Q A_11-19-2015.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 13-NSA AND NSMWS 5 YEAR IDIQ SOLICITATION
- Solicitation number
- W52P1J-15-R-0072
About this file
Q A_11-19-2015.xlsx
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
Sheet1
| QUESTION | RESPONSE | REQUIRES UPDATE TO RFP | ||
| 1 | In cases of urgent requirements, under a time threshold of (e.g. 6 months after EUC), could an exception to the ceiling price be considered? If quantit ies are beyond the min/max ranges,could an except ion to the ceiling price be considered to allow the contractor to provide a proposal instead of declining to bid? | No exception to the ceiling prices will be considered for urgent requirements.Please refer to the Order Limitations clause within the solicitation (52.216-19), if quantities are beyond the min/max ranges. | No | |
| 2 | Are llx17" fold-out pages allowed (Page 51, Section L, paragraph 2.c: "Maximum Pages 150 (...) ".)? | 11/17" Fold-out pages will be allowed, but each fold out page will count as one (1) additional page. | Yes - Add statement to allow for 11x17" pages, but note that each fold will count as one (1) additional page. | |
| 3 | Please confirm that this asterisk note (Page 51, Section L, paragraph 2.c: "Maximum Pages 150 (...) ".) applies to a ll page limited volumes. | The asterik applies to all volumes with page limitations. | Yes - Add asterik to Technical Volume | |
| 4 | Reference: Page 51, Section L.2: page count - Recommend an additional 25 pages be added to the Volume I page limit,due primarily to large font size (12 pt) and large quantity of CLINs and associated sources being discussed. | The Government agrees to add 25 pages to Volume I - Management. The page count will now be 175 pages for the Management Volume. | Yes - Change Management Volume to 175 page limit | |
| 5 | Items list seems restrictive (i.e. 82mm Mortar Complete) | Model items for the specific items will not be provided for each item on the list of requirements because could potentially limit items to certain suppliers. | No | |
| 6 | Will be an EPA Clause be incorporated or considered? | An EPA Clause will not be incorporated as part of this contract. | No | |
| 7 | Performance Based Payments | Requests for Performance Based Payements (PBP) can be made to the PCO after award. | No | |
| 8 | Muzzle safety of mortar ammuniton. Will there be tighter requirements? | No. There will be no change to design or capabilities. Please review the General Specifications. | No | |
| 9 | Response to RFP is considered to be short considering the list of items being requested. | Draft was issued on 23 July 2015, with a planned release of the Final RFP on 9 September 2015. Response date for Final RFP will be for thirty (30) days. Extensions can however be requested and may be considered. | Potentially | |
| 10 | Price matrix list is considered to be extensive. Will the USG consider recommendations for removing specific items that may not feasible to procure? | The USG recommends providing a list of items that Industry feels that will not be feasible to procure along with rationale. The Government will assess feedback and comments and may adjust requirements list prior to issuing the Final RFP. All recommendations to be incorporated into the Final RFP shall be submitted to the USG by 2 September 2015. | Potentially | |
| 11 | Can you procue items from countrys such as Pakistan (countries restricted for travel for DCMA)? Can we find out where DCMA cannot travel to? | Could possibly, but items may have to be shipped to another country for inspection. DCMA cannot travel to Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Russia, Ukraine & Turkey. | No | |
| 12 | Is price the only factor after everything has been met for each delivery order after each individual order? | Each DO will have its own evaluation criteria and will be provided when the DO RFP's are issued. | No | |
| 13 | Given the requirement for 5 years of pricing, will the government be willig to include risk mitigation measures? These could include such items as currency index, performance based payments, Economic Price Adjustments (EPA). | See questions 6 and 7 above. | No | |
| 14 | Will line item substitutions be allowed, e.g. technically equivalent items to obsolete products/systems? (NSWMS 2B11) | Line item substituions will not be allowed, however please see question 10 above regarding providing recommendations on obsolete items. | Potentially | |
| 15 | Many of the items included in the IDIQ are sole-sourced from ROE. Can you confirm that Executive Order #13662, which bans ROE, is in effect? | Executive Order #13662 is still in effect. See question 10 above regarding recommendations on items. | The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, have enforcement powers and are authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by International Emergency Economic Powers Act 50 U.S.C. 1701 (IEEPA), as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Executive Order 13660, 13661, 13662. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State offices should be consulted regarding the subject question or inquiry relative to any proposed actions. | |
