WSDS VENDOR QA (as of 10 May 2021).pdf

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

1. Attachments 0001, 0002, and 0004 thru 0039, referenced in the WSDS+SOW_CDRLS_Final, documents were not included with the Pre- Solicitation. When will these be made available?

These documents will be available in the draft RFP release. The draft RFP is expected to be released the week of 19 April 2021 and final RFP release is expected to be released the week of 9 May 2021.

2. Drawing Package provided in “Binder1” did not include an Indentured BoM. We respectfully request an Indentured BoM be included with the Solicitation to ensure WSDS deliverable is complete and meets expectations.

BOM is now included in Attachment 0007, TDP zip file

3. The WSDS Pre-Solicitation states a maximum requirement of 123 WSDS, with 87 of those being 100k systems and 36 systems configured with the ability to operate as two separate 50k systems.

Please confirm this means that 87 systems built to drawing 19207 12681765 and 36 systems built to drawing 19207 12681765 and 19207 12680564.

Again, an Indentured BoM being supplied would resolve this question.

Drawing 19207_12681765 is for the 100K system and drawing 19207- 12680564 is for the Split Operations capability only. The statement here is therefore correct. BOM is attached.

4. The Pre-Solicitation Synopsis states that the procurement is 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The SOW states that the contractor shall deliver (2) each 125 GPM and (2) each 350 GPM pumps for testing at Aberdeen within 60 days after Phase I contract award.

The required delivery of the pump systems within 60 days would require the small business contractor to purchase and inventory engines and other long lead items without knowing if award will be received, and even if purchased today, would not ensure compliance to the stated delivery requirement.

This delivery requirement places undue risk and financial strain on interested small business bidders.

• Engine and other long lead items, considering todays supply chain constraints, could be 150 – 180 days We respectfully request that the required delivery be adjusted to ensure materials can be sourced and system manufactured in a reasonable time after award.

The PM will adjust the Pump delivery date to 90 days after the Phase I contract award taking into account possible supply chain disruptions due to Covid-19.

5. Similar to question 4, the Phase II required delivery is 90 Days after Phase II award. Again, this delivery requirement places undue risk and financial strain on interested small business bidders.

Again, we respectfully request that the required delivery be adjusted to ensure materials can be sourced and system manufactured in a reasonable time after award.

The Phase II required delivery has been revised to 120 Days after the Phase II Start of Work Meeting which would occur within 30 days after the Phase II contract award.

6. SOW paragraph C.10.6.1 states that each course shall be based on the Learning Objective Analysis (C.10.11.2.3).

The referenced paragraph (C.10.11.2.3) is not locatable in the SOW, thus we are not able to accurately evaluate topic depth/breadth.

Please advise further.

The PM will adjust the Phase II delivery date to 120 days after the Phase II Start of Work Meeting taking into account possible supply chain disruptions due to Covid-19.

7. Training

(a) Please provide the expected length of each training course and CBT?

The contractor shall provide I&KPT for the TSP at the contractor’s facility no later than 30 days after completion of verification of the -13&P TM or of Government acceptance of all IMI products, whichever comes last. The class size will be no more than twelve students, but Government reserves the right to have additional personnel present during the training. The I&KPT shall be sufficient in length to use the TSP its entirety and for Government evaluation/ feedback of the TSP. The Government anticipates the class be 40 hours in length, 16 hours for operator and 24 maintainer.

The contractor shall provide paper copies of the Lesson Plans developed in C.10.11.3 Student Guides developed in C.10.11.4, and FRC TM developed in C.10.6.5 for each student.

7. (b )The SOW states “less than 10 courses”, does that mean different areas should be combined to keep the lesson numbers down?

There is 1 I&KPT "Train the Trainer" course, 40 hours in length.

7. (c) C.10.6.10 says level 2 or 3 (there is considerable difference between the two, please advise specifically if there is a preference) and C.10.6.12 says level 4 simulation for each TLO

Level 2/3 is IMI and level 4 is First person 3D.

7. (d) Why is virtual simulation listed separate from ICW, is it a separate deliverable and not expected to be part of the CBT?

One CDRL is for TSP for lesson plans, student guides etc… and the other 2 CDRLS are for IMI and then for First person 3D.

7. (e) Please clarify what an IMSP with GUI is, does that mean the IMDP delivered in HTML format?

The GUI shall support a term-searchable glossary which is available from each page of the course. The glossary shall include low frequency vocabulary, technical terminology, and other unique terms in the language topics.

8. Product Support It is stated that the TM effort will be either CDRLs L008, L009, L010 and L011 or CDRLs L002, L011 and L022.

When will that determination be made? Prior to Solicitation?

The team will be looking for contractor feedback for a -13&P on the pump and for the WSDS. If over page count which we don’t anticipate due to many TMs referencing out, then may need to go to the -10 and 23&P DATM (L008-L010). L011 indicates a NMWR option on contract for whichever approach we go with. Will need to know in estimate what your overall estimated page count is for CDRLs L002 and L022.

9. Will the 125 GPM and 350 GPM Pumps be tested IAW the WSDS verification requirements or the MIL-PRF-53051C verification requirements or both?

Both. Phase I testing will only include the Reliability and Mobility Testing IAW the Phase I PQT Reliability and Mobility Test Plan. Phase II testing will include the remainder of testing IAW the WSDS ATPD and the referenced MIL-PRFs corresponding to each pump.

10. What item performance requirements take precedence when there are conflicting performance requirements listed in referenced documents?

It depends on the requirement in question. A table of conflicting requirements and clarifications will be provided with the solicitation.

11. Is the contractor required to provide native 3D models for all included system components (ex Components of the engine, pump, etc.)?

The contractor is required to provide 3D CAD models, 2D CAD drawings and 2D PDF to the lowest purchasable item for developed items. The contractor is required to provide only 3D CAD models to the lowest purchasable items for commercial items.

12. Can the Native 3D model files be provided in SolidWorks format/file type?

The Government will accept SolidWorks format/file type.

13. For section C.13, at what phase do you intend to have companies work with the arsenals to make the make or buy discussion?

In accordance with the Army Make and Buy policy and Army Regulation 700- 90,Program Executive Office, Combat Support and Combat Service Support has officially notified the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) of the “Buy” recommendation for the Water Storage and Distribution System (WSDS).

Army Arsenals were afforded the opportunity to submit a proposal but none were received.

14. For section C.13, is a portion of the manufacturing currently set aside for the arsenals to complete?

In accordance with the Army Make and Buy policy and Army Regulation 700- 90,Program Executive Office, Combat Support and Combat Service Support has officially notified the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) of the “Buy” recommendation for the Water Storage and Distribution System (WSDS).

Army Arsenals were afforded the opportunity to submit a proposal but none were received.

15. Will all of the support equipment for the pumps, such as the fittings, valves, piping/hoses, be procured under the same contract as the pumps?

Yes

16. Would the government consider the separate contract to supply the support equipment for the pumps, such as the fittings, valves, piping/hoses?

Not at this time

17. Are there potable water standard requirements that needed are needed to be met?

The WSDS stores potable water that has been purified to meet The Army Drinking Water Standards that are defined in Technical Bulletin Medical 577 (TB MED 577) Sanitary Control and Surveillance of Field Water Supplies (May 2010).

18. Will the government consider a EPA waiver for current EPA emission standards (tier 4) in accordance with 40 CFR 89.908 by using the National Security Exemption. Per the text “Manufacturers may request a national security exemption for any nonroad engine, otherwise subject to this part, which does not meet the conditions described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. A manufacturer requesting a national security exemption must state the purpose for which the exemption is required and the request must be endorsed by an agency of the federal government charged with responsibility for national defense.”

The formal solicitation will include an amended ATPD that will include the following language:

3.14 Engine Emissions

3.14.1 National Security Exemption from Engine Emissions Standards. The system meets conditions for an automatic exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Engine Emissions Standards per 40 CFR 1068.225, "Exempting engines/equipment for National Security." In accordance with 40 CFR 1068.225(c), this contract constitutes the written request for such engines/equipment from the appropriate federal agency.

3.14.2 Pollution Controls. The system engine(s) shall not use pollution control technologies that are affected by the sulfur level of the specified fuels during operation, maintenance, or sustainment (T=O).

3.14.3 Utilize Engine Technology. The system engine(s) should be of the newest design(s) and incorporate the engine technology(ies) that meet all performance requirements specified in this specification while operating on the specified fuels.

19. Will the government consider changing the requirement from 4” x 20’ suction hose to 4”10’ suction hose and double the quantity. This request is based on the human engineering factor as these hoses are extremely heavy and difficult to maneuver in the tricon and in assembling in the field.

The Government will not change from 20’ to 10’ suction hose sections.

20. The Technical Data Package elements outlined in Attachment 0008 seem to exceed the requirements for procuring a Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) item by establishing requisites that may not be commercially available. Further, according to the Q&A document, “Only 3D CAD models will be required to the lowest purchasable model for commercial models.”

Does the Government require proprietary CAD files and technical drawings from existing, publicly available COTS products?

The TDP requirements in Attachment 0008 do not require any proprietary CAD files to be delivered. In Attachment 0008, “TDP Deliverable File Formats”, commercial components would fall under file format (2) Envelope Solid Models. “Limited rights technical data pre-baseline items, and installation higher assemblies shall be modeled at least for form, fit and function with sufficient envelope, mounting and mating features. Weight and center of gravity shall be sufficiently defined for the intended purpose.”

