W51EW725RA001_QandA_01Apr2025_Posted.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W51EW725RA001
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for the West Desert Test Center (WDTC) Mission Support Services (MSS) Follow-On Solicitation, issued by the Department of the Army. The Q&A addresses numerous clarifications and potential amendments to the Request for Proposal (RFP), covering topics such as proposal page limitations, past performance requirements, scenario-based technical submissions, and government property management. Key changes include increasing the Volume I page limit from 50 to 60 pages, clarifying critical services definitions, providing additional guidance on past performance references, and updating various technical exhibit and solicitation details.
The Q&A reveals that the solicitation involves two distinct scenarios for contractor support, with one scenario covering embedded personnel support from December 2025 to December 2026, and another scenario representing a specific test event from April to April 2026. The government will provide updated attachments for historical hours, government-furnished property, and standard operating procedures. Contractors will need to submit comprehensive technical proposals addressing these scenarios, including detailed cost estimates, total compensation plans, and past performance information, with specific guidelines on formatting, page limitations, and content requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 34
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Q&A
| # | Source Document | Section and Paragraph(s) Numbers | Issue / Question | Government Response | Pending Amendment Action? |
| 1 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1 | We have been working a proposal response based on the Draft RFP and feel that 50 pages for Volume 1 Technical was tight, but workable; however, the new requirements to address two Scenarios, will make meeting the 50-page limit much more difficult. Would the Government please consider adding more page count to address the new scenarios? | The Government concurs to increase the page limitations for Volume I from 50 pages to 60 page. Amendment to L.2.3 pending. | Yes |
| 2 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1, Attachments 7 and 8 | The Section L requirements for the two scenarios are very similar to the Section L language that addresses the overall contract performance, including topics such as oversight & control, alignment, communication, improvements, and innovation. Many of these management practices that apply across the entire contract are still very relevant to how you would manage each scenario – resulting in redundant narrative in the proposal. It appears that Attachments 7 and 8 do not add any additional instructions to be addressed but serve more as reference documents for each scenario. Would the Government please confirm the areas of Attachments 7 and 8 that should be covered within L or that the L requirements are sufficient? If the L requirements are the elements offerors should focus on for each scenario, we assume it is acceptable for offerors to address both scenarios in a combined fashion? | The two scenarios were incorporated in response to feedback gathered from Site Visit and Pre-Proposal Conference questions from industry. The purpose is to give offerors an opportunity to outline their approach (as specified at L.3.1.2.1.1) to potential CWO requirements under the pending contract, more specific to the broad support described under the IDIQ requirement. While a response may include elements that are redundant to the overarching MSS contract support, instructions at L.3.1.2.1.1 are for specific address of the CWO requirements identified within Attachments 7 and 8. The Government will not instruct Offerors as to their individual approach to meeting requirements (at L.3.1.2.1.1). RFP remains unchanged. | No |
| 3 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1, Attachments 7 and 8 | Based on Answers to Questions during the draft RFP phase, the scenario-based approach was to assist in leveling the playing field with staffing and pricing the work. Since Section L and M requirements for Technical do not require information outside of what was already being required, we assume these scenarios are more of a staffing and pricing exercise to assist the Government in evaluating offeror’s staffing and pricing approaches. Is that a correct assumption? | See response to #2 above. |
| The Government will evaluate the proposals applicable to Attachment 7 & 8 in accordance with the associated Section L instructions and Section M evaluation criteria. | No | |||||
