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 January 15, 2016

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.

Question #19: Exceptions document – for Mil-C-48069

a) This seems to delete paragraph 3.4 and replace it with 3.5 – leaving the document without a paragraph 3.4. Is this correct?

b) Para 4.4.1 states ‘projectiles.’ Since there are not any projectiles in this version of the M992, should this not be ‘Dummy Cartridge’?

c) Table I – please confirm that we are to delete the entire Table I (everything on the first half of page 6) and replace with what is listed in Exceptions document.

d) Para 4.5.2 – Please clarify if this inspection is on the Cartridge alone or the linked cartridge?

Answer #19:

a) No, this is NOT correct. The Exceptions File states a new paragraph 3.4 has been added regarding “Conformance”. The old paragraph 3.4 for “workmanship” is renumbered as 3.5.

b) Correct

c) Correct

d) The inspection is on the Cartridge alone.

Question #20: Drawing 12937903 –

a) note 3 - Since CNC equipment is more accurate than marking equipment, can the dot be located (180 degrees apart and proper .250 distance) in the CNC operation with a 1/8 diameter and .001 to .004 deep impression to be colored in later?

b) In connection with Mil-C-48069 Para 4.4.2.2 Major 105 – Is this dimension the angle of 80 degrees +/- 4 degrees or +/- 2 degrees from the centerline of the groove?

c) In connection with Mil-C-48069 Para 4.4.2.2 Major 108 – Is this dimension the 2.220 - .010?

d) Note 3 – Are the 2 dots in relationship to any other feature (lettering) on the circumference?

Answer #20:

a) Any requests for Engineering Change Proposals will be addressed in accordance with the CDRLs and contract requirements after contract award.

b) The dimension is the angle of 80 degrees +/- 4.

c) Correct

d) Yes, they should be centered between grooves on the ogive.

Question #21: First Article – Will First Article of subcomponents (i.e. – Links, Ammo cans and wirebounds) be waived or reduced if the manufacturer has been in continuous production since a recent FAT on another US Army contract?

Answer #21: Requests to waive First Article Test (FAT) will be considered after contract award, but FATs should not be assumed to be waived. Requests to waive any portion of a FAT will require the submission of the previous PCO Letter or the dates of approval for each component. The Government reserves the right to request any data from the previous tests.

Questions 22-26 refer to Section C, Table 1, MIL-C-48069A (AR)

Question #22: Link, Cartridge, DWG# 11691393, does the total quantity of 57 include 25 IAW 4.4.2.1 and 32 IAW 4.4.2.3?

Answer #22: Yes.

Question #23: Dummy Cartridge, DWG# 12937903, does the total quantity of 62 include 25 IAW 4.4.2.2, 5 for 4.5.2, and 32 IAW 4.4.2.3?

Answer #23: Yes.

Question #24: Linking of Dummy Cartridges, 40MM M922A1, DWG# 12937904, when inspecting for conformance to paragraph 4.4.2.3. Drawing was not provided with the TDP or listed on the TDPL, will this drawing be provided to ensure conformance?

Answer #24: Section C and the TDP will be modified to add drawing 12937904 as well as ECP R15S2009 NOR 2, which affects that drawing.

Question #25: Does the 32 pieces (i) have a loop only, (ii) have a loop and coupling, (iii)have a loop, coupling, and linked together in a belt of 32, (iv)have a loop, coupling, and linked together in 3 belts(2 x 10 round belts, 1 x 12 round belt), or (v)have a loop, coupling, and linked together in 4 belts(3 x 10 round belts, 1 x 2 round belt), or (vi) have a loop, coupling, and not linked (32 individual Dummy Cartridges with a loop and coupling)?

Answer #25: Section C will be modified to show this quantity as "10" rather than "32."

Inspection shall occur on one (1) belt of ten (10) cartridges properly linked together (utilizing loops and pivoting couplings to form links). Section C, Table I will be updated accordingly.

Question #26: Shipping and Storage Container, DWG#9362531, when inspecting for conformance to paragraph 4.4.2.4 and 4.4.2.5. Can 2 belts of 10 Linking of Dummy Cartridges be used from the Linking of Dummy Cartridges quantity to fill the shipping and storage container or do these containers need to be filled with additional rounds that are not included in the quantity of 32 for FAAT?

Answer #26: These containers shall be filled with additional rounds.

Questions 27-31 refer specifically to MIL-C-48069A (AR), Paragraphs 4.4.2.1- 4.4.2.5

Question #27: Paragraph 4.4.2.1, Loop DWG# 11691395 was not provided in the TDP and was deleted from the TDPL w/Section C. Please provide the dimensional requirement of M101 and M102 or drawing to ensure conformance.

Answer #27: This drawing is a source controlled drawing. Assembly shall be obtained from contractors identified in drawing 11691393 as modified by Section C. A Certificate of Conformance from the supplier shall contain sufficient information in order to verify compliance to the criteria.

Question #28: Paragraph 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 M201 references to paragraph 3.4 for workmanship; should this be revised to paragraph 3.5?

Answer #28: Yes.

Question #29: Paragraph 4.4.2.2 references Gage DWG# 9202253 three times, is this correct?

Answer #29: No. Section C will be modified accordingly to list 9202253, 9202254, and 9202255.

Question #30: Is Gage DWG# 9202253 a government furnished gage?

Answer #30: No.

Question #31: Paragraph 4.4.2.2. M103 and M106 both read "Thickness of base rim".

Is there a correction or clarification for this?

Answer #31: M106 will be deleted and Section C will be modified accordingly.

Question #32: MIL-C-48069A (AR) w/Section C requires a FAAT inspection of Box, Ammunition, M2A1 Assembly DWG# 7553296. Is an additional FAAT required IAW

MIL-DTL-3060G AMD 1?

Answer #32: Yes.

Question #33: MIL-C-48069A (AR) w/Section C does not require an FAAT inspection of the Packing & Marking Box, Wirebound Dummy Cartridges 40MM Linked M922A1, DWG# 9362530. Is an FAAT inspection required IAW MIL-DTL-46506?

Answer #33: Yes.

Question #34: Box, Ammunition, Packaging: Wood, Nailed was given in the TDP (i.e.

MIL-DTL-2427H) but not referenced in MIL-C-48069A (AR) w/Section C. Is this product applicable to solicitation W52P1J-15-R-0144?

Answer #34: No, Section C will be modified accordingly.

Question #35: MIL-DTL-45585F AMD 2 was deleted from the TDP with Section C changes, is conformance to MIL-DTL-45585 for Loop DWG#11691395 and Pivoting Coupling DWG#13021537 not required because of the change from Section C?

Answer #35: Product conformance shall be verified via Certificates of Conformance from the approved sources of the supply, which shall contain sufficient information in order to verify compliance.

Question #36: Solicitation E-6 lists 11691395 LOOP CTG LINK & 13021537 PIVOTING COUPLING as components required on the ADC. Section C deleted these drawings from the TDPL, please clarify.

Answer #36: The link supplier is expected to supply this information on the Certificate of Conformance.

Question #37: MIL-A-8625F AMD 1 allows rack marks. Is there a preferred location on the part?

Answer #37: No, there is no preferred location.