For commercial items, Form, Fit and Function data or space claim models will be used in higher assemblies to insure the integrity of the assembly.

USG has rights to use Form Fit and Function data per DFARS 252.227-7015.

Further, MIL-STD-31000, paragraph 5.2.3 (Limited design disclosure models) states: When a 3D TDP is required and subcomponent to the end item does not require complete design disclosure, (such as commercial item, purchased item, etc.), a 3D digital model of the subcomponent shall be provided. The subcomponent’s 3D digital model need not be fully defined, but shall be sufficient to provide adequate visualization, interface characteristics, accurate weight and center of gravity information as required (i.e. cosmetic model).

21. Considering the depth and breadth of the CAD requirements in Attachment 0008, our industry partners are warning us that engineering and drafting support for all the necessary documents will likely take many months of work. This makes the CAD files and technical drawings both cost and schedule drivers and, according to our industry partners, are inconsistent with the purchase of a commercial model, especially with regards to the 90-day turnaround expected upon contract award. From a broader perspective doing this work, is it really a COTS effort you are looking for?

The Government does anticipate an assembly of COTS components (trailer chassis, engine, pump, etc.), and the “types” of drawings for these components would be delivered as Control Drawings IAW ASME Y14.24, Types and Applications of Engineering Drawings. Control drawings permit the acquisition of commercial items and vendor-developed items from specialized segments of industry without disclosing details of designs or divulging proprietary vendor data. Usually space claim (Form Fit and Function) models for commercial items are made available and they are not proprietary information. There is minimal investment in creating item control drawings for these commercial models but worth it and they are critical to the TDP.

22. Will a CLIN will be established for contractors to accurately benchmark and report the costs associated with compliance to Attachment 0008? As stated in the previous concern, some of the compliance requirements will be cost and schedule drivers for an extensive period. The associated costs with becoming compliant in the period between contract award and start of work will be difficult to eat for us as a small business. Additionally, we believe that the Government will not look favorably on extending the turnaround period for several months to accommodate the creation of CAD files and technical drawings.

Per the USG responses to #1 and #2 above, CDRL P016 - TDP & ENGINEERING RELEASE RECORD will remain a firm -fixed price deliverable.

The USG has no plans of establishing a separate cost type CLIN associated with Attachment 0008.

23. In our Pre-solicitation response, we suggested a BoM would be beneficial. Your Answer stated that a BoM was now provided. Yet, we were unable to locate a BoM in the attachments.

In the absence of a BoM and absent a specifying CLIN, we are unclear how to address Drawing 19207 12681766 (Adapter Assembly, Fuel Drum) Drawing was included in the drawing package, but is not referenced by top level drawings or by CLIN. Please advise further instruction relative to subject drawing.

Indentured BOM provided on Beta.SAM; it is now part of Attachment 0007, TDP zip file.

The 100K WSDS top-level drawing 12681765 will be updated to include 12681766, Adapter Assembly, Fuel Drum. Drawing 12680564, Split Ops Kit will also be updated to include 12681766.

24. In our pre-solicitation response, we expressed our concern regarding unrealistic delivery requirements, especially considering current supply chain constraints.

o While your answer was to extend the 60 day delivery requirement to 90 days, this simply does not adequately address the issue.

This is a developmental product. A 90 day delivery requirement for Phase I poses significant risk to any small business that wishes to pursue this program.

There are component lead times as great as 180 days.

If the delivery requirement is not extended to an achievable period, it will preclude us from participating.

We believe the delivery requirement for Phase I and Phase II should be 180 days minimum, with 210 days as commensurate, considering the product requirement and current materials availability.

o We respectfully request that Phase I and Phase II delivery requirements be adjusted to 180 – 210 days ARO

At this time, the Government has no plans to extend the delivery schedule any further.

25. We are looking for clarification of the requirement. Your answer states that Level 2/3 is Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI).

Specifically, is the requirement for 2 or 3?

There is considerable difference between the two and simply want to ensure we are meeting the expectation.

It will depend on the complexity of the task. More complex tasks would require level 3 and less complex tasks could be level 2; it’s not just a single interactivity level. Para. C.10.6.10 has been revised in the RFP, please see revisions in blue font below.

Per CDRL L021 First person 3D “The interactivity level 4 DL courseware shall be delivered as an .html file for classroom computers, Android Application Package (APK) used for android mobile Apps and Apple Operating Systems (iOS), used for Apple mobile Apps files to play on the designated platforms."

Per SOW section C.10.6.10, “All IMI shall be capable of being delivered to the student on the QM School Knowledge Center system touch screen enabled TVs, laptops, mobile devices, and downloaded onto Android devices. The contractor shall use the Life- Long Learning Center Blackboard System (LLC) and the CASCOM Sustainment Unit one stop webpage supplied after contract award to develop and validate the functionality of all content and tests for each demonstration, lesson, and full content SCORM package to ensure it is not only developed but also plays on Blackboard. The contractor shall develop new Distributed Learning (DL) courseware to be delivered on the US Army Enterprise Lifelong Learning Center (ELLC) Blackboard. The new DL courseware shall include Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) at interactivity level 3 including all 3D graphics."

26. We are looking for clarification of the requirement. Your answer states that Level 2/3 is Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI).

Specifically, is the requirement for 2 or 3? There is considerable difference between the two and simply want to ensure we are meeting the expectation.

ATPD 2425 states that the tanks shall have a remaining useful life once wetted of “up to” 12 years. Meeting the service life requirement of ATPD 2265 will satisfy the requirement of ATPD 2425.

27. Reference Drawing 12680564 (Kit, Split Operations) FN7 calls for qty 2 M12732 Hyperchlorination units. Please confirm the quantity. The drawing implies there should be 1.

Drawing 12680564 will be updated to reflect a quantity of one (1).

28. Reference ATPD 2425, 3.4.4 Volume of Water received or used Calls for “…Ability to measure the volume of water received or used at any give time…” However, there is only one flow meter called out in the entire drawing package (the 12681860 Meter Assembly used in the 12381777 connection kit, 350gpm pump) Typically, we have seen one flowmeter on the intake side of the system and one flowmeter on the discharge side.

Please confirm.

Drawings 12681765 and 12680564 will be updated to reflect an additional Flow Meter Assembly, Drawing No. 12681860. Notes will be added that adapters from either the 125 GPM Connection Kit (for 12681765) or the Split-Ops Accessory Kit (for 12680564) shall be used to connect the added meter assembly.

29. Water Quality Sampling Kit Should there be an extra water quality sampling kit in the split operations system?

The WQAS-P will be added to the Split-Ops Kit drawing 12680564.

30. Packaging. The ATPD paragraph 3.5.1 states that components shall be consolidated together in reusable crates IAW MIL-STD-2073. Is there a requirement that this packaging of components be in wood crates, or can alternative materials be used in packaging of components?

The use of the word “crates” in ATPD paragraph 3.5.1 was not intended to infer construction out of wood only. Alternative materials can be used in the packaging of components. The Government will consider revising ATPD 2425 to replace the word “crate” with “container” to avoid this confusion.

31. NSF 61 – Potable Water Some drawings require that components meet the requirements of FDA part 177, and/or NSF 61, while others do not. Is there an over-arching requirement that all components meet the requirements of both FDA grade part 177 and NSF 61?

The over-arching requirement is that all components in the WSDS system that come in contact with the potable water must meet the requirements of NSF 61. If there are drawings where it is unclear, they will be individually addressed and ECP’d.

32. Anodizing Drawings state that components shall be anodized in accordance with MIL- A-8625, Type II, Class 2. Does this MIL spec meet the requirements of NSF 61?

The overarching anodizing requirement for aluminum components is MIL- PRF-8625, Type III, Class I. Individual drawings stating otherwise will be ECP’d. Anodized aluminum components have been used extensively by the military in potable water systems due to their light weight and corrosion resistance. GVSC has reached out to NSF to determine if MIL-PRF-8625 meets NSF 61 requirements or if they can confirm anodized aluminum is on their listings.

33. Gate Valve Drawing 12681842 (was 13220E1071) This drawing utilized an old drawing This drawing utilized an old drawing as a starting point. Drawing 13220E1071 was made to A-A59379 which is a fuel spec. A-A-59379 states:

3.3 Materials. The materials selected for construction are the responsibility of the contractor. The materials shall be of sufficient durability to meet all requirements specified herein. Valves shall be constructed of corrosion resistant material for fuel service. (Does not state anything about water service) T hese valves use internal Nitrile Gaskets (90 durometer) due to changes that were made by TACOM a few years ago to get rid of the old Cork- Rubber Gaskets in the bonnet and the flanges.

Do we need to meet NSF-61 for seals and gaskets for this item?

Is Brass 85-5-5-5 acceptable for internals for this item (this is above the 4% limit)?

The functionality of this gate valve could be compromised if these two requirements are met.

All components that come in contact with potable water, including seals and gaskets, must meet the requirements of the NSF-61 standard. Brass 85- 5-5-5 is only acceptable for any part of the valve not in contact with potable water.

The original drawing 13220E1071 called out MIL-V-58039, which was for aluminum gate valves for use with liquid petroleum supply systems. This spec was cancelled and replaced with A-A-59379, also for liquid petroleum supply systems, and which states that the materials of construction are the responsibility of the contractor. Both specs are appropriate for use on the WSDS when it is specified that it is for potable water service. The Gate Valve Drawing 12681842 will be updated to indicate that the gate valve shall be aluminum body, for potable water service and to require all components in contact with potable water must meet requirements of NSF- 61 standard.

WSDS Q&A