| 4 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | L.3.2.1 states “The summary shall also include a reference to the past performance contracts and their respective PWS cited for each team member and the associated tasks from the WDTC MSS PWS represented by each cited contract and its PWS.” Can the Government provide more specifics on what offerors must include in the Summary? Are we to include the entire PWS for each cited contract or a summary of the cited PWS’ paragraphs that are associated with WDTC MSS? | Offerors shall provide summary data, in whatever form they choose, that identifies the cited contracts' PWS scope/tasks/elements and the associated relevancy to the tasks as specified in the WDTC MSS PWS. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 5 | Solicitation | L.3.2.2.1 | L.3.2.2.1 states “In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all JV partners, major subcontractors, and / or teaming partners cited in order for past performance to be considered, with letters also identifying the specific work scope to be performed and level of support the entity is committing to offer for MSS and WDTC mission success.” Can the Government please define “level of support” in this context? Is it the designated workshare included in our executed Teaming Agreements? | Yes. "Level of support" is defined as designated workshare or the estimated portion of contract cost the team member (e.g., prime, JV entity, and/or subcontractor) is proposed to support. Amendment to L.3.2.2.1 pending to include this definition/clarity. | Yes | |
| 6 | Solicitation, |
CDRLs, and PWS L.4.3
CDRL A012
| PWS 3.1.1 | L.4.3 instructs bidders to submit a Property Management Plan with the proposal, however, PWS 3.1.1 and CDRL A012 states that the PMP shall be submitted 30 days after contract award. Please clarify when the PMP is due. | The Property Management Plan (PMP) is required at proposal submission per L.4.3. As specified at L.4.3, submission of the PMP in accordance with FAR 52.245-1 (specifically, FAR 52.245-1(f)), is part of the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination for the apparent contract awardee. PWS 3.1.1 (and CDRL A012) require the PMP submission within 30 days of contract award for subsequent sufficiency review by both the Government Property Administrator and the Contracting Officer. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 7 | Solicitation | L.2.3 | Will the Government please consider increasing the overall Volume I page limit to 60 pages to accommodate additional requirements in the Final RFP that were not previously in the Draft RFP? | See response to Question #1 above. | Yes | |
| 8 | Attachment 2 | PPQs | The security settings for Attachment 2 included with the Solicitation do not allow changes to the PDF document, so Offerors and their Government customers cannot complete the form. | |||
| Will the Government please send an unlocked PPQ PDF? | The Government will provide Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire, in Word Document format to enable PPQ respondent input. Amendment pending. | Yes | ||||
| 9 | Attachment 7 | Scenario 1 | The Government has a requirement for surge support, with the CWO process of four days and without a schedule provided within the scenario. |
Is it the Government’s intent to require a simulated plan for CWO response and Technical Integration Points (TIP) at the scenario level, even without a predefined schedule?
Should contractors align their CWO response plan with EVMS principles, including defining measurable milestones for the four-day CWO process and establishing performance measurement baselines? The Period of Performance (PoP) is provided for each Scenario. Scenario 1 (Attachment 7) is 23 Dec 2025 to 22 Dec 2026 as this scenario is for contractor personnel embedded with Chem Test personnel to support whatever needs are required in that year (i.e., every day operations). The PoP for Scenario 2 (Attachment 8) will be amended to 01 Apr 2026 to 30 Apr 2026 as Scenario 2 is an example of an actual test event (which could be a reoccurring event) with varying timeframes based on customer needs. This test typically varies between two weeks to one month. For purposes of proposal action/response, the PoP is 30 days. Amendment pending.
| See L.3.1.2.1.1, L.3.3.3.1, L.3.3.3.2.1, L.3.3.4.1.5, and L.3.3.4.5.1. The Government will not specify a potential Offeror's solution in meeting the requirements. | Yes | |||
| 10 | Solicitation | EVMS | Is it the Government’s intent to utilize EVMS-like reporting for CWO and financial management, despite the absence of the EVMS clause in the solicitation? | |
| How will the Government ensure compliance with EVMS principles and reporting requirements if the EVMS clause is not included in the contract? | Contractor reporting requirements are identified at RFP Attachment 6, the CDRLs. CWO Tracking/Cost Management System requirements are identified at PWS Section 1.3.5. |
EVMS clauses are N/A to the MSS Follow-on acquisition. Personnel having experience with (or implementing) earned value management methods and practices is however, specified for certain labor categories per PWS Section 1.6.
| RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||
| 11 | L.3.3.3.1 Cost Section | Scenario Estimation | Is it the Government’s intent to require a full Basis of Estimate (BOE) for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 to substantiate all labor costs, even when scheduled events are not provided within the scenario? | |
| Should contractors assume a steady state of labor is required throughout the Performance of Work (POP) period, given the scenario’s lack of specific scheduling? | Yes. Scenario 1 is an annual PoP/Scenario 2 is 30 days (as amended). Offerors are able to provide a full BOE with this schedule information and the tasks identified within the scenarios. |
The Government will not specify a potential Offeror's solution in meeting the requirements. Any assumptions of schedule/hours in alignment with the shall be detailed in the Offeror's proposal and in line with the proposed approach. RFP remains unchanged.
| No | |||||
| 12 | Solicitation | EVMS | Should contractors use earned value metrics (CPI/SPI) to identify risks and flag deviations in performance, consistent with EVMS practices? | The Government will not specify a potential Offeror's solution in meeting the requirements at 1.3.5. RFP remains unchanged. | No |
| 13 | Solicitation | M.5.4.4.4.1 | The MPC for CLINs 6001 and 6002 as calculated by the Government will be CLINs 1001 or 1002 divided by 2 and multiplied by fifty percent (50%); the NTE amount provided by the Government for CLIN 6003 plus any indirect costs (Material Handling and/or G&A as proposed by the offeror in A4, Tab "Total Proposed Price" cell J4 will be divided by 2 and multiplied by fifty percent (50%); and the proposed price for CLIN 6005 will be multiplied by 50%. The sum of the calculated products shall be the evaluated price for the "6-Month Extension of Services." |
| Given that the Option Period covers 2 years, should the factor used to calculate the cost/price of the potential 6-Month Extension of Services be 25% rather than 50%? | Concur. M.5.4.4.4.1 will be updated to correct the factor to 25%. Amendment pending. | Yes | ||||
| 14 | Attachment 5 | Attachment 5 | The file RFP_Attachment_5_Historical_Hours_21Feb2025 appears to be identical to the file DRFP_Attachment_5_Historical_Hours_14Jan2025 and contains a note at the bottom stating, “Excludes hours from 14-31 December 2024. Final RFP shall include complete calendar year 2024 data.” Will the government please provide guidance on if Attachment 5 will be updated to include the complete calendar year 2024 data? | Concur the prior data was posted in error. Amendment 0001 will include an updated Attachment 5 to incorporate the remaining CY2024 data AND to correct/shift the "Project Manager - OT" data from Regular Hours to OT Hours columns. Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 15 | Attachment 8 | Attachment 8 | The first paragraph of this file states, “The contractor will perform the following protocol services in coordination with the WD-CR office, and the Technical POC.” Please expand the acronym used for the WD-CR office. | Typographical error. "WD-CR" is the "West Desert Contracting Officer's Representative" office. Amendment to correct pending. | Yes | |
| 16 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1 | Are the two Scenarios part of the Volume I 50 page limitations? | See response to Question #1 above. | Yes | |
| 17 | Attachment 1 | Multiple PWS references | Repeated requests for access to the Dugway website and reference documents has not received any response. |
| PWS Ref | Document | |
| 3.1.14.1 | TB 43-180 | |
| 3.1.14.1 | TB 750-25 | |
| 5.2.3 | ATEC Regulation 385-1 | |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-SOP-015 | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-031 | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-032 | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-034 | |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-SOP-14 | |
| 5.2.3 | DPG Regulation 350-19 | |
| 5.3.4.1 | SOP: CTD-MAN-010 | Part 6 will be amended as follows: |
6.1 The Contractor (to include subcontractors) must abide by all applicable regulations, publications, manuals, local policies and procedures in the performance of this contract and as outlined within this PWS.
