Attachment_0011_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

1) SOW paragraph 4.5.3.1 Case base and Seal Assembly Obturation. This should not be a requirement as the modification being made has no impact on the intended function of the Case Base and Seal Assembly to seal gun gases. Recommend that this requirement be changed to “For Information Only”. This criteria as defined in 4.5.3.1 is more stringent than that of the MIL-C-70983 for the M830A1 Cartridge the original acceptance criteria. The acceptance criteria as specified for evidence of gas leakage is too subjective to measure on a visual basis.

In addition the acceptance criteria for proper obturation evaluated by video review is not adequately defined.

Response: The case bases will be reworked and assembled to new cartridge cases making this requirement valid. The acceptance criteria was updated in the SOW from MIL-C-70983 to clarify the intent. To address the concerns regarding the wording of the requirement, SOW paragraph 4.5.3.1 has been updated as stated below. Paragraph 4.8 will also be updated to clarify that the contractor will not be responsible for failures that did not occur because of the recapitalization process.

“4.5.3.1 Case base and seal assembly obturation. The case base and seal assembly shall seal the breech of the weapon against leakage of combustion gases generated when a cartridge is fired.

Any evidence of gas leakage caused by obturation failure shall be cause for rejection of the lot or first article sample.

Evidence of obturation failure may be any one or more of the following:

Evidence of gas leakage in rubber seal Evidence of gas leakage in base steel or protective plating

After the cartridge has been fired, physical examination of the extracted case base and seal assembly shall be conducted to ascertain visual evidence of gas leakage. Evidence of proper obturation shall be evaluated by review of recorded video footage.”

2) SOW paragraph 4.8 (Muzzle Velocity per 3.4.2 of MIL-C-70983). This criteria is not applicable as there are no adjustments to charge weight, per paragraph 3.14.2, to allow achieving the required velocity. Recommend that this requirement be changed to “For Information Only”.

Response: The SOW has been modified to allow adjustments to charge weight based on the results of the CE/CV tests. In addition a note has been added clarifying that contractors are only responsible for failures that are caused by efforts related to the recapitalization effort.

3) SOW paragraph 4.8 (Chamber Pressure per 3.4.3 of MIL-C-70983). This criteria is not applicable as there are no adjustments to charge weight, per paragraph 3.14.2, to allow achieving the required pressure. Recommend that this requirement be changed to “For Information Only”.

Response: The SOW has been modified to allow adjustments to charge weight based on the results of the CE/CV tests. In addition a note has been added clarifying that contractors are only responsible for failures that are caused by efforts related to the recapitalization effort.

4) SOW paragraph 4.8 (Differential Pressure per 3.4.4 of MIL-C-70983). This criteria is not applicable as there are no adjustments to charge weight, per paragraph 3.14.2, to allow achieving the required pressure. Recommend that this requirement be changed to “For Information Only”.

Response: The SOW has been modified to allow adjustments to charge weight based on the results of the CE/CV tests. In addition a note has been added clarifying that contractors are only responsible for failures that are caused by efforts related to the recapitalization effort.

5) SOW paragraph 4.4.2.4.1 Reassemble/LAP. Please specify the specification the cartridges shall be evaluated against.

Response: The paragraph was intended to call out the requirements of QAP 12912208. Paragraph 4.4.2.4.1 will be rewritten to state:

“4.4.2.4.1. If a current 120mm LAP supplier is utilized for the reassembly of the M830A1 cartridge, LAP/reassembly shall be evaluated in accordance with QAP 12912208. A ballistic FAAT is not required.”

6) SOW paragraph 3.3 Teardown. Please verify that the inspections specified apply to the cartridge level inspections only of Appendix A Paragraphs A.1 and A.2. This would correspond to the completion of CLIN 001.

Response: Yes, the inspections required from CLIN 001 shall be done at the cartridge level and only Paragraph A.1 and A.2 apply of Appendix A apply.

W52P1J-16-R-0197 Attachment 0011 Aug 11, 2017

7) SOW paragraph 3.14 LAP. Recommend that propellant bags not be reused.

Response: The previous amendment changed the SOW to allow the option to reuse the propellant bag.

8) Appendix A Cartridge Recapitalization Inspection Criteria, Paragraph A.2., Cartridges with the following conditions can be reworked/ recapitalized. Since case adapter cannot be removed/replaced, is it acceptable for the cartridge case color to be different than the case adapter?

Response: Yes, it is acceptable for the case adapter and cartridge case color to be different colors.

9) Considering the U.S. Government’s (USG) answers to previous questions, will the USG consider modifying the following SOW requirements to Information Only? SOW Para 4.8 – 3.4.2 Muzzle Velocity, 3.4.3 Chamber Pressure, and 3.4.4 Differential Pressure.

Response: The SOW has been modified to allow adjustments to charge weight based on the results of the CE/CV tests. In addition a note has been added clarifying that contractors are only responsible for failures that are caused by efforts related to the recapitalization effort.

10) If the answer to the question above is Yes, will the USG consider an extension of three (3) weeks for the proposal due date, from August 21 to September 11?

Response: The USG is extending the proposal due date from August 21, 2017 to August 30, 2017.

11) The USG TDPL for the subject M830A1 Solicitation specifies Drawing 12912367 Revision C, however what was supplied via Fed Biz Opps was Revision B of that drawing. This part number is the USG’s preferred Combination of Adopted Items (COAI) for the Recapitalized cartridges that we would be delivering. Should we have Rev C or should we be using Rev B?

Response: The TDPL listing is mistaken. The most recent 12912367 revision level is Rev B.