioning around this could take many forms, to include direct agreements/contract actions between design/build firm and operating contractor, or the USG serving as the interface. The USG is not prescriptive on this aspect but will be considering trade off's that maximize value to the government while mitigating risk.

a. Will the program delivery contractor need to account for having trained operators to perform these tasks?

The USG believes the operating contractor and its personnel to be critical to the commissioning and transition of the new LAP line.

b. Will program delivery contractor need to ‘team’ with the OC for operations resources?

Potentially yes, depending on how the design/build firm articulates the commissioning/transition process. The USG is not requiring you to team with the OC but we would refer you to the previous question.

c. Will USG direct the OC to provided operations resources for commissioning?

Please refer to the previous 2 questions.

27 Would The Government allow Digital Radiography imaging methods?

Digital radiography is required. Film imaging is not acceptable nor is CR imaging.

a. If DR is allowed, will The Government allow digital image enhancements?

generally yes, but further info is required and technique must be reviewed/approved by USG

b. If DR is allowed, will The Government allow "Defect Assist" for operator review?

generally yes, but further info is required and technique must be reviewed/approved by USG

c. If DR is allowed, will The Government allow full "Automatic Defect Detection" for pass/fail decision.

The USG does not believe the technology is ready or at an acceptable level to be used in this type of operation. If industry partner is able to demonstrate otherwise it will be considered.

d. Will The Government provide Image Quality Standards to be used for image qualification?

no, contractor will be required to provided them to USG for approval. USG will be available to support development of standards.

28 Can the DDESB lessons learned be provided?

Yes, it was previously distributed and will be sent out again.

Can the USG provide thoughts on how the SOW will be communicated, after downselect, along with what the expectations regarding reporting, program reviews, etc.

A draft SOW will be provided as part of the procurement package to the selected awardee prior to the UCA award allowing the awardee to have an opportunity to comment but the SOW will become part of the UCA award. Although not finalized, the USG anticipates a kick-off meeting and establishment of 30/60/90 % design review dates in addition to monthly progress reports and regular status or IPT meetings. As part of this initial process DDESB and JMC safety will be incorporated so as to work safety plan reviews in conjunction over design reviews IOT streamline the final DDESB review process.

What is the status of past FY24 and FY25 funding? P forms are public information. The PL JS team does not anticipate any future appropriations or "plus ups" on this project.

The USG is confident based on publicly available data points that this project is sufficiently funded.

The Q&A also says, the gov't will negotiate a price BEFORE award and then definitive 180 days to a FFP. That tells us, we need to have cost realism in our bid and to do that the gov't usually asks for substantial detail. How much detail is not clear...can you provide any thoughts to the level of costing detail that the USG is looking for?

This effort will be a UCA with NTE (FFP upon definitization) price. It is on industry partners to complete due dilligence on actual costs and then to provide a NTE price. Those items to be negotiated is for scope unknown to either parties at this time such as running utilities the "final mile" which will be determine by each unique design solution presented to the USG.

Generally speaking the definitive contract resulting from the UCA will include a negotiated cost or price ceiling which will not exceed the NTE. I would recommend industry read FAR 52.216- 24, 52.216-25, and DFAR 217.74. The NTE will not be negotiated prior to initial award and definitization.

Based on Q&A Responses, the existing ECMs (munitions/energetic material storage areas) are FULL and not available for this new facility. However, during the virtual 1-on- 1, the gov't shared line G is actually inactive and line E will have the first row of ECMs pulled off line.

Questions: Is our recollection of the virtual 1-on-1 discussion on ECM's and Blast Arcs accurate? Also, will the design/construction of new ECMs, to support the LAP Facility, need to be included in the overall proposal effort?

See Q1 above. There will be storage availability for both inert and energetic materials elsewhere on IAAAP. We ask industry to refer to DODM 4145.26 paragraph C3.4. Storage of inert and energetic materials on the actual line will be determined by the design solution, and inherent lean manufacuring principles/designs to the overall design solution as long as it adheres to the DODM 4145.26. Finished product will be transported to long term storage elsewhere on IAAAP. Yard G is in lay away and some bunkers are under demil. The current use of the first row in yard E is expected to change based on the new LAP line design solution. Knowling yard g and e ARC's will likley need to be adjusted based on any one design solution, we ask any design solution work to minimize impacts to adjacent yards and operations. ARC's are routinely updated.

Please confirm that the storage magazines in Area G west of the proposed project site are decommissioned and not in use for storage and that there are no DDSEB blast arcs associated with these bunkers. Also, please confirm that it is the intention of the Government to limit the use of the western row of magazines in the Area E storage area to minimize the blast arcs from this facility on the proposed project site. Please provide a description of the new blast arcs for the explosive material classification and anticipated quantity of energetic materials to be stored in these facilities.

New blast ARC's for yard E are unknown at this time. . See previous responses to this question. The USG anticipates again revising ARC's for yard G and E depending on the design solution of the new LAP line.

Can you share any further insights on the USG position of when the facility needs to be operational?

The USG is not prescriptive on schedule. The USG is interested in the best value to the government and will be making trade off's to ensure the baseline capability has been met in a timely manner. The USG reminds industry that this an urgent project based on emerging requirements while utilizing 1242/1244 authorities.

In the Q&A #65 of ACC-RI’s Q&A, there is reference to the Army Ammunition Plant Modernization Plan establishing the priorities for this evaluation. Please provide a copy.

At this time the AAPMP will not be formerly released. There is information publicly available that contains the substance of the most recent AAMPMP.