6.2 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) referenced in Part 5 are controlled documents, only accessible through the DPG WDTC Power Apps Share Point site. Access to the site is restricted to DPG-WDTC Government and Contractor personnel assigned to and supporting the WDTC Mission Support Contract. Accordingly, access to the site will be granted at contract award, after security protocols are complete. Titles and a summary of the referenced SOP contents is provided as follows: Amendment will include applicable SOPs via a table with the contents at the "Q17 Additional Information" tab.
| Separately, applicable PWS paragraphs will be updated with the correct SOP numbers or reference documents otherwise (see "Q17 Additional Information" tab). | Yes | |||
| 18 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | “This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts and shall be organized into sections as outlined below.” And also states, “This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts and shall be organized into sections as outlined below. This volume shall not exceed 25 pages of offeror / prime past performance information (including past performance of individual JV partners) plus five pages for each major subcontractor or, teaming partner entry, with a maximum of three (thus, a maximum allowable page limitation of 40 pages).” |
| Question: “Do the page limits for Volume II apply to both Section 1 and Section 2 content? | Yes, correct. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 19 | Attachment 1 | Section 1.6 | Should Laboratory Analyst III be added to PWS Section 1.6? | The Government will not add this labor category to Attachment 4, however, per L.3.3.4.1.3, an Offeror may add labor categories as deemed appropriate, per the Offeror's proposed technical approach. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 20 | Solicitation, Q&A | L.3.1.2, L.3.2.5 and Q&A #32 | Critical Services: Q&A #32 stated critical services are: “For purposes of the proposal effort and definition of a "major subcontractor", critical services are those required at PWS 5.3, 5.4 and 5.7. L.3.1.2 updated accordingly.” |
RFP states: critical services (i.e., services required at PWS 5.2, 5.4 and 5.7, and applicable subparts)
| Please verify which PWS areas are critical services. | The Q&A response is correct. L.3.1.2 and L.3.2.5 will be amended to align with the Q&A response and change the RFP parentheses statements tied to critical services, "(i.e., services required at PWS 5.3, 5.4 and 5.7, and applicable subparts)…". Amendment pending. | Yes | ||
| 21 | TE A GFP | TE A GFP | Do the items on TECHNICAL EXHIBIT TE_A_GFP constitute the entire government property list for which a joint inventory must be completed within 14 days after the contract award, CDRL A013? |
TE_A_GFP, Tab: Non-Serially Managed Items, line item 2 shows a quantity of 8 RADIO, MOBILE PORTABLE ROMOTE, however there are nine (9) serial numbers in the Notes, please clarify?
TE_A_GFP, Tab: Non-Serially Managed Items, line item 3 shows a quantity of 13 RADIO, MOBILE PROTABLE REMOTE, however there are fifteen (15) serial numbers in the Notes, please clarify?
TE_A_GFP, Tab: Non-Serially Managed Items, line item 9 shows a quantity of 18 COMPUTER, PERSONAL WORKSTATION, however there are fifteen (15) serial numbers in the Notes, please clarify? Yes, this is the entire list. Confirmed the GFP quantities of 8, 13, and 18, respectively.
| TE A GFP is pending amendment to remove/add the applicable S/Ns and to make clear the applicable NSN is also listed within the "Notes" column. Amendment pending. | Yes | |||||
| 22 | Attachment 2 | Attachment 2 | Would the Government consider issuing a Fillable PDF version of Attachment 2? | See response to Question #8 above. Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 23 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | Can the Government confirm that major subcontractor individual past performance references can exceed the (5) page limitation as long as the total page count of (15) pages for major subcontractor(s) references is maintained? | Offerors are permitted up to 5 pages for each major subcontractor, with a maximum of three subcontractors. While individual past performance references may exceed the 5-page limit, the total page count for references shall not exceed the 15-page limitation for (subcontractor) references, nor should the overall page count exceed the maximum limit of 40 pages for this Volume. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 24 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4.2 | "Base rates are the hourly rates that the employees will actually be paid for performance under the contract." There are a number of employees with the same LCAT but are not paid the same base rate. If there are 3 people under the same LCAT a blended rate is what is used, is this acceptable? | Yes. Blended rates for the same LCAT are acceptable. L.3.3.4.1.2 will be amended to remove "or rates" (as LCATs cannot be blended but rates within a single LCAT may be, provided data is included to support the blended rate). Amendment pending. | Yes | |
| 25 | Solicitation | L.3.3.4.4 | "If the Offerors' budgetary indirect rates are lower than the DCMA FPRA or FPRR or the Offeror's historical rates….No upward adjustments will be allowed based on the actual rate incurred." Based on FAR 52.216-7 final approved rates are allowable for billing, please clarify what is not allowable. | If an Offeror elects to propose budgetary indirect rates that are lower than the DCMA FPRA/FPRR/historical rates, the Offeror is required to provide confirmation of understanding their rates will be capped at this lower rate for the duration of the contract. An Offeror who elects to propose in this manner is acknowledging final approved rates as defined at FAR 52.216-7 are superseded by the terms of the contract, the lower rate capped at award. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 26 | PWS | 1.3.7.1 | The Solicitation states that indirect rates will be capped at a lower rate and rate adjustments will not be accepted but the PWS states that there are allowable indirect rate changes for FPRA and billing rates. Please clarify. | PWS 1.3.7.1 states "Contractors proposing at current FPRA rates and invoicing at current Provisions rates"... this is separate/distinct from the scenario addressed at L.3.3.4.4 where Offeror's may elect to propose rates LOWER than DCMA FPRA/FPRR/historical rates. |
Additionally, PWS 1.3.7.5 confirms the L.3.3.4.4 instructions for capped rates being invoiced.
| RFP remains unchanged. | No | |||||
| 27 | Solicitation | L.3.2.3 and L.3.2.7 | Will the Government allow for Controlled Unclassified Information submissions for highly relevant past performance references (where correlating the client with the scope of work makes the information CUI)? The PPQ would also need to be marked as CUI. | Yes, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) is allowable and may be marked accordingly (via the pending Attachment 2 Word document). RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 28 | PWS | 5.3.1 | Government references the addition of a second project manager under CTD, but does not reflect this labor category description in the PWS or under pricing templates. Please update to reflect the additional labor category requirement. | The "Project Manager (CTD Only)" category can be found under the PMO Rate tab. The FTE quantity may be updated accordingly. The category description for both Project Manager (CTD) are the same, PWS 1.6.19. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 29 | Solicitation | L.2.5.1 | With the submittal of an anonymous Technical proposal where the Government prohibits “any information that indicates the Offeror's (to include all team members) identification”, we highly recommend that the Government allows offerors to reference specific sites/locations they are currently supporting to establish both relevance and context for proposed solutions. For example, if we are performing work at WDTC today, can we cite our presence at WDTC? Will the Government please provide additional guidance on what is acceptable to include in the volume without creating a compliance issue with the referenced Section L language? | Requiring and subsequently evaluating sanitized proposals is appropriate to ensure the integrity of the source selection process and evaluator objectivity strictly to the contents of each proposal. Proposal information shall stand on its own, and an Offeror should be able to substantiate claims without identifying their entity or making any reference to a prior contract/prior program, to include work being conducted at WDTC today. That said, Offerors are not restricted from addressing their knowledge of the WDTC (operations, activities, location, etc.) in detailing their solution. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 30 | Solicitation | L.2.2.3 | Section L.2.2.3 states “Additionally, be advised when using the PIEE Solicitation Module, the User's email address in PIEE must match the email address on file in SAM.gov”. If subcontractors will be submitting an unsanitized proposal as a subcontractor via PIEE directly, is the email address referenced in this section referring to the domain for the company submitting (e.g., <name>@companyname.com) vs. the exact email address for the company in SAM.gov? | The email addressed reference refers to the "User's email" and thus, it applies to both a Prime or Subcontractor Offeror, i.e., when submitting your prime or subcontractor proposal, ensure the address used is the SAME address utilized within SAM.gov. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 31 | Solicitation | L.3.1.2.1.1 | Given that the RFP requires the Offeror to submit one comprehensive Total Compensation Plan, including details about both the prime contractor and subcontractors’ direct labor rates and indirect rates (fringe). Would it be acceptable for subcontractors to submit their proprietary compensation information separately, directly to the Government? | Yes. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 32 | Solicitation | L.3.2.1 | Section L.3.2.1 of the RFP states the following: |
“This volume shall include a summary, excluded from the page limitations herein, describing the role of the offeror (to include JV partner roles) and each subcontractor and / or teaming partner. The summary shall also include a reference to the past performance contracts and their respective PWS cited for each team member and the associated tasks from the WDTC MSS PWS represented by each cited contract and its PWS.”