| 16 | What are the physical addresses for transportation plans in regard to MGQ/transporation plans? | GMQ is to be delivered to Kabul International Airport. Delivery location for Philippines transportation plan is Camp General Emilio Aquinaldo, Quezon City, Philippines. Delivery location for Uganda transportation plan is Entebbe International Airport. Delivery location for BGAD is already identified. | ||
| 17 | What is the definition of PE (SPIN/FIN) Annex B Dispersion Calculations ? | The PE nomenclature has been removed from the general specification and has been replaced it with Horizontal Spread and Vertical Spread. | ||
| 18 | Please confirm that the USG will be responsible for obtaining IHCs. | The Contractor is responsible for obtaining the IHCs. For assets sourced from CONUS for OCONUS delivery by USG (mostly the FMS orders), the USG will obtain the IHC. For assets that are sourced OCONUS for CONUS delivery (mostly only the USG requirements), the contractor is responsible for obtaining the IHC. | ||
| 19 | CLIN numbers are not consistant between DO 001 and the Pricing Matrix. i.e. 40mm VOG-25P HE Bounding CLIN 0139 vs CLIN 0075 | Price Matrix is being revised and will be published correcting the DO 001 and Pricing Matrix CLIN numbers. | Yes | |
| 20 | Section L requires submittal of transportation plans with our proposal, but no physical location is identified. Please provide the physical locations so inland transportation can be addressed. | Same as question 16. See Question 16 for response. | ||
| 21 | In the competitive environment expected with this IDIQ competition, please explain why is FAR 52.215-20, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data is included? | TBD | ||
| 22 | CLIN 0003 - Should this read 5.45x39mm Tracer? | Yes, the CLIN should read 5.45x39mm Tracer | Yes - Update CLIN 3 to read as 5.45x39mm Tracer | |
| 23 | CLINs 0012 and 0013 - are these the same? If not, please clarify difference. | Yes they are the same. CLIN 0012 will be deleted | Yes - Delete CLIN 0012 from Price Matrix. | |
| 24 | CLIN 0014 - no longer in production; may we subuitute CLIN 0012 or 0013? | CLIN 0014 will be removed from the requirements list | Yes - Delete CLIN 0014 from Price Matrix. | |
| 25 | CLIN 0019 - Please verify weapons system | Weapons System for CLIN 0019 was incorrectly indicated. Weapon System for CLIN 0019 should read as Remington 700. | Yes - Revise Weapon System for CLIN 0019 to read, "Remington 700." | |
| 26 | CLIN 0094 - is this product the same as CLIN 0101 (OG-15VM)? | No, there are different levels of capability between the two (2) CLINs. CLIN 0094 however shall read as "73mm HE FRAG." | Yes - Update CLIN 0094 to read, "73mm HE FRAG." | |
| 27 | CLIN 0095 - is this product the same as CLIN 0097 (PG-15V)? | CLIN 0095 is the generic version of 0097 | No | |
| 28 | CLIN 0096 - please verify weapon system, should this be SPG-9? | No, it is for the 2A28 for BMP-1. | No | |
| 29 | CLIN 0106 - is this the same as as CLIN 0096 (OG-9VM)? | No, CLIN 0096 and CLIN 0106 are for different weapon systems. CLIN 0106 however shall read as "73mm HE FRAG." | Yes - Update CLIN 0106 to read, "73mm HE FRAG." | |
| 30 | CLIN 0107 - is this the same as CLIN 0103 (PG-9V)? | CLIN 0107 is the generic version of 0103 | No | |
| 31 | CLIN 0113 Obsolete Weapon System, no known manufacturer of 107mm HE | CLIN 0113 will be removed from the Requirements List. | Yes- Remove CLIN 0113 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 32 | CLIN 0120 - is this the same as CLINs 0114 & 0115 (122mm HE Full/Partial Charge)? | No CLIN 0114 and CLIN 0115 are different. They have different propellant charge systems. However CLIN 0116 is the same as CLIN 0120. The USG is removing CLIN 0120 from the requirements list. | Yes - Remove CLIN 0120 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 33 | CLIN 0128 - no known source (Iran/China are only known users) please advise | CLIN 0128 will be removed from the Requirements List. | Yes - Remove CLIN 0128 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 34 | CLINs 0230-0246 - M-37 mortar is an obsolete weapon system; no known manufacturer | CLINs 230-246 will be deleted from the Price Matrix. This will be replaced with the 2B12 82mm Mortar System. | Yes - CLINs 230-246 to be deleted from the Price Matrix and will be replaced with . | |
| 35 | CLINs 0247-0263 - M-41 mortar is an obsolete weapon system; no known manufacturer | CLINs 247-263 will be deleted from the Price Matrix. | Yes - CLINs 247-263 to be deleted from the Price Matrix and will be replaced with. | |
| 36 | CLINs 0285-0301 - M-38 mortar is an obsolete weapon system; no known manufacturer | CLINs 285-0301 will be deleted from the Price Matrix. This will be replaced with the 2B11 120mm Mortar System. | Yes - CLINs 285-301 to be deleted from the Price Matrix and be replaced with . | |
| 37 | CLINs 0302-0318 - M-43 mortar is an obsolete weapon system; no known manufacturer | CLINs 302-318 will be deleted from the Price Matrix. | Yes - CLINs 302-318 to be deleted from the Price Matrix. | |
| 38 | CLIN 0326 - 120mm NEMO is a turret mounted system; please detail requested delivery configuration. Turret is available with or without vehicle, please specify delivery configuration. | CLIN 0326 is being removed from the Price Matrix. | Yes - Remove CLIN 0326 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 39 | CLIN 0335 - 70.5 or 73mm warhead? | CLIN 0335 is a 73mm and not a 70.5mm. Price Matrix has revised the nomenclature for this item. | Yes - 70.5mm has been removed and replaced with 73mm. | |
| 40 | CLIN 0337 - PG-7VR Warhead is 64/105mm. ROE sole source (Bazalt). Does Executive Order #13662/USFA sanctions apply. | CLIN 0337 will be deleted from the Price Matrix. | Yes, Delete CLIN 0337 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 41 | CLIN 0339 - is this product the same as CLIN 0335 (40mm PG-7VM HEAT)? | No, They are separate products. CLIN 0335 has a diameter of 73mm and CLIN 0339 has a diameter of 70.5mm. | No | |
| 42 | CLIN 0344 - is this product the same as CLIN 0336 (40mm PG-7VM HEAT Inert)? | CLIN 0344 has a Live Booster for a "small pop/spotting charge" without a shaped charge effect. | No | |
| 43 | CLIN 0346 - is this product the same as CLIN 0340 (40mm PG-7VLT)? | Yes CLIN 0340, 0341, 346 and 0347 are all the same. CLINs 0340, 0341 and 0347 will be deleted. | Yes CLINs 0340, 0341 and 0347 will be deleted. | |
| 44 | CLIN 0347 - is this product the same as CLIN 0341 (40mm PG-7VT)? | Yes CLIN 0340, 0341, 346 and 0347 are all the same. CLINs 0340, 0341 and 0347 will be deleted. | Yes CLINs 0340, 0341 and 0347 will be deleted. | |
| 45 | CLIN 0363 - is this product the same as CLIN 0358 (40/106mm RTB-7MA)? | Yes CLIN 0363 is the same as 0358. Removing CLIN 0363 from the Price Matrix. | Yes, Remove CLIN 0363 | |
| 46 | CLIN 0364 - should this read TBG-7V (105mm)? | Yes, the CLIN should read as "TBG-7V (105mm)." | Yes - Revise CLIN 0364 to read, ""TBG-7V (105mm)." | |
| 47 | CLIN 0365 - is this product the same as CLIN 0361 (RPG-22 NETTO)? | Yes CLIN 0365 is the same as CLIN 0361 | Yes - Remove CLIN 0365 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 48 | CLINs 0366-0372 - ROE sole source (Bazalt). Does Executive Order #13662/UFSA sanctions apply. | Deleting CLINs 0366-372 from the Price Matrix. | The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, have enforcement powers and are authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by International Emergency Economic Powers Act 50 U.S.C. 1701 (IEEPA), as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of Executive Order 13660, 13661, 13662. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State offices should be consulted regarding the subject question or inquiry relative to any proposed actions. | |
| 49 | CLINs 0385 & 0388-0392 - many systems are obsolete. Is surplus product (>5 years old) allowable? | Surplus product greater than five (5) years is not acceptable, however under certain circumstances, it may be considered at the time a DO RFP is issued. | No | |
| 50 | CLINs 0393-0394 - sole source manufacturer would not bid this system in a past BOA requirement | CLINs 0393 and 0394 will be deleted from the Price Matrix. | Yes - Delete CLINs 0393 and 0394 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 51 | CLIN 0423 - the RPG-7 is a launcher and inert by design; does the USG want us to quote the launchers? | Yes, the USG is requesting pricing for a RPG-7, which is incapable of firing (i.e. Training Aid) for CLIN 0424. | No | |
| 52 | CLIN 0424 - please clarify warhead required. Are both the warhead and propelling charge required to be inert? | Yes, both the warhead and propelling charge are required to be inert for CLIN 0425. | No | |
| 53 | CLINs 0102, 0108 and 0353 - these are sole source items to VMZ (Bulgaria) - the supplier does not intend to quote these | Delete CLINs 0102, 0108 and 0353 from the Price Matrix. | Yes - Delete CLINs 0102, 0108 and 0353 from the Price Matrix. | |
| 54 | NSA General Specification for Non Standard Ammunition Page 10-11 inconsistency's on weapon interface vs ballistic testing sample size and criteria | The NSA Gen. Spec. shall be corrected. | The USG will change the Table IIIa to a sample size of 32-0-1 retest 60-1-2 | |
| 55 | NSA General Specification for Non Standard Ammunition Page 11 why is there a blank perforations requirments at 7 meters | The NSA Gen. Spec.shall remain unchanged, see explanation at right. | No perforations shall be allowed at 7 meters. The U.S. spec for Standard blanks allows perforations, however the design of the US blank is different. The U.S. Blank contains a low density plug to seal the cartridge, NSA Blanks use a crimp. Therefore any perforation during a NSA Blank test show that a high density piece of metal has broken off from the cartridge case. This high density piece of metal poses a hazard to the friendly forces. | |
| 56 | NSA General Specificaiton for Non Standard Ammunitoin Page 13 please explain the increase of artillary testing form 8 to 15? | The prior sample size was too small to establish a comfortable confidence level. This will be the new requirement going forward. | No | |
| 57 | Gen Spec for Non Standard Rocket Propelled & Spin Stabilized & Non Standard Mortar Ammunition 3.2.1 Section 4.5.9 is refrenced but is not included in specification. | This has been corrected in the general specification. | Yes - Updated general specification will be provided prior to issuing final RFP. | |
| 58 | Gen Spec for Non Standard Rocket Propelled & Spin Stabilized - Section 4.5.5.1; should this read Proper functioning of each grenade type is defined below. Any round which does 'not' function properly according to the below definitions is considered a function failure:? | This has been corrected in the general specification. | Yes - Updated general specification will be provided prior to issuing final RFP. | |
| 59 | Gen Spec Non Standard Small Caliber Ammunition - Section 4.5.4 why is the mean radius test protocal (R50) no longer accepted. What emperical evaluation was completed to justify R100 testing protocal which deviates from supplier procedures. | R50 is not the same as mean radius. The requirement will be Mean Radius and R50 will no longer be accepted. The General Specifications will be updated accordingly. | Yes- Updated general specifications will be provided prior to issuing final RFP. | |
| 60 | Gen Spec Non Standard Small Caliber Ammunition - Annex C Table VI - why is 7.62x25mm accuracy beting tested at 100m? This is a pistol/SMG round. | The NSA Gen. Spec.shall remain unchanged, see explanation at right. | Accuracy tesing shall be conducted at 100 meters. Selective fire SMG weapons in this caliber have an effective range of at least 100 meters. | |
| 61 | Gen Spec Non Standard Small Caliber Ammunition - Annex C TableVIII 7.62x54mmR Sniper, would PD-NSA allow the suppliers to test accuracy at 300m? | Yes | Yes - General Specification to be updated to allow deviations. | |
| 62 | Gen Spec Non Standard Small Caliber Ammunition - What is a failure during F&C testing is due to the weapon? | It will not be considered a failure if it can be proven to be a weapon failure and a re-test is conducted. | Yes - General Specification to be updated. | |
| 63 | All Gen Specs Section 4.4 should "A certification of compliance must be available for all gauges during US Government Inspections" Read "All gauges should be of current calibration (calibration sticker) with supporting calibration records available upon request."? | This has been changed to be objective evidence of calibration compliance and must be available for all guages during USG inspection, upon request. | Yes - General Specification to be updated. | |
| 64 | 4.1.4 Re-Test criteria, in the event of a non-balistic, critical defect the specification states that there is no retest allowed. MIL-STD-1916 allows for 100% re-inspection of defects and a sample taken after. | The general specification will be updated to reflect the MIL-STD- 1916 allowances | Yes - General Specification to be updated. | |
| 65 | Configuration Mgmt of General Specifications – may run into ambiguity with new suppliers. Request to look at change management in a more formal ECP manner. It is a possibility and the Government will look into this to see if there is a process or means to do this. | The USG is still discussing and will implement a process but, it will likely occur after contract award. | Yes - After Contract Award | |
| 66 | Has the USG considered quantity ranges for the items in terms of pricing? | The USG is not going to incorporate quantity ranges for this RFP. | No | |
| 67 | Can they get a list of items and quantities that have been ordered over the past 3 years. | The USG is considering but it is unlikely that a list will be provided. | No | |
| 68 | Will Past Performance be an evaluation factor on each DO? | Reference Pg. 3 of draft RFP - "The Government reserves the right to incorporate past performance, technical or other factors as part of evaluation for any Delivery Order competition. Evaluation factors will be identified at the time of Delivery Order | ||
| Competition. | No | |||
| 69 | Does the bidder need to include a price for all CLINs within the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 6) or will this be a cause for elimination/non-compliance if all CLINs are not priced? | Yes. Failure to include a price for all CLINs and all ordering periods is cause for elimination from competition for award. | No | |
| 70 | Section L, Item 2 includes the list of the 5 different volumes that will compose the complete submittal. However, there is no information in Item 3 that describes the content of Volume V - Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certification/Representations. Could you please provide detailed information on the content of Volume V? | Volume V is comprised of the completed and signed solicitation, acknowledging all amendments to the solicitation and with all fill-ins completed. If your company is registered in System for Award Management(SAM) certifications/representations should already be complete. | No | |
| 71 | Pg 64 of 66, Section M, Item III Past Performance, d. states that a major/key subcontractor is one who provides critical hardware. Does the government consider any of the items included in the Attachment 6 pricing matrix to be "critical"? If so, please identify them. | Yes the items in the Attachment 6, Price Matrix would be considered critical hardware. Major/key subcontractors are defined as those that will be providing critical hardware or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price. | No | |
| 72 | Pg 56 of 66, Section L, Volume III Past Performance, B. Performance Narrative, b) establishes "10%" for determining substantial suppliers, whereas Pg 64 of 66, Section M, Item III Past Performance, d. states "25%". Please clarify which percentage is correct. | Pg. 64 in Section L, Volume III Past Performance will be corected to read as 10% for determining substantial suppliers, to match pg. 56. | Yes - Correct Pg. 64, Section L, Volume III Past Performance to read as "10%," to match pg. 56 of draft RFP. | |
| 73 | Pg 56 of 66, Section L, Volume III Past Performance, D. Adverse Past Performance, Second Paragraph references "description paragraphs of L.4.1 and L.4.2", but these paragraphs are not present in the draft solicitation. Please clarify. | Changed to under the descriptions above | ||
| 74 | Many of the quantities specified in the Attachment 007 Delivery Order 01 Proposal forms (MGQ) exceed the Maximum Order Quantity included in Attachment 006 Pricing Matrix, as summarized in the table at right. Please confirm this is correct. Additionally, if this is correct, please confirm the pricing supplied for the MGQ response will not be limited by ceiling pricing proposed in the pricing matrix. | Please note that the GMQ items and quantities will be changing for the Final RFP Changed FROM: 82mm Mortar HE (Complete) 50,000 |
7.62x54mm R Ball 24,000,000 7.62x54mm R Tracer 5,000,000 7.62x54mm R Ball, Sniper 1,000,000 40mm VOG-25P HE Bounding 300,000 40mm OG-7V HE Frag 100,000
TO: 122mm HE Frag Part Charge D-30 10,956 12.7x108mm Ball DSHK 5,676,858 12.7x108mm Tracer DSHK 1,385,435 82mm Mortar HE (Complete) M69A 59,506
| The price matrix will be updated with the Final RFP to reflect the new maximum quantities to reflect the GMQ quantities. | Yes - Price Matrix will update the maximum quantities for the GMQ items, so that they are within the range that we are asking pricing for. | |||
| 75 | Please clarify the selection criteria for the MGQ, in the event two IDIQ awardees are chosen. Specifically, how will the government determine who is awarded Tab2 vs Tab3? | At the time of award, each successful offeror will be awarded a determined split of the GMQ, which will be identified in Delivery Order 0001. See paragraph 8 of the Final RFP for this information when it is posted. | No |
| 76 | Please clarify the term "supplier." Does this mean the manufacturer of a proposed item? | The supplier would be the source that manufactures the items. | No |
| 77 | NSA Mortar SPEC - Table III - a. Missing, cracked, loose or bent parts: Missing parts such as increment and/or primary charges, fuzes definitely affects the usability of the product, however this is an omission that can be corrected whereas a cracked projectile or missing stabilizer fins cannot be corrected. The same applies for loose parts. In case of missing or loose parts, we recommend that the whole lot be checked at 100% and reworked and presented again for acceptance testing. | ||
| General specifications have been updated to authorize reinspection of any lot that fails for non ballistic reasons. Also added note to visual inspection table that 100% inspection and rework required to re-present lot for acceptance. | Yes- all specs updated - section 4 servicability and note added under visual defect table. | ||
| 78 | NSA Mortar SPEC - Table III - Gross Corrosion / Pitting vs. surface corrosion: No criterion is given for defining gross, minor or surface corrosion. There are no quantitative indicators to define the corrosion as minor or gross. Defining corrosion as gross and minor without using any measurement criteria may lead to ambiguity and subjective judging during inspection. | ||
| To help eliminate any confusion, no corosion at all will be tolerated. Because these items are all new or like-new stock items, corrosion will remain a critical defect and surface rust/minor surface corrosion will be eliminated from the Major defect column. | Yes - Servicability defect table has been updated. | ||
| 79 | NSA Mortar SPEC - Table III - Cartridge(s) loose/moving in packaging: When securing against movement, there is always a chance of small looseness or gap within 1/8 in. Can the US Government define precisely what "moving" means so as not to have ambiguity and subjectivity during inspection? | ||
| Changed wording to "Cartridges not packed according to manufacturer specification" and removed "Cartridges loose/moving in packaging" and "cartridges loaded incorrectly in case" | Yes - Updated in spec | ||
| 80 | NSA Mortar SPEC - Table III - Evidence of disassembly or modification; tool marks, plugs, holes drilled, gaps between mating surfaces: |
i. Tools are used in the process of assembling. As a result there might be some tool marks on the assembled item (for example when screwing the fuze into the bomb). A measureable indicator should be specified for defining critical defects to avoid ambiguity and subjectivity during inspection.
ii. As to the mating surfaces, all manufacturing processes in the mechanical production have tolerances and although tolerances are small, in some cases they are visible to the unaided eye, for example in threaded and pressed assembly surfaces. There is a danger of defining the normal result of the manufacture as critical defect due to unfamiliarity with the processes in details. A measureable indicator should be specified for defining critical defects to avoid ambiguity and subjectivity during inspection.
| Wording changed to "Evidence of tampering." | Yes - Updated in spec | ||
| 81 | NSA Mortar SPEC - ANNEX B - new performance requirements disqualify certain sources of supply for multiple round types. | New specification requirements have reverted back to match requirements of the original specs. | Yes - Spec updated |
| 82 | After reviewing the supply base for Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (CLINS 0385-0392) no new production or surplus units less than five (5) years for CLINS 0385-0392 were identified. With the USG’s response to question 49 not allowing units older than five years would the USG consider deleting CLINS 0385-0392 from the supply plan? | CLINs 0385 - 0392 will be removed from the Price Matrix. | Yes - Remove CLINs 0385-0392 from the Price Matrix. |
| 83 | RE: Q&A #34 - We are assuming the USG is referencing the 2S12 Sani, not the 2B12 identified in the answer. Note the 2S12 system is a 2B11 mortar combined with a 2F510 transport vehicle (GAZ-66-15 4x4 truck). Does the USG intend to procure the vehicles as well? If not, we request that the 2S12 system not be incorporated into the updated Price Matrix. | 2B12 is incorrect. The price matrix should read as the 82mm 2B14. The maximum quantity also changed from 20 to 60 for all Mortar Weapon Systems. For the 60mm Commando Mortar Weapon System the maximum quantity for the Operator's Manual changed from 20 to 300. | This was a typo. Should have been 2B14 - will update. (Internal note: The other reason the 2B12 didn't make sense is that it is a 120mm, and the one it's replacing on the list, the M37, is an 82mm.) |
| 84 | Re: Q&A #36 - The USG states they intend to replace CLINs 0285-0301 with the 2B11 mortar. Note the 2B11 mortar is already in the matrix (CLINs 0268-0284). | That is correct, we didn't replace CLINs 0285 - 0301 because 2B11 was already there. | No |
| 85 | Re: Q&A #52 - We understand that both warhead and propelling charge are inert, but what inert training aid RPG-7 round (OG-7V, PG-7V, etc.) should be represented for this CLIN? | The Government requires an OG-7V. A CLIN for the PG-7V has also been added. The maximum quantity also changed from 200 to 100. | Yes - specify OG-7V and PG-7V on the price matrix. |
| 86 | Re: CLIN 0401 - Supplier states that the original RGD-5 configuration is manufactured in Russia only; will the USG consider an equivalent grenade manufactured in Eastern Europe? | The RGD-5 will be replaced with the F1 Hand Grenade. The maximum quantity also changed from 10,000 to 7,500. | Yes - the price matrix will update the nomenclature to read, "Hand Grenade F1." |
| 87 | Re: CLINs 0105 and 0110 - Are these the same item? | Yes, these will be corrected when the revised Price Matrix is posted. | Yes - will update. |
| 88 | Based on USG responses to Question 34 and 83 - the 2B11 and 2B14 mortar systems were originally designed in Russia. Identifying new production systems outside of Russia may be difficult, if not impossible. Would the USG consider equivalent systems manufactured in Eastern Europe, or increasing the quantities of other mortar systems already included in the price matrix? | See Final RFP | Yes |
| 89 | After conducting an extensive search for possible suppliers, the following CLINs have no known source of new manufacture identified or are only available in excluded countries: |
0003 5.45 x 39mm Tracer 0116 122mm HEAT 0125 152mm VRS-546 Jammer 0346 93mm PG-7VLT Obsolete; replaced by PG-7VT 0401 Hand Grenade F1 Obsolete; recommend Eastern European equivalent (i.e., Arsenal GHO-1) 0415 Linking Machine 30mm AGS-17 0421 SPG-9 Subcaliber Device
| Will the government consider removing these items from the Price Matrix? | See Final RFP | Yes |
| 90 | The following CLINs cannot be quoted because the sole source supplier identified will not bid: |
0080 40 x 46mm IR Illum (Chemring); Rheinmetall also manufactures this item, but stated "no bid" due to German export regulations 0099 73mm TBFR-15VMZ (VMZ) 0105 73mm TBFR-9VMZ (VMZ) 0109 73mm TATR-9VMZ (VMZ) 0111 73mm OG-9VMZ (VMZ) 0352 105mm ATDR-7VM (VMZ) 0355 105mm ATR-7VMZ (VMZ) 0356 72.5mm TATR-7VM (VMZ) 0357 105mm TATR-7VMZ (VMZ) 0362 103mm GTB-7VM (VMZ) 0364 105mm TBG-7V (VMZ) 0380 57mm UAR 57-TB (VMZ) 0382 80mm UAR-80VMZ (VMZ) 0427 MK3 Type 1 Flare (Chemring)
| Will the government consider removing this items from the Price Matrix? | See Final RFP | |
| 91 | In all of the General Specifications for Non Standard Ammunition the requirements for ‘Operating Temperatures are ambiguous. Please provide clarifications, specifically with respect to the following: |
-Does performance at extreme temperatures need to be validated for every lot supplied? If so, is it necessary to complete the verification at lot acceptance?
-What is the required sample size to verify performance at Operating Temperatures extreme cold, hot and ambient?
-What is the accept/reject criteria for performance at Operating Temperatures extreme cold, hot and ambient?
-The General Specification for Non Standard Ammunition 13 October 2015 Annex A Note 2 (pages 9-13) states “These sample sizes shall be used to show function and casualty at each operating temperature. A minimum of 10 data points is required to evaluate all other test parameters.” Does this mandate that the specified Sample Size and Accept/Reject Criteria shall be evaluated for Ambient, Extreme Cold and Extreme Hot for every lot of ammunition supplied?
-Is skip lot methodology allowed? If so, what frequency?
-Is extreme temperature testing required for all lots for fragmentation hand grenades?
Specifications will be updated to be less ambiguous.
- Yes, extreme temperatures will need to be validated but only on a skip-lot-basis (excluding small caliber - no temperature testing is required). Rounds must satisfy performance and safety requirements at the extreme operating temperatures. Temperature testing is allowable during in-process or lot acceptance testing.
- Sample sizes will be equivalent to those listed for ambient function and casualty testing (i.e. for mortars - 15 rounds at hot and 15 at cold, for RPGs - 32 at hot and 32 at cold).
- No safety failures are allowed (i.e. in-bore or early functions, metal parts separation, etc...). Performance accept/reject requirements are to be defined by the manufacturer however the US Government reserves the right to question if the criteria is reasonable.
- Yes, skip lot testing is allowed. This will be defined in the general specifications. Temperature testing shall be conducted on the first lot of every delivery order and every 5th lot thereafter. If a lot is rejected for any reason, the following two lots must pass temperature testing before resuming the skip lot procedures.
- Yes, extreme temperature testing is required for all lots for fragmentation hand grenades.
| Yes - specifications have been updated. | |||
| 92 | The General Specification for Non Standard Ammunition 13 October 2015 states that maximum range for medium caliber ammunition must be verified. Is this correct? If so, can the Government provide guidance on how the requirement should be verified? | Range is not a requirement for medium caliber ammunition. A note will be added to Section 4.5.4. | yes - will update. |
| 93 | The General Specification for Non Standard Small Caliber Ammunition 13 October 2015 states that all accuracy be calculated using Average Mean Radius. Will the Government please define the exact method and equation in which the accuracy is to be calculated? | To calculate mean radius, find the center of the shot group and calculate the average radius of all shots from that center point. To find the center, make and x-y axis using the furthest left and lowest shots in the group. Calculate the average distance from each shot from the y axis. calculate the average distance of each shot from the x axis. That is the x,y coordinate of the center of your shot group. Then, measure the distance of every singe shot from that center point. The average of those distances is your mean radius. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/512887_.html&page=1 | No. |
| 94 | Regarding all Non Standard Ammunition items that produce fragmentation, will lethal fragmentation radius be required to be verified at lot acceptance? | No. There will be no change to design or capabilities. Please review the General Specifications. | No. |
| 95 | The General Specification for Non Standard Mortar Ammunition 13 October 2015 has removed the requirements for fuze type and description, which had been included in the draft solicitation, is this correct? | Fuze type and description is included in Section 3.6 of the 13 October Mortar Gen Spec. | No. |
| 96 | The General Specification for Non Standard Mortar Ammunition 13 October 2015 states that Chamber Pressure will be validated by examining Average Chamber Pressure. Are the chamber pressure values to be recorded utilizing the maximum number of increment charges that comes in a standard pack configuration for each mortar cartridge? | Yes. Pressure testing should be done with the maximum number of increment charges. | Yes. Will add "Pressure tests shall be conducted using the maximum number of increment charges" to Section 4.4.4. |
| 97 | The Non-Standard Specification for Mortar Systems 13 May 2015 states in Section 4.3.5 Firing Matrix states that that 26-34 mortar cartridges must be fired. Are the requirements for 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 required for every mortar weapon system produced or is there a defined sample size of mortar weapon systems that should be evaluated? | US Gov. answer; On a per lot basis; The sampling rate for ballistic testing as per Para. 4.3.1 to 4.3.5 of the NSA Mortar Weapon General Specification shall be 3 weapons or 2% from each lot whichever is greater, but not more than 5 weapon systems. However all weapons shall be proof tested as per Para. 4.3.2.Para. 4.3.2. | Yes. |
| 98 | Considering the requirement to use the 'Ariel' font, would the Government allow for Volume II to have a maximum page count of 75 pages? | The Government will allow for Volume II to have a maximum page limit of 75 pages. The RFP will be amended to increase the page limit for Volume II - Technical from 50 pages to 75 pages. | Yes - RFP to be revised to update Volume II - Technical's page limit from 50 pages to 75 pages. |
| 99 | Re: Section L, Volume I.A. (Supply Chain Management), Section 1 (Supply Plan) - the Supply Plan has a requirement to provide a ‘Date of Delivery’. As schedules were only requested for the Guaranteed Minimum Quantity items, please confirm Dates of Delivery are only required for the GMQ CLINs. | Date of Delivery is only required for the GMQ items. Government will clarify the supply plan requested in Section L, Volume I.A.1 is only required for the GMQ. | Yes - The RFP will clarify that Section L., Volume I. A (1.) is only required for the GMQ. |
| 100 | Replacing question #65 above: After conducting an extensive search for possible suppliers, the following CLINs have no known source of new manufacture identified or are only available in excluded countries: |
0003 5.45 x 39mm Tracer 0108 240mm HE 0299 Hand Grenade F1 - obsolete; recommend Eastern European equivalent (i.e., Arsenal GHO-1) 0313 Linking Machine 30mm AGS-17 0319 SPG-9 Subcaliber Device 0326 PPL Round 0327 EKSR-46 Flare Will the government consider removing these items from the Pricing Matrix? Government will remove; CLIN's 0003, 0108, 0313, 0319, 0327
The US Government shall accept equivalent item(s) to CLIN 0299. Will change nomenclature of this CLIN to read as 'Fragmentation Hand Grenade."
| Yes | |||
| 101 | Please delete question #66 above; it is no longer valid due to the changes in the Pricing Matrix. | We cannot delete a question that has been asked. The answer will be posted stating to refer to the final RFP. | No |
| 102 | Re: CLINs 0087 and 0090 - are these the same as CLIN 0085? | Yes they are duplicates and have been removed from the price matrix. Please see updated price matrix. | Yes |
| 103 | Re: CLIN 0088 - is this the same as CLIN 0086? | Yes they are duplicates and has been removed from the price matrix. Please see revised price matrix. | Yes |
| 104 | Re: CLINs 0220-0235 - Delta is a company in the Republic of Georgia; not Greece. Is the requirement for the GM-120 (Georgia) or the E56 (Greece)? | The requirement is the GM-120 (Georgia). Please see revised price matrix. | Yes |
| 105 | Re: CLIN 0240 - is this still a valid requirement? All other 2B11 CLINs were removed | This CLIN has been removed. Please see revised price matrix. | Yes |
| 106 | Re: CLINs 0241-0257 - the M-43 is an obsolete mortar weapon system; will the USG allow an equivalent 120mm mortar system or remove these CLINs? | CLINs 0241-0257 have been removed. Please see revised price matrix. | Yes |
| 107 | Section L, Item 2. states the Past Peformance volume is limited to 25 pages, but the description of the requirements for the past performance volume includes two references to 'no page limit'. Please confirm which is correct. If the page count is limited to 25, would the government consider increasing this limit to 75? | The Past Performance volume has no page limits. The RFP will be updated to correct the page limitations. | Yes - Update page limit for Past Performance from 25 pages to 'No Page Limit.' |
| 108 | Is CLIN 0280 "Thermo Baric round? " Is the max qty realistic for this CLIN? | The max quantity for CLIN 0277 and 0280 were revised to 2,000. Please see revised price matrix. | Yes, Price matrix has been updated. |
| 109 | CLINs 0076, 0077, 0078 and 0079 are sourced from prohibited sources. Recommend deleting these items from the price matrix. | These items will be deleted from the Price Matrix | Yes, Price matrix has been updated. |
| 110 | Ref. Attachment 0006: Clarification is requested on Draft RFP Question #33, the CLIN associated with the 240mm HE for BM-24 (was previously 0128, now CLIN 0108) was to be deleted from Official RFP Attachment 0006 Price Matrix since no known manufacturer had been identified. | Item has been removed. Please see amendment to Attachment 0006. | Yes, Price matrix has been updated. |
| 111 | Regarding clause 52.246-11,please clarify if the Government intends to require subcontractors to possess ISO 9001-2008 | The USG requires the Prime Contractor to be ISO 9001-2008 compliant and to provide the appropriate and adequate documentation indicating the standard as part of their proposal (as required in Section L of the solicitation). It is up to the prime contractor to determine the applicable higher level standards to be included within their sub-contracts with their suppliers and for them to ensure their suppliers are meeting those standards. | no |
| 112 | CLIN 0017 - .300 Winchester Magnum (Hollow Point Boat Tail) - Remington - Is this is for a sniper rifle? Is the Government expecting match grade ammo, hollow point? | The .300 Winchester Magnum cartridge is for use with an accurized / match grade / sniper type rifle. | no |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .