Att_0005_W52P1J-15-R-0144_-_M922A1_Dummy_Q A.pdf

Army Contracting Command – Rock Island 40mm M922A1 High Velocity Dummy Cartridge Procurement

Solicitation W52P1J-15-R-0144 Attachment 0005

Questions and Answers December 18, 2015

Question #1: Page 4 – CLIN 0001ZA – Delivery schedule 270 Days after award.

Assuming 30 days for USG approval of FAT, this leaves 60 days for Production of 25,000 units. This timeframe will require multiple vendors or machines, which increases quality burden on both the USG and contractor. It also increases variation in the product. This burden will increase cost. We have multiple sources indicating a 5 month run time for the unit itself, not including linking and packing. Is an alternative schedule possible?

Answer #1: The delivery schedule will be adjusted in the forthcoming solicitation amendment. The delivery schedule for First Article will remain 180 Days after Award.

The new delivery schedule for the production quantity will be changed to 300 Days after Award.

Question #2: Upon reviewing the requirements of the subject solicitation, X seeks USG clarification on submission requirements in Section L. X’s question is as follows: “30 page limit – This seems rather short to cover Technical, Manufacturing and Quality. Is extending the limit possible?”

Answer #2: The page limit has been addressed in Solicitation Amendment 0001.

Question #3: Upon reviewing the requirements of the subject solicitation, X seeks USG clarification on submission requirements in Section L. X’s question is as follows: “Are 11 x 17” pages allowed? Do they count as 1 page or 2 pages?”

Answer #3: Allowable page size has been addressed in Solicitation Amendment 0001.

Question #4: Upon reviewing the requirements of the subject solicitation, X seeks USG clarification on submission requirements in Section L. X’s question is as follows: “There are no font size or margin limits. Typical Rock Island Solicitations have margin and font size limits.”

Answer #4: Font size and margin limits have been addressed in Solicitation Amendment 0001.

Question #5: Upon reviewing the requirements of the subject solicitation, X seeks USG clarification on Higher-Level Contractor Quality Requirements in Section E. X’s question is as follows: “E-3 – ISO 9001-2008 or equivalent; no exclusions permitted. This effort is a small business set aside and a build to print operation. This is typically omitted from US Army ‘build to print’ requirements. Why is design required? Can it be removed?

Answer #5: The “ISO 9001-2008 or equivalent” requirement will not be removed.

However, "ISO 9001-2008; only design/development exclusions permitted" can be used.

Question #6: Upon reviewing the requirements of the subject solicitation, X seeks USG clarification on Progress Payments. X’s question is as follows: “Progress payments limited to $2,500 per month. This effort will require over $100,000 in raw metals alone.

Can this be adjusted or lifted?”

Answer #6: The clause states that the progress payments will be made not more frequently than monthly in amounts of $2,500 or MORE approved by the Contracting Officer.

Question #7: Drawing 13937903 – A pre-solicitation drawing of this was provided and it was indicated that it would be updated. The drawing provided is not updates and is still rev J dated 970923. Is this correct?

Answer #7: The drawing number mentioned in the question is incorrect. The correct drawing should be 12937903. This drawing is modified via ECP R15S2009 which was added via the exceptions file. Refer to ECP for the updated requirements.

Question #8: Drawing 13937903 – It appears that this drawing is a Reference drawing per the TDPL. Can you clarify why it is reference?

Answer #8: The drawing number mentioned in the question is incorrect. The correct drawing should be 12937903. This drawing is only listed as reference for the packaging section. It is properly shown as required in the product drawings section.

Question #9: Drawing 9275763 – Is reference. What do we need to reference? How does this tie to the requirements?

Answer #9: Drawing 9275763 is listed as REF, meaning it does NOT tie to the requirements. It is pulled into the TDP automatically but listed as REF to clearly show it is not needed for this build.

Question #10: CDRL A003 & A004 – Why are there 2 separate CDRL’s for essentially the same requirement?

Answer #10: CDRL A003 is for Phosphate Coating, Heavy. (C-5, page 9) CDRL A004 is for Phosphate Coating, Light. (C-6, page 10)

Question #11: CLIN 0001ZA - Must the 25,000 be one lot? Or for risk mitigation purposes, could the contractor cut the amount into smaller lots?

Answer #11: The 25,000 cartridges must be one lot.

Question #12: NOR R15S2009

a) We see NOR R15S2009 in the package of drawings, however we cannot find any tie to the document in the solicitation or TDPL.

Is this NOR included in this procurement action?

b) We see removal of Mil-C-71178 (going to Mil-C-48069) from the drawing, however this document (71178) is still listed in the TDPL.

c) We don’t see Mil-C-48069 listed in the TDPL. Is this document required?

Answer #12:

A. Refer to exceptions file. Exceptions file clearly lists this document as added.

B. Refer to exceptions file. Exceptions file clearly lists this document as removed.

C. Refer to exceptions file. Exceptions file clearly lists this document as added.

Question #13: Mil-C-71178

a) Table I – Are we to use this table or does 1916 supersede?

b) Major 101 – Lists 9202253, 9202254 & 9202255. Are the 2 plug gages mandatory, or can we measure the gages to the drawing using modern CMM equipment (since CMM methods are more accurate)?

c) Major 102 – Measurement in 2 places. Can a comparator with overlay or digital vision inspection (360 degrees) substitute for 2 places?

d) Major 103 – Please confirm this is the 1.150 +.010 dimension.

e) Major 104 – Spacing between ogive grooves – Is this 80 deg +/- 2 or +/- 4 from the centerline?

f) Note 1 – Does this apply to Major 107 or Major 108?

g) Major 107 – Is this the 2.220-.010?

h) Major 108 – The ogive dot does not appear to have a location from top to bottom on the part. Is this correct? Are the dots to be marked or drilled and then marked?

i) Major 106 – is this the 1.620-.004 dimension?

j) Table 4.4.2.1 & para 2.1.2 – lists 12937904. This drawing is not in the TDPL or TDP package. Do we need this drawing?

k) Para 2.2.1 – Lists Mil-Std-109 and Mil-Std-1169, however these are not listed in the TDPL (or the contract). Have these been replaced?

Answer #13: Refer to exceptions file. Exceptions file clearly lists this document as removed. Therefore questions a) through k) are not applicable.

Question #14: MIL-A-70625 – We do not see any requirements for Automated Inspection. Does the USG believe there are areas that require AAIE? Or is it just optional?

Answer #14: AAIE is not required. MIL-A-70625 is included in the TDPL because should the offeror utilize Automated AIE, MIL-A-70625 would apply.

Question #15: Drawing 12937903 – with NOR – does the .250 Max apply to the height of the lettering or the bottom of the ogive dot?

Answer #15: The .250 max applies to the bottom of the ogive dot.

Question #16: In regard to DFAR 252.204-7012, is compliance to the DFAR required at the time of proposal submission or award of a contract?

Answer #16: Compliance with DFAR 252.204-7012 is required at award of contract except where specified otherwise.

Question #17: In regard to FAR 52.246-11, will the USG allow exclusion for design/development?

Answer #17: Please refer to Answer #5. The language in this clause is updated in Solicitation Amendment 0001.

Question #18: Referencing Section L, 2 Proposal Submission, please confirm that Volume III is a hard copy.

Answer #18: There is no submission of hard copies. Section L.2.a. states that each volume shall be on its own CD-ROM/DVD. Volume III (2 electronic copies) is to be marked with one copy as “Original.” Section L language of this clause is updated in Solicitation Amendment 0001.