12-2-2015-QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS_-_COMBINED_-_RFP_-_W52P1J-15-R-0030_-_9MM_Dummy_Drilled_and_Inert_(DDI)_Additional_Questions.pdf

02 DECEMBER 2015 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1) Partially Unanswered Question from prior submittal - CRDL A018 – PCA is typically a separately priced line item from FAAT and production. Does the USG want the PCA price included in FAT price? Will the PCA only be required on the initial FAT?

ANSWER: Yes, include the PCA costs with the FAAT price. No, the USG can request additional PCA’s as needed during the contract.

2) Drawing 13023602 –

a) There is no finish requirement for the cartridge and we understand this type of plating to be ‘lusterless.’ We don’t want to battle QAR on workmanship due to poor finish appearance. How can we address this concern?

ANSWER: Electroless Nickel should have a shiny metallic finish and not a ‘lusterless’ finish. AMS2404 paragraphs 3.5 & 8.3 provide descriptions for the final appearance and overall quality of the finish. Quality requirements associated with plating in addition to AMS2404 are contained with the Dummy Cartridge Specification, MIL-DTL-3498.

b) Note 5 says ‘no external burrs permissible.’ Does this mean that any hanging chads on the inside are acceptable?

ANSWER: Offeror will decide on manufacturing process. Hanging chads or burrs is acceptable, if they break off and become “foreign matter” inside the case, it would fail workmanship.

c) Shavings on inside of case. Will a small amount of brass shavings on the inside of the case be grounds for failure of workmanship clause?

ANSWER: MIL-DTL-3498C: 3.6 Workmanship. The metal parts of the cartridge shall be free of cracks, splits, perforations, burrs and foreign matter. The cleaning method used shall not be injurious to any parts, nor shall the parts be contaminated by any cleaning agent.

3) Drawing 9345212 – This drawing indicates that the rear of the projectile will have exposed lead. Lead ruins nickel plating baths. Is there an alternative projectile?

Would an initial copper plate layer that could be applied before the nickel to allow us to plate the bullet without losing the entire nickel plate?

ANSWER: Offeror will decide on the manufacturing process. Plating may occur at the cartridge or component level per Note 3 of 13023602. If the offeror decides on an initial copper plate layer, and the offeror shall explain in the proposal why the initial copper plate layer is advantageous to the production processes, which may include cost savings for the nickel plating baths. Keep in mind dimensions apply after plating. Furthermore, the Government TDP does not have an alternative projectile.

4) Critical Defect – Follow up to prior question 8b. Will a 1x visual inspection be acceptable or will a 3x visual inspection be required to meet the requirement and eliminate escape risk?

ANSWER: It is at the discretion of the offeror in their Quality Plan.

5) In solicitation paragraph L.1.1.a. The government indicates that we should discuss all subcontracted work at same level of in-house work. Since the Ammo cans, Wire-bound boxes, inner box, tray and other materials are essentially commercial off the shelf (COTS) items and these subcontractors have not historically shared this item, can we limit the focus of the Manufacturing Plan to non-COTS items?

ANSWER: No, All subcontracted work shall be discussed at the same level of detail as the offeror’s in-house production capabilities in consonance with all “make-or-buy” decisions (clause 52.219-9, paragraph (e),(2) of the solicitation refers).

6) Missing drawings - 8646696 Rev B. Gage, Template (Height) and 8646697 Rev.

C Gage, Snap, Fixed (Solid) were listed in the TDPL and not provided. Can you provide or delete from TDPL?

ANSWER: Both of these drawings are located in the .zip file provided on FBO.

See file 68.c4 and 69.c4 respectively for drawings 8646696 and 8646697.

7) FOB Destination – The government has indicated that there are multiple destinations for this item. They have also indicated the monthly requirement of 96,000 or 1 full pallet. What percentage of shipments will be full pallets as compared to partial pallets?

ANSWER: All orders will be awarded in even unit packs of 2,000 each (one full wire-bound), however, the number of full pallets versus partial pallets and specific destinations are unknown at this time.

8) Drawing 9252724 – Is this drawing supposed to be part of the TDP?

ANSWER: Please disregard this drawing as it deals with the PA70 ammo container. Per 9396206-26 packaging will be done with M2A1/M2A2 ammo containers.

9) Drawing 8648214 – Is not readable for page 1. Is there a better copy?