| Does this statement mean the offeror shall cite specific PWS paragraphs from each of their Past Performance examples, and map them to the appropriate PWS paragraphs from the MSS PWS? Can the Government clarify this statement? | See response to #4 above. Yes, PWS mapping, as questioned, is an acceptable approach. RFP remains unchanged. | No | ||||
| 33 | Solicitation | Section K | Would the government consider adding 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services to the clauses by reference, so that in the event of something unexpected during the contract such as at the end of the contract option years and a delay of a newly awarded contract, they would have the ability to extend up to 6 months. | FAR 52.217-8 is incorporated in full text at pg. 19 (Section I). There is no need to incorporate the clause by reference as well. RFP remains unchanged. | No | |
| 34 | Solicitation | L.4.4 | Letters of Commitment, including proposed salary, for Key Personnel as identified at PWS paragraph 2.10 shall be included. Are the Letters of Commitment addressed to the Government or the Prime Bidder? | Letters of Commitment required at L.4.4 shall be addressed to the Prime Offeror. RFP remains unchanged. | No |
Q17 Additional Information
| PWS Reference | Document | Title | Summary / Notes | Pending Amendment Action? |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-SOP-014 | Chamber Facility Operations for the BMTF and Building 3445 | Provides general startup, operations and emergency procedures for building 3445. Also provide building layout and Building Management System startup/shutdown. | |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-SOP-015 | Procedures for Operation of the Chemical and Biological Simulant Decontamination Facility (Decon Pad), Building 8033 | Provides general startup, operations and emergency procedures for building 8033. Also provide building layout and Building Management System startup/shutdown. | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-031 | Procedure for the Issue, Turn-In, and Maintenance of Protective Masks | Provides general guidelines for issuing, receiving, turn-in, and maintenance of protective masks. These are the procedures for those assigned to the Taxological Agent Protection (TAP) facility. | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-032 | Procedure for Issuing, Controlling, and Maintaining TAP Clothing | Provides general guidelines for issuing, controlling and maintain tap clothing (aprons, boots, glove, masks, SCBA, and escape bottles. These are the procedures for those assigned to the Taxological Agent Protection (TAP) facility. | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-034 | Procedure for the Issue, Control, and Maintenance of Respiratory Protection Equipment | Provides general guidelines for issue, control, maintenance of mask to include fit testing of the various respirators and masks. These are the procedures for those assigned to the Taxological Agent Protection (TAP) facility. | |
| 5.3.4.1 | CTD-MAN-010 | Building 4165 Operator Manual | Provides general startup, operations and emergency procedures for building 4165. Also provide building layout and Building Management System startup/shutdown. | |
| 5.2.3 | DPG Regulation 350-19 | Range Operations | Provides general guidance, control, access, and emergency procedures for all West Desert test ranges. | |
| 5.3.1.3 | CTD-SOP-008 | Chemical Hygiene Plan | This Chemical Hygiene plan outlines laboratory requirements for hazardous chemical operations in the CTD test facilities. | |
| 5.3.4.2 | CTD-SOP-001 | Filter Removal and Replacement Procedures | The document establishes safe procedures and guidelines for the removal and replacement of pre-filter, high efficiency particulate air filters and charcoal adsorber filter in the CTD. | |
