Attachment 0018 - W52P1J-21-R-0035 Offeror Questions and USG Responses through 22-Jul-2021.pdf

W52P1J-21-R-0035 FY22-26 120mm Tank Training Ammunition

Offeror Questions and USG Responses Through 22-JUL-2021

1) Is Benite also restricted to the NTIB and/or is the NC content within the Benite restricted to Radford?

USG Response: Benite and the NC in Benite is not restricted.

2) Exhibit A, CDRL A014 references Measurement System Evaluation (MSE).

However, MSE is not mentioned in the Solicitation or any other Attachments to the Solicitation. Please confirm whether or not MSE is required for this effort. If so, please provide the clause language to include required reliability levels and if MSA is required.

USG Response: MSE is not part of this solicitation. After contract award, MSE implementation will be worked with the contractor(s) to discuss acceptable path forward.

3) Will the USG consider increasing the Page Count for the Technical Volume to 100 pages?

USG Response: No, page counts will remain as listed in the solicitation.

4) Will the USG consider changing the Font Size for the Technical Volume from 12 pt to 10 pt?

USG Response: No, font size will remain 12 pt at listed in the solicitation.

5) Will the USG consider changing the RFAAP 75% requirement for RPD-596

Propellant to 50%?

USG Response: No, RFAAP requirement will remain as listed in the solicitation.

6) Section C002 3.1.2 requires documents to be submitted electronically. Will the USG consider reviewing required documentation on site when certain suppliers will not provide data electronically due to the proprietary nature of the documents? (i.e, BAE Radford and Armtec will only allow onsite review of process documentation).

USG Response: No, the contractor shall work with its suppliers to provide the required documentation to the USG in English.

7) Section C002 3.1.2 Production states that the PCO reserves the right to require submissions of production process control documents/work instructions. Does this refer to only Class I PCDs? Class II and Class III PCDs are typically only reviewed and approved by the prime contractor and subcontractor respectively.

USG Response: The PCO has the right to request any process control document/work instructions.

8) Section C002 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 Government Furnished Ammunition: Will warmer/spotter cartridges be provided for in process ballistic testing and case base slug testing?

USG Response: Yes, the USG will provide request warmers/spotters for ballistic testing.

9) Will the USG consider revising the TEP calculation to not include the M1002 Ammo

Can Refurbishment effort?

USG Response: Per Section M, narrative M0001 – Basis for Award, Evaluation Approach, the USG will evaluate based upon the Large Share, Small Share and 100% Share individual CLIN prices. The inclusion of the M1002 Ammo Can Refurbishment in the Total Evaluated Share prices on the “Summary” tab of the Price Matrix are simply for reference.

10) Section E0002 – MIL-STD-1916: Do QAP verification levels take precedence?

USG Response: The TDP (DTL, Drawings and QAPs) will have precedence over MIL-STD-1916 inspection levels.

11) Clause E0006 First Article Test (Government Testing), Paragraph (e) states that a

FAAT may be ordered by the Contracting Officer in writing when…”whenever there is a lapse in production for a period in excess of 90 days”. Would the USG consider changing this requirement to 360 days to match Clause E0007 First Article Test (Contractor Testing) and to follow suit with the current LC6 Tank Training contract?

USG Response: The USG concurs with 360 days. Clause E0006 “First Article Test (Government Testing)”, paragraph (e) has been updated via Solicitation Amendment 0002.

12) E0006 – First Article Test (Government Testing): This section references DTL 14000022E. Will revision E be used for test requirements, or will the DTL be updated to a later revision that includes M865A1?

USG Response: The correct revision for the DTL is revision “G”, which includes M865A1. All DTL 14000022E references have been updated to state DTL 14000022G.

13) Section E0005 – Government Furnished Test Support Equipment: This section states the USG will provide pressure transducers and gun tubes in support of ballistic testing. Will the USG also provide gun system components upon request such as the recoil mechanism?

USG Response: The USG will review these requests and provide this equipment as appropriate.

14) Section E0008 – Submission of Production Lot Samples (Government Testing) references DTL 14000022E. Will Revision E be used for Production Lot Samples, or will the DTL be updated to a later revision that includes M865A1?

USG Response: The correct revision for the DTL is revision “G”. All DTL 14000022E references have been updated to state DTL 14000022G.

15) RFP, Section F-10, 252.211-7003 Item Unique Identification and Valuation – Will the USG consider removing this clause from the RFP? This requirement is not feasible for ammunition as accomplishing this would be an arduous task. Also, the addition of an IUID tag might affect the performance of the round.

USG Response: This clause only applies to a unit acquisition cost of $5,000 or more. It is not anticipated that there will be a unit acquisition cost of $5,000 or more under this acquisition. Per DFARS 211.274-6(a)(1), this clause is required to be included and will not be removed.

16) Clause H0004 – Progress Payment Limitation. Will the USG consider removing this limitation?

USG Response: Please refer to updated narrative at H0004 – Progress Payment Limitation via Amendment 0002.

17) Attachment 0001 Price Matrix, Proposal Tab references “NTE” for Option Periods

2-5. Should these all say FFP?

USG Response: Attachment 0001 – 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix has been revised to change “NTE” to “FFP – NTE”, as these proposed prices shall be Not to Exceed (NTE) values in addition to FFP.