ANSWER: This is the best copy of the document that the Government has. If there are sentences or sections you would like confirmation on please provide further detail.

10) Section L.1. States - The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Does this apply to hyperlinks within an MS Word document from Table of Contents to specific section?

ANSWER: Yes, hyperlinks are prohibited in the proposal and this applies within an MS Word document from the Table of Contents to specific section.

16 NOVEMBER 2015 - FBO POSTING OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1) Drawing 13023602 –

a) Note 2 states “may be crimped”. Please confirm the knurl is not a crimp on the bullet and is to prevent the bullet from being pushed into the case.

ANSWER: The knurl is not part of the crimp.

b) Note 2 - states ‘may be crimped’ if we can meet the 20lb bullet pull from the Mil- DTL without it we don’t have to crimp?

ANSWER: It is contractor decision to decide if you want to crimp the case-mouth to the bullet or not. The Government will only validate the bullet pull during FAAT and LAT.

c) Is the knurl required before or after plating? We believe before is required, however the drawing does not clarify.

ANSWER: See Note 6: “DIMENSIONS SHOWN APPLY AFTER NICKEL PLATING IS

PERFORMED”.

d) Note 4 – The 2 holes - can they be made in one shot and drill straight through and then the chamfer on a second operation?

ANSWER: It is the offeror's decision. Notes 4, 5, & 6 still apply.

2) Drawing 9345211 – This is reference only. What are we supposed to be referencing?

ANSWER: The purpose of the DDI is have the same form, fit, and to a limited extent function to the M882 cartridge. Drawing is provided as a reference.

3) Drawing 9345213 –

a) Note 4 – Are the initials of the manufacturer the prime contractor or subcontractor?

ANSWER: The initials of the cartridge case manufacturer shall be used since the requirement lies on the case drawing.

b) Note 8 – references the reference drawing 9345211. What are we supposed to reference here?

ANSWER: See Note 8 and Alternative Case Configuration in Zone B3 of the drawing.

Dimensions referencing Note 8 are advisory as long as all other requirements are met.

Exterior dimensions would still have to meet 9345211.

c) Note 6 – It does not have “Dummy” on it like drawing 9386947, however this drawing appears to focus on the drilled holes. Does 9345213 need “Dummy” on the headstamp?

ANSWER: “DUMMY” is required to be on the headstamp IAW 9386947. 9345213 is included to provide all other requirements and dimensions. 9386947 is an altered item drawing of 9345213 in which the headstamp and drilled holes are the alterations.

4) Drawing 9378265 - This is reference only. What are we supposed to be referencing?

ANSWER: Disregard: This drawing is not required to support this contract.

5) Drawing FF6213 – this is only recommend method to test ammo can – correct?

Alternative methods will be allowed, as long as they meet the spec?

ANSWER: Disregard: This drawing is an older method for testing the ammo can. The M2A2 container drawing uses MIL-DTL-3060 for pressure testing and does not reference any specific equipment.

6) Mil-DTL-70508A was included not as reference only. What are the relevant references to this document?

ANSWER: Disregard: The Government will not be conducting inspections and testing per a live cartridge. Spec MIL-DTL-70508A was pulled into TDP due to Note 8 on drawing 9345213.

7) SCATP-7.62 was included. Are the only references to this document in Mil-DTL- 3498 – 2.2.2., 4.5.1.? Are there other documents that require SCATP 7.62?

ANSWER: SCATP-7.62 is only referenced in MIL-DTL-3498 in order to provide instructions and procedures for Bullet Extraction testing.

8) Mil-DTL-3498C with Amendment 3 –

a) Table VI – has Critical of “Cartridge type, incorrect” with Method of inspection “Visual/Gage.” Is this “/” either visual or gage? Will this be a true naked eye visual inspection? This appears to be about lot integrity and no comingling of the product issue. Please clarify.

ANSWER: See Table VI Note 4. This defect is intended to ensure lot integrity and that only 9mm DDI are provided in the deliveries. Contractor is required to perform a 100% inspection prior to packaging which can either be done visually or by gauge.

b) If the Critical Defect is truly an eye visual inspection, to confirm that the 9mm Dummies are not mixed with live ammo, how does the government expect a contractor to complete CCCP, CPOA and CICCL?

ANSWER: It’s common for a Critical to be visually inspected only. This can be screened by a vision system or an individual.

All the portions of the CCCP can still be completed roles/responsibilities, root cause/failure analysis, segregation of materials, flow chart, requirements for shutdown/restart, FMEA’s, escapement risks, etc.) and the reliability for a visual inspection would just be the standard 80%. The CPOA is voluntary and would benefit the potential contractor if the contractor thought they would find any mixed ammunition (if they found one anywhere in the process without a CPOA in place they would be required to shutdown and would only be allowed to restart with PCO approval). The CICCL just lists what is required for shutdown and restart.

c) Table VI – What is the difference between the critical and Major 106?

ANSWER: Note 4 helps discern the differences between the critical in major. The critical covers cartridge types other than dummy or inert (i.e. M882 ball) found during the 100% inspection or sampling. The Major defect would cover inert or dummy cartridges other than the intended configuration found during the 100% inspection or sampling.

d) Table VI – We did not see a specific profile and alignment gage in TDPL or TDP.

What gage are we to use?

ANSWER: Drawing 8649470 Rev A covers the 9mm profile and alignment gage. The Government has confirmed that this was accidently left out of the TDP published to FBO. Drawing 8649470 Rev A is currently incorporated into the solicitation FBO posting to make it available for review.

9) Executive Summary page 2 indicates that FOB point is destination. CLIN 0002 does not list an address. What is the FOB address to calculate shipping?

ANSWER: PLEASE SEE AMENDMENT 0001 TO SOLICITATION

10) Executive Summary page 3 – IPT. What is the estimated frequency of the IPT (weekly, monthly) and what will be the estimated duration (award to completion)? Is this a typical engineering quality IPT or will it include contract administration?

ANSWER: The IPT will be a mutually agreed to timeframe which could be arranged weekly during the earlier award period and revised to Bi-weekly after production commences until completion of deliveries or expiration of the contract. The IPT will include the stakeholders (Engineering and Contract Administration) of the Government and Contractor, IE, Quality, DCMA, Contracting Officer, Contract Specialist, Production and Contract Manager.

11) What is the delivery schedule or expected delivery schedule of CLIN 0002? I.E.

20,000/month.

ANSWER: SEE PARAGRAPH # 1 AMENDMENT 0001 TO SOLICITATION.

12) Is the Final delivery due w/o FAAT of 540 DAA only for the base quantity only?

What about option?

ANSWER: SEE AMENDMENT 0001 TO SOLICITATION for production rate of base quantity.

In accordance with clause “Evaluated Option for Increased Quantity”, FAR 52.217-4080 on pages 49-50, “Delivery of the item(s) added by exercise of this option shall continue immediately after, and at the same rate as delivery of like item(s) called for under the contract, unless the parties agree otherwise.”

13) E-4, o page 15 lists Navy Furnished gages. Are there any Navy GFM gages?

ANSWER: Navy gages will not be provided. E-4, o page 15 refers to paragraph o (9) which does not list Navy gages as GFM.

14) E-9 SPC clause is inserted. Are there any specific requirements for SPC or is this standard clause being inserted?

ANSWER: The STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL (SPC) requirement is explained in detail within the clause 52.246-4506. SPC is required in conjunction with MIL-STD- 1916.

15) E-12 is listed; however this is an inert item? Is it needed? Can it be removed?

ANSWER: The clause will be removed. See AMENDMENT 0001, to the Solicitation.

16) Section H – page 36 – Progress payment limitation. These custom cartridge cases will need to be made in one run due to the volume being low compared to normal 9mm cases. This means the contractor will carry the 9mm cases and possibly bullets for the entirety of the delivery schedule through the considerably slower final operations processes. In addition, the majority of the cost of this proposal will be preparation for FAAT in indirect labor. Is it not possible to increase or remove this limitation?

ANSWER: The progress payment limitation is standard and will remain as stated.

17) Section H-3 – Monthly report notification – we assume email notification is acceptable?

ANSWER: Yes, email notification is appropriate to submit the monthly Production Progress Reports.

18) Section H-5 – mentions GFM. There does not appear to be any GFM. Please confirm.

ANSWER: Clause 52.223-4556, H-5, page 37, DISPOSAL OF REMAINING GFM

AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES FOLLOWING CONTRACT COMPLETION OR

TERMINATION will be deleted. See Amendment 0001 to Solicitation.

19) Section L – 125 pages seems excessive for a dummy round. Will considerably less than 125 weigh against a contractor?