| 5.6.4.1.2 | TSD-SOP-003 | Procedures for operating the JABT | This procedure provides methods that WDTC personnel use when performing operations in the JABT. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | TSD-COP-002 | Blowing Dust Chamber Standing Operating Procedures | This procedure provides basic procedures for the safe operations of the WDTC blowing dust chamber. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | TSD-COP-004 | Wind Machine Blowing Rain and Blowing Sand | This procedure describes the operations of the wind machine for blowing rain and blowing sand test. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | TSD-SOP-010 | Operations of Mobile conditioning Chambers 301-010 | This procedure establishes safe procedures and safety requirements for the operations of Mobile conditioning chambers. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | TSD-SOP-012 | Operations of the Mobile Conditioning Chambers 201 through 206 and Fungus Chamber number 2 | This document establishes safety procedures for the 200-series mobile conditioning chambers. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | CTD-SOP-018 | General Labware Washing and Maintenance Procedures | This procedure establishes steps, safety precautions and operating methods that personnel observe when cleaning labware. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | TSD-SOP-021 | Standing Operating Procedures for the Operations of the Salt Fog Chamber number 5 | This procedure cover operations and safety requirements for Salt Fog Chamber number 5. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | TSD-SOP-028 | Solar Radiation Conditioning Chamber | This procedure established safe procedures for the solar Radiation conditioning chamber. | |
| 5.6.4.2.1 | TSD-SOP-031 | Operating Procedures for the Loose Cargo Transportation Simulator | This procedure provides instructions for operating and providing maintenance on the loose-cargo simulator. The simulator subjects test items to repeated shock pulses that may be related to shock pulses that the test item would receive in field use. The test item orientation, temperature, duration, and the construction of a test fixture for the simulation run are all tailorable and are provided in the detailed test plan (DTP) or operations plan (OPLAN). | |
| 3.1.14.1 | TB 43-180 | Calibration and Repair Requirements for the Maintenance of Army Materiel | Amendment to incorporate TB 43-180 as Technical Exhibit K. | Yes |
| 3.1.14.1 | TB-750-25 | N/A | PWS 3.1.14.1 to be amended to delete reference to TB-750-25 and add DA PAM 750-43. The TB has been replaced by AR 750-43 and DA PAM 750-43 (both available via instructions/Army Publication link at PWS 6.3). | Yes |
| 5.2.3 | ATEC 385-1 | Document rescinded and replaced by AR 385-10, Amendment to update PWS 5.2.3; document available via Army Publications link at PWS 6.3 | Yes | |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | WD-OPD-001 | N/A | PWS 5.3.3.4.2 to be amended to delete WD-OPD-001; replaced by CTD-SOP-031, 032 and 034 | Yes |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | WD-OPD-002 | N/A | PWS 5.3.3.4.2 to be amended to delete WD-OPD-002; replaced by CTD-SOP-031, 032 and 034 | Yes |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | WD-OPD-003 | N/A | PWS 5.3.3.4.2 to be amended to delete WD-OPD-003; replaced by CTD-SOP-031, 032 and 034 | Yes |
| 5.3.3.4.2 | WD-OPD-004 | N/A | PWS 5.3.3.4.2 to be amended to delete WD-OPD-004; replaced by CTD-SOP-031, 032 and 034 | Yes |
| 5.3.4.1 | DP-0000-M-101 | N/A | PWS 5.3.4.1 to be amended to delete DP-0000-M-101 (section will end at CTD-SOP-14). | Yes |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .