Attachment_0010_-_M830A1_RFP_Questions_and_Responses_Amd_0002.pdf

1. Will the Government provide storage conditions or reasoning behind the condition code F? What is the criteria for them to be assumed reparable?

Response: The reason behind the CC-F was prolonged exposure to excessive heat as indicated by cartridge case discoloration and numerous skive joint separations. ASRP testing was performed on a sample of these CC-F cartridges. All warheads performed as intended. Criteria for repairable cartridges are stated in Appendix A of the SOW.

2. Will the Government provide storage conditions or reasoning behind the condition code H? Why were the rounds condemned?

Response: These rounds are in the same condition as the CC-F rounds. When issues first started surfacing, the USG did not think it would ever be economical to repair these rounds therefore the rounds were put in CC-H.

3. Could rounds be available for inspection by the contractor to assess overall condition?

Response: The USG does not intend to allow the contractors to inspect the cartridges prior to award.

4. The RFP Attachment 0009 Question #2 response indicates that that no reblending will be required. That original propellant lot shall be returned to new suffixed lot which is now included in SOW Para 3.14.2. This appears to be contradictory to lot acceptance requirements of listed in SOW Para 4.8, specifically Muzzle Velocity (3.4.2). These rounds are loaded with JA-2 propellant which contains about 40% NG/DEGDN.

These are liquid nitrate esters. These tend to migrate over time into the combustible cartridge case (CCC)/adapter until equilibrium is reached. The risk is that when the CCC is disposed and replaced with a new CCC not containing any NG/DEGN, cartridge energy will be lower. Normally the charge weight should be increased by x amount to meet the MV. If we are unable to reblend and make a CE/CV assessment, we will not be able to meet the MV requirements. Recognizing that a number of controls will be tested alongside the LAT sample, there is no real guaranteed to match the performance since the rounds may have been exposed to different environments. There is then a high likelihood that the MV will varied from the Cartridge acceptance requirements and also the control rounds. Will the USG reconsider reblending and the performance of charge establishment and verification testing?

Response: The USG is not considering allowing reblending at this time. Previous efforts have shown that the performance is acceptable.

5. Per Paragraph 3.5 of the SOW Propellant bags are one of the items to be retained. We strongly suggest that new propellant bags should be purchased for this effort. Bags will not likely survive the combustible cartridge case (CCC) cutting operation without damage. If they do survive, the forward string will have to be cut loose (or untied). This will mean replacing the forward string on every bag. The attempt to recover an intact propellant bag may surpass the associated cost of purchasing a new propellant bag.

Response: The SOW will be modified to allow the option of purchasing new propellant bags.

6. Para 3.15 of SOW indicates that metal pallets are preferred and the 30 per pack and metal pallet shall be exhausted prior to using wood pallets. If wood pallets are needed, is it correct to assume we will need to comply with a nematode free requirement and, as such, new wood pallets and buffers are required?

Response: Appendix C of the SOW does not require the replacement of pallets that are not IAW the latest revision of 19-48-4079/7B. Wood pallets should only be replaced if they do not meet the requirements of Appendix C.

7. Has the use of 2 part epoxy, required per paragraph 3.14.1, been incorporated into the TDP? Otherwise this would mandate a request for variance for all lots delivered under this contract.

W52P1J-16-R-0197 Attachment 0010 Aug 04, 2017

Response: The recapitalization effort is intended to replace the cartridge case and bond with the 2 part epoxy. As this is clearly stated in the SOW and all rounds will be identified in the lot number as being recapitalized, a RFV will not be needed.

8. SOW Para 4.6 LAP AIE and Para 6.5 indicates that FY12-16 tank training Contract W52P1J-12-C-0026’s AIE clause has been included to facilitate the AIE approval. The CDRL flowed down through DD Form 1423/Solicitation Exhibit A reflects the AIE requirement of the FY17-21 tank training ammunition Contract W52P1J-17-C-0024’s CDRL A005, Measurement System Evaluation (MSE) is contradictory of the SOW Para.

Response: All previous AIE Data Item Descriptions are cancelled and the CDRL for the MSE is the current one. The USG believes the current DID, DI-QCIC-81960, can be used with the AIE requirements in the SOW. It is noted the CDRL states that AIE packages shall be submitted no later than 120 days after contract award, while the SOW paragraph 5.3 requires that it be submitted no later than 180 days after contract award. The USG clarifies that the SOW takes precedence and the CDRL will be updated to “no later than 180 days after contract award and no later than 60 calendar days prior to First Article Testing…”

9. CLIN 0001 M830A1 Inspection schedule per section B is required to be completed 90 Days ARO. SOW Para 6.1.1, 6.1.2 indicates that the delivery of the cartridges for inspection is negotiable and to be completed within 120 days ARO. Will assets be available within 30 days ARO in order to comply with Section B completion requirement?

Response: The USG will provide assets within 30 days of contract award.

10. CLIN 0002 M830A1 Recap Tear down schedule per section B is 270 Days ARO. SOW Para 5.2 requires stability results within 185 days ARO. SOW Para 5.4 Propellant Moisture results within 245 Days ARO.

Depending on tear down timing this testing may not be completed after the full tear down is completed.

Which takes precedence Section B or SOW?

Response: The SOW requirements shall be met as the Schedule in Section B allows for time to process the DD-250. It is noted the SOW requires teardown to be complete and the final report to be provided within 245 days after contract award.

11. SOW Paragraph 3.18 is not clear to us. Is the Government requiring the contractor to dispose of HE filled projectiles and other energetics (other than the combustible cartridge case) or are we to return these to the U.S. Government for disposition. Will the Government please clarify which components it intends for the contractor to dispose of?

Response: The SOW will be modified to state that the HE projectiles and propellant shall be shipped to Letterkenny Munitions Center. All other residual components shall be disposed of by the contractor. The cost to prepare and ship the projectiles and propellant shall be included in the unit price of CLIN 0005.

12. CLIN 0004, M830A1 Recapitalization LAP includes the following language:

“The total quantity of 9,000 each recapitalized M830A1 cartridges is subject to downward adjustment due to the unknown condition of the cartridges” How does the Government plan to determine the value of the downward adjustment? Through a partial deletion change proposal, for example, or does it envision reducing the contract by the unit price of the CLIN established upon competitive award?

Response: The intent is for the contract to be reduced, if a quantity of less than 9,000 each M830A1 cartridges are recapitalized, using the unit price of the CLIN established at point of award.

13. CLIN 0005 Demil/Disposal includes the following language, consistent with CLIN 0003:

“It is understood that the CLIN quantity may vary downward due to the unknown condition of the cartridges” Wouldn’t the work associated with this CLIN increase in actuality if the number of cartridges yielded for recapitalization decrease due to higher component fallout or worse than expected wear and tear? Will the U.S. Government recognize an offsetting reopener or contract adjustment to this CLIN if the number of recap rounds is reduced?

Response: A maximum of 11,000 cartridges will be subject to teardown, of which up to 9,000 will be recapitalized. In this ideal scenario, only 2,000 cartridges would require demil/disposal. The USG opted to establish a Demil/Disposal CLIN quantity of 3,000 cartridges to allow for a 1,000 cartridge buffer in the event that less than 9,000 cartridges could be recapitalized. If 9,000 cartridges are recapitalized, the intent would be for this CLIN to be reduced by a quantity of 1,000 utilizing the awardee’s proposed Demil/Disposal unit price.

14. Related to question 13. above, should the unit of measure for CLIN 0005 be converted to pounds, with a +/-% variation clause? 3,000 “equivalent component sets” appears to be an ambiguous measurement to track demil & disposal progress against. If a contractor does not receive progress payments, how would partial completion of the scope of this CLIN be invoiced?

Response: The unit of measure will remain “equivalent component sets”, which is intended to refer to any components that are unusable for recapitalization following the teardown of a cartridge. The exact count and kind of component fallout may vary from cartridge to cartridge during the teardown process. The desired end state for CLIN 0005 is for the contractor to demil/dispose of all residual components, with the exception of HE projectiles and propellant (See response to Question 11).

15. Are CLINs 0001 and 0002 considered on a per item basis? As such, they can be DD250’d and paid on a partial completion basis via certificate of completion or other evidentiary means.

Response: Yes, CLINs 0001 and 0002 are considered on a per item basis.