ANSWER: It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide a proposal that is a complete and comprehensive response to each factor and sub-factor, within the page limits stated in the RFP.

20) Section L- There are significant details required from subcontractors in order to submit a fully compliant proposal. This will take weeks of back and forth communication between a Prime and subcontractor. What is the government’s perspective on extension of closing data?

ANSWER: The Government will consider a request for extension if the facts indicate it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

21) Section L – Printed copies. Many recent solicitations have gone to all digital (DVD or CD-ROM), which significantly saves time in short turn around proposals. Is all digital an option for this requirement?

ANSWER: The requirements for proposal submission are stated in section L and remain unchanged.

22) Section L – page 69 states The Past Performance factor shall be limited to 25 pages, plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms (Attachment 0002). However the form says to return the questionnaire directly to the Army. This statement makes it appear like we are to include them, however they will not count against page count.

ANSWER: The instruction on the Past Performance Questionnaire Form that says to return the questionnaire directly to the Army, is for the reference to which offeror sends the questionnaire. They are excluded from the page count.

23) Attachment 0001 – Can we assume that if there was a lapse in production of 90 days there could be 2 FAAT in one production year?

ANSWER: Page 13, Paragraph (f), Clause 52.209-4512 FIRST ARTICLE TEST (CONTRACTOR TESTING) states that if there is a lapse in production for a period in excess of 90 days, an additional First Article sample may be ordered by the Contracting Officer. However, the reason for the lapse will determine who pays for the FAAT.

24) Attachment 0003 – When is the Op Sec Plan required due date? CDRL 007 does state 30 days after list provided, however when might that be?

ANSWER: The Contracting Officer will provide the list of Critical Information (CI) Threat Information as stated in CDRL A007 after award of the contract.

25) Attachment 0004 – Where do these addressed tie to the solicitation? There is no reference for them.

ANSWER: The addresses in Attachment 0004 are physical addresses provided for submission of data, as applicable.

26) Attachment 0006 – This references DD1423 for the CDRLS. The attached CDRLs are not in referenced DD1423 format (non-mechanized version – there are no block numbers). Does the government want the contractor to fill out a DD1423 for each

CDRL?

ANSWER: The CDRL is used to order the data required and tailor the DID. The applicable DID listed on the Contract Data Requirements List (DD Form 1423/or mechanized version) is used to describe the data's format and content requirements.

Block 16 or "Remarks Block" of the DD Form 1423 or mechanized version may be used to explain how a particular DID applies to the specific acquisition if the original format, content, intent, scope, and deliverables of the data acquisition document are not exceeded or increased. This block shall be used to provide additional or clarifying information for blocks 1 through 15; e.g., clarification relative to distribution statements, DID tailoring requirements, use of contractor format, and distribution of the data.

In summary, the DID provides the contractor the information that shall be submitted, and the remarks block 16 is where the DID is tailored, and submission details clarified.

Attachment 0006 is GUIDANCE ON DOCUMENTATION OF CONTRACT

REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL).

27) Attachment 0007 – This references DD 1423 for the CDRLs. The attached CDRLs are not in DD1423 format. Does the government want the contractor to fill out a DD1423 for each CDRL? Does the USG want pricing for CDRL items?

ANSWER: The CDRL is used to order the data required and tailor the DID. The applicable DID listed on the Contract Data Requirements List (DD Form 1423/or mechanized version) is used to describe the data's format and content requirements.

Block 16 or "Remarks Block" of the DD Form 1423 or mechanized version may be used to explain how a particular DID applies to the specific acquisition if the original format, content, intent, scope, and deliverables of the data acquisition document are not exceeded or increased. This block shall be used to provide additional or clarifying information for blocks 1 through 15; e.g., clarification relative to distribution statements, DID tailoring requirements, use of contractor format, and distribution of the data.

In summary, the DID provides the contractor the information that shall be submitted, and the remarks block 16 is where the DID is tailored, and submission details clarified.

Attachment 0006 is GUIDANCE ON DOCUMENTATION OF CONTRACT

REQUIREMENTS LIST (CDRL).

28) CDRL A006 – This seems to reference propellant and explosives batches, which does not appear to be relevant to this procurement effort. Please confirm.

ANSWER: The 9mm DDI is inert, so CDRL A006 does not apply. It is recommended that it is stated on the CDRL response and is not relevant to this procurement effort.