18) Solicitation Page 49, Section H, Paragraph H0001 – Restriction of Critical Items and Components. (a) The items and components listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) are critical to the support of national defense items. As such, it is necessary to create and/or maintain a domestic capability for the production of these items and components by limiting production and procurement to the U.S., its outlying areas, and Canada. . .(d) “. . . flow down to, but not including raw materials.” Benite is not on the list of components that are restricted to sources in the U.S. or Canada. Is it correct to assume that this restriction does not apply to Benite?

USG Response: Correct, it does not apply to Benite.

19) In the Pricing Matrix is USG asking for unit prices for FAAT meaning total price / #

FAAT units or the total of 1 FAAT? Worksheet cell doesn't properly display anything over 4 digits.

USG Response: The Government is requesting the total price for one (1) First Article Test (FAT). Attachment 0001 – 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix has been revised to change the “Unit Price” for First Article Test (FAT) to be “FAT Price” in cells E22, E57 and E87.

20) Page 104, Section L, Paragraph (iii) Volume III Cost/Price (4) and Attachment 0001

- 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix. The Offeror shall enter Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) unit prices for each of the quantity ranges listed for Option Period 1 through Option Period 5 within the Proposal tab. Section L of the solicitation states that FFP prices are to be provided for Option Period 1 though Option Period 5. However Attachment 0001 states "NTE" under the titles for Option Period 2 through Option Period 5.

USG Response: Attachment 0001 – 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix has been revised to change “NTE” to “FFP – NTE”, as these proposed prices shall be Not to Exceed (NTE) values in addition to FFP.

21) Section L0001 2.ii. Volume II Past Performance. Page limit of 25 plus 5 pages per major subcontractor. What defines a major subcontractor and how many are allowed in the submittal?

USG Response: Per Section L, narrative L0001 – Proposal Submission, paragraph (c)(i)(2), “Major/key subcontractors/suppliers are defined as those that will be providing critical hardware or those subcontracts that are for more than 25% of the proposed price.”

22) Section H. Pricing for some commodities is especially volatile right now and the requirement to hold the proposal validity for Year 1 and provide FFP prices for Years 2 to 5 may necessitate inclusion of possible risk coverage in the proposed prices.

Would the Government please consider inclusion of an EPA clause in the RFP/contract in order to allow the contractors to decrease the overall price for years 1 to 5? An EPA clause based on the actual cost method that would apply to steel, aluminum and copper of various types is requested.

USG Response: The Government concurs with the inclusion of an EPA clause.

At a future point in time when the EPA is requested, the contractor will be responsible for providing documentation supporting the volatility of the material IAW the clause. Refer to narrative H0006 added to Section H.

23) Page 20, Section C, Article C0004, Technical Data Package Information. TDPs and any other related documents, if applicable, for this solicitation are restricted and can be accessed electronically via the solicitation posting, with valid Contractor login credentials. TDPs and any other related documents are posed with various options, such as Restricted and Export Control. This contractor is registered with a SAM.gov account, but there do not appear to be any TDP documents posted on SAM.gov.

Can you please provide a copy of the certified TDP and associated specifications or advise when the documents will be available to download?

USG Response: Please refer to Amendment 0001 if you are unable to access the TDP through SAM.gov.

24) Proposal due date of 2021AUG06 at 12:00 pm Central. We request an extension to the proposal due date to 2021SEPT21 for the following reasons:

a. The proposal validity requirement of 365 days is longer than for previous solicitations. Given the volatility in the labor and material markets, we strongly expect significant push back from suppliers to hold prices for a period of 365 days. We need time to place purchase orders so in many cases we will be asking suppliers for validity that exceeds 365 days.

b. Preparation and pricing a proposal of this size takes considerable time, effort, and approvals on the part of the prime contractors and our subcontractors.

Reviews and approvals are required at multiple levels of the organization and we will have to work around summer vacation schedules.

c. The Technical Data Package (TDP) and required documents were not available at the time the solicitation was issued. Adequate time is needed to review the TDP and DTL documents prior to undertaking many of the proposal preparation and cost estimating tasks including the flow of information to suppliers.

d. The change in the way the USG plans to pay for Radford Army Ammunition Plant

(RFAAP) costs incurred by BAE for Performance Work Statement (PWS) has a significant impact on the prices for propellant and nitrocellulose that are required to be manufactured at RFAAP. The RFAAP facility operations contract and its scope have not yet been negotiated between the USG and BAE. Therefore BAE will not provide quotes without including contingencies for PWS funding and other potential impacts. The solicitation requires firm-fixed prices for five years. In order to ensure a level playing field for the prime contractors and avoid delaying the procurement, we request that the solicitation be revised to allow the Government to use a surrogate price for propellant and NC for the purposes of proposal price evaluation.

USG Response: Refer to Section A, Executive Summary, Paragraph 4, for surrogate prices to be used for RPD-596 and NC. Also, refer to Amendment 0002 for extension to proposal due date.

25) Pages 55 and 56, Section I. I-150 52.209-3 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL --

CONTRACTOR TESTING SEP/1989 and I-151 52.209-4 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL -- GOVERNMENT TESTING SEP/1989. Request Alternate II of 52.209-3 and 52.209-4 be included in the solicitation/contract to allow the Contracting Officer to authorize the Contractor to acquire specific materials or components or to commence production to the extent essential to meet the delivery schedules. Please note that the delivery schedule for Ordering Period One requires First Article delivery six months after the date of award and the production quantity deliveries to commence nine months after the date of award for M1002 new and M865A1 ammunition. The contractors will need to order long lead materials prior to FAT approval in order to meet this delivery requirement. If the contractor has to wait to order material until after FAAT approval, there may be an impact to the delivery schedule that will need to be assessed. Then we request that this authorization be granted as part of the solicitation/contract.

USG Response: Please refer to Section B on Amendment 0002 for revised delivery schedules. The USG will not be incorporating Alternate II of FAR 52.209- 3 or 52.209-4 at this time.

26) Page 50, Section H. Article H0004, Progress Payment Limitation Prior to first article approval, only costs incurred for the first article, or those authorized in writing by the contracting officer, are allowable for progress payments in accordance with FAR 52.232-16; however, such payments shall not exceed TEN percent (10%) of the initial award value of the contract. Request that this limitation be increased to at least 50 percent (50%) due to the very tight delivery requirement as described in the above question.

USG Response: Please refer to updated narrative at H0004 – Progress Payment Limitation via Amendment 0002.

27) Page 49, Section H. Article H0001, Restriction of Critical Items and Components.

The following are to be further restricted to Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RFAAP):- 75% of the RPD-596 Propellant. Does the 75% requirement apply each CLIN/cartridge or for the combined quantity? Does the 75% requirement apply for each ordering period or for the total propellant to be purchased for all five years?

USG Response: The 75% requirement applies to each individual CLIN and each individual CLIN option exercised.

28) Page 49, Section H. Article H0001, Restriction of Critical Items and Components.

(RFAAP):- 75% of the RPD-596 Propellant. It is unclear whether the 25% balance of this requirement must be manufactured in the U.S. or Canada. Is the requirement that all of the RPD-595 be manufactured in the U.S. or Canada and 75% from

RFAAP?

USG Response: The remaining 25% balance must be manufactured in U.S., its outlying areas, or Canada.

29) Page 49, Section H. Article H0001, Restriction of Critical Items and

Components(b) Items listed in this paragraph, to include all components contained therein, down to but not including raw materials (unless a more stringent restriction applies as set forth elsewhere in this contract), must be manufactured, assembled, and tested in the U.S., its outlying areas, or Canada. Raw material is defined as material in the mill forms and shapes normally produced for commercial use.

- Primer

- Projectiles

- 70% of the Combustible Cartridge Cases

- Load, Assemble and Pack (LAP) of the M1002 and M865A1 Cartridges

Does the requirement for 70% of the Combustible Cartridge Cases also apply to the Base Sleeve?

USG Response: Yes, this includes the base sleeve.

30) Page 49, Section H. Article H0001, Restriction of Critical Items and Components.

(RFAAP):

- 75% of the RPD-596 Propellant

- 100% of Nitrocellulose (NC)

The RFAAP facility operations contract and its scope are still in negotiations between the USG and BAE. Therefore BAE will not provide quotes without including contingencies for PWS funding and other potential impacts. This significantly limits our ability to provide a reasonable FFP cost proposal for this scope – especially in the timeframe the USG is currently asking. Would the Government be willing to use a surrogate price for propellant and NC for the purposes of proposal price evaluation?

USG Response: Refer to Section A, Executive Summary, Paragraph 4, for surrogate prices to be used for RPD-596 and NC.

31) CDRL A014 and Page 10, Section C, Para 3.2.4. 3.2.4 Acceptance Inspection

Equipment (AIE): 3.2.4.1 AIE/AAIE requires Government review and approval prior to use on this contract. CDRL A014 is titled Measurement System Evaluation (MSE) but describes Acceptance Inspection Equipment. Is our understanding correct that the CDRL A014 requirements will be similar to the AIE requirements in the past and the formal MSE requirement is not included in this RFP/contract?

USG Response: See response to question #2 above.

32) Page 110, Section M. M0001 - Basis for Award. The Government intends to split the firm base quantity award, with the Large Share Base Award quantity of 60% of the M1002 and M865A1 requirements going to the overall best value (as defined above in the first paragraph of this section) most advantageous Offeror for each CLIN, and the Small Share Base Award quantity of 40% going to the second best value most advantageous Offeror for each CLIN. (The Offeror that receives the Large Share Base Award quantity of 60% for that respective CLIN would not subsequently be eligible to receive the Small Share Base Award of 40% for that same CLIN.) Will the Government award the 60% share of both CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 to one contractor? Would there be a possibility that one contractor could be awarded 60% of CLIN 0001 but 40% of CLIN 0002 or vice versa?

Approach, paragraph 4.(b) 4) i., “NOTE: The 60% awards are eligible to be awarded to separate Offerors; however, the Government will not award to more than two Offerors.” Therefore, potentially, one Offeror could receive 60% of CLIN 0001 and 40% of CLIN 0002, or vice versa.

33) Page 110, Section M. M0001 - Basis for Award. One hundred percent of the

M1002 container refurbishment effort will go to the overall best value most advantageous Offeror between the two Offerors receiving the 60% and 40% splits.

However, the Government reserves the right to make a 100% award of one or all items to one Offeror, who has best overall proposal, if determined to be in the Government's best interest. If the Government later decides to exercise an option, then at the time of option exercise, the Government will conduct an analysis and exercise option quantities based on the Government's best interest considering price, performance and industrial base considerations. Does this mean the container refurbishment (CLIN 0003) will be awarded to the same contractor that receives the award for the 60% share because they win based on best overall value to the Government? Or will a separate best value analysis be made for CLIN 0003 only as a basis for the award of CLIN 0003?

Approach, paragraph 4.(b) 4) viii., “The Offeror with the best overall proposal (between the two Offerors receiving the 60% and 40% splits), inclusive of 100% Share CLIN 0003 Price, will receive 100% Share for CLIN 0003.” Therefore, award of CLIN 0003 will be based on a best value analysis of CLIN 0003, and may not be awarded to the same Offeror receiving a 60% share of another CLIN.

34) Page 15, Section C. C0003 - STATEMENT OF WORK CONTAINER HANDLING

EFFORT IN SUPPORT OF 120MM TANK TRAINING AMMUNITION FY22-26

(M1002 AMMO CAN REFURBISHMENT), DATED 07 MAY 2021, 3.3.3 If additional containers are required to support Load, Assemble and Pack operations, the contractor is required to notify the PCO of the potential shortfall. Actions will be initiated to procure PA171 containers to offset this shortfall. If needed, is it USG or contractor action to initiate the procurement of additional containers? How will this be funded?

USG Response: The USG will initiate the procurement of additional containers should there be a shortfall. However, there is an ample supply of containers to support this effort.

35) Are FAATs or PCAs required for the CLIN 0003 M1002 Ammo Can Refurbishment

Effort?

USG Response: No, FAATs or PCAs are not required for CLIN 0003 M1002 Ammo Can Refurbishment. Attachment 0001 – 120mm Tank Training Price Matrix has been updated to remove First Article Test pricing for CLIN 0003. All required testing is contained in the Ammo Can Refurbishment SOW found at C0003.

36) C0003, Paragraph 3.4.3 – Can the USG please provide clarification with regards to

“applicable marking changes for the specific cartridge”? Typically in production, the only marking on the containers are for the component lot number. The markings for the specific cartridge are added at the LAP facility. What is the expectation for the marking requirement?

Since the LAP facility will be marking the refurbished ammunition containers, is it acceptable to use alternative straps that still secure the pallet while allowing the

LAP facility to easily break down the pallet?

USG Response: The USG expects the container refurbishment contractor to apply all markings correctly (per 13006756), except for the lot numbers on the lip (container rim) and back end of the container (which should be obliterated IAW SOW paragraph 3.2.7). The LAP supplier should typically not need to disband the containers, and, therefore, the container refurbishment contractor should use the required strapping. Note that some containers will have the M14 propellant NSN, which will need to be changed.

37) C0003, Paragraph 4.5.5 – This paragraph references both the D-handle and the older style cover. Is the butterfly handle an acceptable configuration for refurbishment?

USG Response: The Butterfly Handle is not acceptable for refurbishment.

38) C0003, Paragraphs 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.5.5, 4.6.1.7 and Appendix A, contain typos “\’” and “\’b”. What should the correct values be?

USG Response: C0003, Paragraphs 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.5.5, 4.6.1.7 and Appendix A have been updated with the correct values.

39) Can the USG award 100% of any or all CLINs to one (1) Prime Contractor in the

Base Year?

Approach, “the Government reserves the right to make a 100% award of one or all items to one Offeror, who has best overall proposal, if determined to be in the Government's best interest.”

40) Are offerors required to bid the M1002 Ammunition Container Refurbishment effort in C0003 in order to be considered compliant to this RFP?

USG Response: Yes.

41) C0003 references fixed quantities of 90K ammo cans for the first 2 calendar years and 25K each calendar year for logistics, inspection, and recycling efforts. However, the Pricing Matrix contains a 20K base award quantity and range prices by Option period. If the scope of work requires efforts for quantities not aligning to the range quantities, responses from bidders can vary drastically based on the gap between the SOW and Pricing Matrix, and imbalanced pricing may result. Can the USG clarify how the Pricing Matrix quantities tie back to the Container Refurb scope of work in C0003?

USG Response: The USG will provide containers from the 90K inventory as needed to support any delta from containers returned from the Ammunition Supply Point (ASP). The SOW (C0003, Paragraph 3.3.1) is modified to remove the requirement of shipping 90k within the first two years.

42) Related to the question above, does the Ammunition Container Refurbishment

Effort require 90K + 25K per year thereafter to be refurbished, regardless of combined M1002 orders placed?

USG Response: The contractor shall only refurbish what is required to support cartridge deliveries.

43) Is the USG indemnifying the prime contractor for incidents that may arise from unknowingly transporting containers that include live rounds, since the ASPs have provided a certification beforehand and the SOW requires 100% inspection after the movement of materials?

USG Response: If the containers are handled correctly, the contractor will not be held liable in the unlikely scenario an incident occurs.

44) In reference to C0003, will the USG consider providing the assumed quantities of ammunition containers from each CONUS and OCONUS location to allow for industry to properly estimate cost for transportation? If the USG cannot provide details from each location, can an estimate be provided for the quantity of cans shipped CONUS and OCONUS?

USG Response: The below table provides an estimate of trucks per year and the location based on averages from previous years assuming 540 containers per truck. This is ONLY an estimate and the contractor is required to ship all containers as needed.

Fort/Return Center Truck Est/Year

GOWEN FIELD, ID 3

FORT BENNING, GA 15

FORT CARSON, CO 3

FORT HOOD, TX 9

FT IRWIN, CA 3

FORT RILEY, KS 3

FORT LEWIS/YAKIMA, WA 3

FORT STEWART, GA 3

TECOM-YUMA, AZ 3

TECOM-APG, MD 3

FORT BLISS /MCGREGOR RANGE 3

NTS - CAMDEN, AR 3

EMRTC, NM 3

45) Over the last 9-12 months, raw material pricing has become extremely volatile. The raw material suppliers are increasing their surcharges, their base material pricing and the market is experiencing significant growth in lead time. Will the USG consider incorporating an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause to allow for both upward and downward adjustments for steel, aluminum, surcharges, lumber and foam (Polypropylene and Polyethylene)? Attached is a sample EPA clause for the USG’s consideration.

USG Response: Refer to USG Response for Question #22.

46) Should M1002 CLIN 0001 pricing assume that all PA171 ammo cans (to include internal packaging and pallet assemblies) will be provided as GFM?

USG Response: All containers will be provided from the container refurbishment program under the resultant contract(s).

47) Regarding the Ammo Can Refurbishment effort, will the USG consider changing the responsibility for shipment of the Ammo Cans from CONUS/OCONUS locations to the Contractor’s facility from the Contractor to the USG? With so many different CONUS/OCONUS locations to potentially arrange shipments from, pricing freight for this effort presents a significant challenge and could result in a much higher cost to the USG to mitigate the risk due to the uncertainties surrounding the SOW requirements.

USG Response: The requirement remains unchanged. See USG Response for Question #44 for an estimate of quantities from possible locations.

48) Paragraph 3.2.3 – In the event of a non M1002 configured PA171 container, the containers will be inventoried and stored. Should the Contractor configure the non M1002 container into the M1002 configuration upon receipt? Is there an estimate of how many containers potentially will be non M1002 configured containers?

USG Response: Containers not configured for the M1002 shall not be refurbished. The ASPs will be directed to provide containers only configured for the M1002 and contractors should be clear to only pick up M1002 containers.

The only non-M1002 containers would be containers mistakenly included, which should be minimal.

49) A delivery schedule of 9 months ARO is not achievable with the recent long lead times for components from suppliers common to the NTIB due to global supply shock of input materials. Making this delivery schedule a mandatory requirement will introduce undue financial and schedule risks to the USG and to offerors. With Regards to the Section B language, can an Offeror be considered noncompliant if the schedule proposed does not allow for Production quantities of 7,500 each per month six months after FAAT approval or, if no FAAT is required, 7,500 each per month nine months after date of award?

USG Response: Section B of the solicitation has been changed to reflect a schedule of 18 months after award for FAAT and 24 months after award for cartridge deliveries.

50) On 6 July 2021, BAE Systems – Radford Army Ammunition Plant (BAE Radford) notified [Contractor] that they would need approximately 8 additional weeks to provide their quote for the 120mm Tank Training Ammunition RFP. In anticipation of the USG’s RFP release, [Contractor] originally issued a solicitation to BAE Radford on 25 May 2021 with a requested due date of 11 June 2021. At that time, BAE Radford responded that they would be able to provide [Contractor] with their initial quote 6-8 weeks from 25 May 2021. On 6 July 2021, BAE Radford notified [Contractor] that they had just completed their rate analysis and indicated that they would need another 6-8 weeks to complete their bid for the FY 22 – 26 proposal.

As BAE Radford is a directed source within the RFP for no less than 75% of the propellant, [Contractor] is unable to complete a final bid with firm pricing by 6 August 2021 without this input. [Contractor] requests that the USG provide the capability for industry to be able to update their pricing after formal submittal on 6 August 2021 to account for the changes in price from BAE Radford.

In addition to the lack of a timely quote, BAE Radford has notified us that they are unable to provide firm pricing beyond 2022 due to the challenges they have with their pricing in the out years. There are three main factors that BAE Radford indicated which are preventing them from providing the firm quote:

1. The new NC facility has not been transitioned to production to date. Due to the unknown cost variance from the legacy facility to the new facility, BAE Radford is reserving their right to update pricing until such time when they are able to better understand the cost of NC production.

2. The change to PWS allocation has significantly increased BAE Radford’s pricing to industry and is updated on an annual basis. Because they do not have a firm PWS cost forecast through 2026, BAE Radford is also reserving their right to update pricing following their final negotiations with PD Joint Services on PWS allocation to their products.

3. Workload in BAE Radford is a significant driver of their PWS allocation to each product. At this time, BAE Radford has notified industry that their workload forecast is reduced over the course of this contract and because that is updated year over year, this may significantly impact #2 above relative to their PWS cost allocation to RPD-596 and NC.

Each of these three factors presents an unknown cost to industry for RPD-596 propellant and NC for combustible cartridge cases which are both directed sources within the solicitation. We respectfully request that the USG consider providing a price adjustment re-opener provision in the solicitation to address this unknown factor to promote a level playing field with the industry competitors as well as to preserve the ability to adjust cost/price (both increases to support industry and decreases to support USG expense) at the time of firm commitments from BAE Radford for each option year. For proposal evaluation purposes and to support the USG’s source selection schedule, the USG could consider providing a set price for BAE Radford RPD-596 and NC for all offerors to input into their proposals for the time being with the price adjustment provision to be executed at a later time.

USG Response: Refer to USG Response to Question #30.

51) It appears the Table of Contents count against maximum page count. Are the

Cover, List of Figures, Compliance Matrix, and Acronym list excluded for the maximum page count? If this count, will the US Army consider adding 5 pages to the maximum Volume 1 page count?

USG Response: Page counts will remain as listed in the solicitation. Cover pages, Lists of Figures, Compliance Matrix, and Acronym lists are included in the maximum page count.

52) Do 11X17 foldout pages count as one page or two pages against the maximum page count in Volume 1? If these count as two pages, will the US Army consider adding 20 pages to the maximum Volume 1 page count?

USG Response: 11x17 foldout pages count as two pages. Page counts will remain as listed in the solicitation.

53) The RFP asks for Zipped MS Word proposal files. Can we submit our proposal volumes as PDF files?

USG Response: Section L, narrative L0001 – Proposal Submission, paragraph 2.a. states, “A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word.” Paragraph 2.b. states, “File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one zip file (not zipx) using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.” Therefore, Offerors may include PDF documents as described in this section.

54) The RFP currently restricts the primer to sources within the US, its outlying areas and Canada. Does this apply for all components of the primer including the Benite, or are other sources for Benite, such as Hanwha, in South Korea acceptable?

USG Response: Benite is not restricted, see USG Response to Question #1.

55) The US Army indicates that it will supply Kistler pressure transducers/gauges for

Cartridge LATs to capture pressure data for acceptance of the ammunition. Will the USG allow for use of these Kistler gauges for component ballistic testing as well or will the USG supply additional gauges for propellant Charge Establishment/Charge Verification Testing?

USG Response: The USG will provide pressure transducers for all testing to support cartridge deliveries under this contract.

56) Will the US Army allow the US Army-supplied Kistler gauges to be used to collect propellant performance data on other Component ballistic testing as referenced in the ballistic sections of the quality and performance specifications?

USG Response: The USG will provide pressure transducers for all testing in support of cartridge deliveries under this contract.

57) The US Army indicates in the RFP that they will supply control rounds for the

Cartridge LATs to support ballistic testing requirements. Will the US Army also supply Control Cartridges for both M1002 and M865A1 Component LATs in support of propellant testing/acceptance and Metal Parts Integrity testing for Target Impact Dispersion evaluation/acceptance?

USG Response: The Control Cartridges provided can be used for all testing in support of cartridge deliveries under this contract.

58) The ability for use of Ballistic Test Facilities (such as EMRTC, Socorro NM and/or

NTS, Camden AR) for component testing is dependent upon the US Army allowing for use of existing GFE (Gun Tubes, Breeches, Recoils, Shrouds, etc.) that have previously been supplied to other Prime Contractors under prior US Army contracts.

Will the US Army provide approval for a new Prime Contractor to use the existing GFE at these locations for component-level Ballistic LATs or will the new Prime contractor be required to obtain all new GFE for its Component Ballistic LATs?

59) The US Army indicated in the RFP that they will provide Gun Barrels for use to conduct Cartridge LATs. Will the US Army allow for these Gun Barrels to be used for Component Ballistic LATs as well or will the Contractor require additional Gun Barrels supplied as GFE for Component Ballistic Testing?

USG Response: The Gun Barrels provided can be used for all testing in support of cartridge deliveries under this contract.

60) Will the US Army consider the submission of an unevaluated Executive Summary which is separate from the page count of other volumes?

USG Response: No, page counts/contents will remain as listed in the solicitation.

61) Solicitation Section A, paragraph 7, and in other sections, requires each Contractor to source 75% of its requirement for RPD-596 propellant in performance of the program from Radford Army Ammunition Plant. Does this requirement apply to each bidder equally, including those who may have an internal capability to produce RPD- 596?

62) [Contractor] requests the US Army grant a sixty (60) day extension to the subject

RFP. This request is needed to enable the full review of the TDP packages now that the TDP’s are available. We are engaging with the supply base and are constructing Scopes of Work (SOW), Bill of Materials (BOM) and defining the strategy with all suppliers. This includes flowing down all of the quality and other technical requirements of the contract. Given that the TDP’s were not available until one week after the RFP was published, this activity of developing SOW’s is ongoing, and this process is required before we can solicit suppliers. After we solicit suppliers, each subcontractor will need at least three (3) weeks to prepare a quotation to [Contractor], which will be negotiated and then integrated into our pricing proposal.

In addition, the current incumbent contractors previously had the TDP’s from the previous contract prior to the release of this RFP; and therefore, had the advantage of having all SOW’s and connection to the supply base constructed prior to the RFP issue. Due to technical issues, [Contractor] was not granted access to the TDP’s until approximately a week after the Solicitation was issued. As a new bidder for this program we need the appropriate time to work with the supply chain as we develop our solicitation response.

[Contractor] also submitted several questions, the answers to which may require additional time to respond adequately to the Solicitation.

Therefore, we request the sixty (60) day extension to allow for a complete and appropriate review of all of the requirements in conjunction with the supply base.

USG Response: Refer to Amendment 0002 for extension to proposal due date.

63) The drawings for solicitation W52P1J-21-R-0035 were generated from solid modeling as indicated on the individual drawings. Will the US Army provide access to the solid models?

USG Response: No.

64) C0003, Paragraph 2.3. There are M865 drawings referenced in the SOW (C0003, paragraph 2.3): What are the technical requirements from the following drawings for the M1002 PA171 container refurbishment SOW/effort: 12561271, 12913178, 12972355, 13016464?

USG Response: These drawings are not needed for this effort and have been removed. Refer to revised SOW at C0003.

65) C0003, Paragraph 2.3. The M1002 drawings for Pack and Mark and Container and

Cushion Assembly are not cited in section 2.3. Will the following drawings be added to the SOW for M1002 PA171 container refurbishment: 13006757 and 13006756?

USG Response: Yes, refer to revised SOW at C0003. Drawings 13006757 and 13006756 have been added to the solicitation via Attachment 0016.

66) C0003, Paragraph 2.3. There are technical requirements in the SOW (C0003) that are not defined: Paragraphs 4.3.9, 4.4.1, 4.5.5, 4.6.1.7. What are the missing requirements in these paragraphs?

USG Response: Refer to USG Response to Question #38.

67) The RFP refers DT14000022, Revision E, while the M865A1 TDPL calls out

DTL1400022, Revision G. Which revision should be utilized?

USG Response: Refer to USG Response for Questions #12 and #14.

68) What rounds will be used as control rounds for M865A1?

USG Response: M865A1 cartridges from previously accepted lots will be used for control rounds.

69) The M865A1 and M1002 TDPL call out the Electric Primer QAP (QAP12525143) however the TDPL does not call out the Electric Primer (12525143). Was the intent to allow for the Electric Primer in the TDPL or to remove the Electric Primer from the

TDPL?

USG Response: Offerors shall refer to the top level cartridge drawing for the required primer configurations. QAP12525143 is referenced on drawings in the TDP which causes it to be pulled into the TDPL, but Electric Primer (12525143) is not part of the deliverable configuration.

70) C0002, Paragraph 3.2.2. This paragraph has two separate reporting requirements:

"Continuous Improvement Metrics. The contractor shall track and provide quarterly continuous improvement metrics. The continuous improvement metrics are intended to provide a program quality overview and shall identify SPC and key characteristic status at the component level. These can be in contractor format but shall contain a minimum of: Historical Performance Trends of TID, Velocity, and T4 Time, Supplier SPC and Key Characteristics History, Key Characteristic CPK Reports, and Audit Schedules. The contractor shall track and provide a copy of these metrics to on a monthly basis.” Please clarify whether the metrics are due quarterly, or monthly.

USG Response: The Continuous Improvement Metrics shall be provided on a quarterly basis. The SOW at C0002, paragraph 3.2.2 has been corrected.

71) Solicitation Section A, paragraph 7 (Solicitation Pg.8) requires the contractor to purchase 75% of RPD-596 propellant and 100% of nitrocellulose from Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RFAAP). BAE Systems is the GOCO operator of RFAAP and is unable to provide a firm-fixed quote for RPD-596 due to changes in its cost recovery structure under its GOCO operator contract with the Army. Since BAE/RFAAP is a directed source for RPD-596 and its cost is beyond the reasonable control of the contractor, we respectfully request the government to modify the solicitation to provide a “plug” cost of RPD-596 for bidders to use in pricing, and to include an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause to account for price increases or decreases for RPD-596 as compared to the evaluation “plug” cost of RPD-596 on a dollar-for-dollar basis. If the Government is willing to include an EPA provision for RPD-596, we respectfully request that increases in price due to increases costs of

RPD-596 propellant result in an increase in option-year NTE pricing on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

USG Response: Refer to USG Response to Question #30.

72) With the current extreme volatility in the metals market, will the US Army consider adding an EPA clause for steel and aluminum? These two material commodities have a material impact to the price of the both the M865A1 and the M1002 and the need to provide a FFP price for 5 years. The recent significant increase in these material price will have a negative impact to the pricing and with the volatility will create significant uncertainty for the outyear pricing. An EPA clause will enable more rational pricing assumptions for the outyears that will provide the US Army with an overall better price without the significant current uncertainty carried forward to the outyear pricing. Therefore, will the US Army include an EPA clause for steel and aluminum?

USG Response: Refer to USG Response for Question #22.

73) Clause E0008 states the LAT sample shall consist of 50 test samples. Does this include 20 retest cartridges or 20 extreme temperature cartridges?

USG Response: The LAT shall consist of 50 rounds, including the extreme temperature pressure testing. If a contractor chooses to conduct the extreme temperature testing with production representative cartridges (built on the same production line and with the same production components as the LAT sample), the test data could be submitted to satisfy the extreme temperature test requirement.

74) Drawing 13006750 Rev G appears to be missing dimensions. Are the dimensions the same as those listed in ECP R20T3007? Please see the attached.

USG Response: This is an error. ECP R20T3007 for Rev G, which includes the intended dimensions, has been added to the solicitation via Attachment 0017.

75) Is the expectation to test extreme temperature during in process ballistic testing

(CV) or during the LAT?

USG Response: If a contractor chooses to conduct the extreme temperature testing with production representative cartridges (built on the same production line and with the same production components as the LAT sample), the test data could be submitted to satisfy the extreme temperature test requirement.

76) Will the combustible cartridge cases be tested for residue using an inoperable bore evacuator?

USG Response: The Combustible Cartridge Case will be tested for residue using an inoperative bore evacuator at LAT.

77) Is case base performance testing at -46C with increased pressure still required?

USG Response: Case Bases will be tested at elevated pressure during a FAAT Strength of Design test. There is not a requirement for case base testing with increased pressure for each lot.

78) Is the oil-contaminated combustible cartridge case test still required?

USG Response: The oil-contaminated combustible case test is not an acceptance requirement. This test would be considered a design qualification test.

79) Paragraph 3.15 in DTL 14000022 states all residue shall be less than 0.5 grams, no exceptions are listed. 4.5.12 also states “all residue” shall be collected and weighed. However 6.6.1 Test Evidence Submission states that if the non-burning residue requirement fails residue is to be bagged “with exception of epoxy coating”.

Is epoxy paint excluded from the requirement or just investigative consideration?

USG Response: Epoxy paint that is not attached to the case is excluded from the 0.5 gram requirement, because the requirement focuses more on case material residue weight that can affect performance.

80) Paragraph 4.3.1 in DTL 14000022 list 116 samples for the first article. Should this be 136 samples? 10 for SOD, 6 for SOD CE, 20 for extreme temperatures (-46C and +63C), and 80 for TID (-32C, +21C, and +52C).

USG Response: There is an error in DTL1400022, Section 4, Table II and Note /1 at the bottom of the table. The Conformance Criteria quantity for Target impact dispersion (TID) and Muzzle Exit Velocity should be “60”. Note “1/” of Table II should be “1/ Total quantity of 60 cartridges; 20 conditioned and fired at –32°C + 3°C, 20 conditioned and fired at +21°C ± 1.5°C and 20 conditioned and fired at +52°C – 3°C.

81) Table II in DTL 14000022 lists a test quantity of only 20 for the tracer function at

+21C, but 40 cartridges will be test at +21C. Should the tracer test have a quantity of 20 or 40 DTL13083017 only contains information for M1002 and M865. Will it be updated for M865A1?

USG Response: With the change described in USG Response to Question #80, the correct quantity is 20 ea.

82) CDRL A018 is for the submittal of Test/Inspection Reports. Is this CDRL only for Lot Acceptance Test Reports (LATR) or does it include in-process ballistic test reports such as for the charge verification test? In addition, YPG has historically uploaded the LATRs to WARP. Would [Contractor] now be responsible for this upload? If so, which document is considered the LATR, the YPG Flash Message or the YPG DATACOM?

USG Response: CDRL A018 is for any testing done at the contractor’s site.

Test data can be provided electronically or via CD-ROM; previously submitted formats for data presentation are acceptable. YPG will continue to upload LATRs.

83) We are requesting that the USG provide copies of the following ECPs which are needed to complete our TDP review in support of RFP W52P1J-21-R-0035:

R19Q2007, R19T3013, R19T5026, R20T3007.

USG Response: Refer to USG Response to Question #74 for incorporation of ECP R20T3007. The USG does not intend to provide additional ECPs.

84) The solicitation requires that all questions regarding the RFP be submitted no later than twenty (20) days after issuance of the solicitation. This suspense date is currently 22 July 2021. As there may be follow-on questions to the Government’s response to the questions already submitted but not answered, would the Government extend that period for an addition three (3) weeks?

USG Response: Refer to Amendment 0002 for extension to proposal due date and deadline for additional questions.

85) Part IIIa in QAP 13074470 lists major 107n as “Fin fails to withstand reapplication of minimum assembly torque”, but the referenced inspection method is for chamberability. Should 107n be for fin torque or chamberability?

USG Response: Major 107n should be listed as Fin Torque. The referenced inspection will be 100% for the conformance criteria.

86) Paragraph 4.4.1 of DTL 14000022 states 20 of the LAT samples shall be “ported in locations to match the USG proving grounds pressure port locations.” Do the rounds need to be delivered already ported or will YPG port the rounds prior to testing?

USG Response: Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) will port the cartridges.

87) With respect to Non-Destructed Dimensional FAAT Samples, would the U.S.

Government allow these samples to be returned to the production lot?

USG Response: Yes, the USG would allow these samples to be included in the production lot once quality conditions are satisfied post FAAT inspection.

88) With respect to MIL-STD-1168B, would the U.S. Government consider updating the revision level from Revision B to Revision C?

USG Response: The USG accepts utilizing the most relevant Revision as it pertains to Quality Standard MIL-STD-1168.

89) C0003, Paragraph 3.1.5.1 references CDRL A021 as the Configuration

Management Plan. However the CDRL is actually for the 2D Barcode. Can you please clarify the discrepancy?

USG Response: Reference to “CDRL A021” has been removed from paragraph

3.1.5.1. Refer to revised SOW at C0002.

90) C0003, Paragraph 3.2.2 speaks to the Continuous Improvement Metrics being submitted however there is no associated CDRL. Additionally the SOW paragraph states the Continuous Improvement Metrics report should be submitted quarterly however it goes on to say the report is needed monthly. Can you please clarify the discrepancy?

USG Response: Refer to USG Response to Question #70.

91) E0011, Ammunition Data Cards (ADC) lists the components that should on the

ADCs and in particular we have some minor comments:

For the M865A1 ADC this section lists 13020658 Sleeve, Base, Painted but this should be removed. The actual Sleeve, Base Painted is already listed as 13024494.

For the M865A1 ADC this section lists 13024496 Container, Propellant but this should be removed. The actual Container, Propellant is already listed as 13074473.

For the M865A1 ADC this section lists 13074467 Core and 13074468 Sabot but this should be replaced by 13074466 Projectile Subassembly. These two

(2) parts are sub-parts of 13074466.

For the M865A1 ADC there is a requirement for an ADC for the 13006745 Projectile Assembly. This is an in-process assembly at Marion. It is included in the Cartridge ADC, but does not have its own ADC. Would the U.S.

Government consider removal/waiver of this requirement?

For the M865A1 ADC there is a requirement for an ADC for the 13074471 Fin, Conical, Slotted. The Fin is a non-energetic component. Would the U.S.

Government consider removal/waiver of this requirement?

USG Response: Since Projectile Assembly and Fin, Conical, Slotted…