Attachment_0022_ESPS_Solicitation_Q&A_Revised_6Dec16.pdf

W911QY-17-R-0003

Attachment 0022 Revised 6Dec16

Questions & Answers

Question 1: The performance specification MIL-PRF-32521B in sections 3.4.1 and 4.6.1 references NSRDEC drawing 5-10-2023. There were no drawings included with the solicitation and associated files. This number also does not match any of the pre-solicitation drawings. Where can I find a copy of this drawing and any final versions of drawings for this solicitation?

Answer 1: The performance specification MIL-PRF-32521 has been updated to MIL-PRF-32521A. The updated performance specification can be downloaded from FBO. The drawings referenced in the performance specification have been added to section J.2 List of Technical Attachments in the solicitation and uploaded to FBO. However, the drawings have been revised to address many of the discrepancies noted in the solicitation Q&A, and have been reposted to FBO as revised attachments.

Question 2: Item number 1 refers to 50 test units and item number 2 refers to production units. Does this unit equate to the drawing of a module? Does this mean each unit includes 3 panels, 4 support struts, 4 universal support strut handles, 4 anchor brackets and 8 tent pegs?

Answer 2: If the panel module being proposed in the offeror’s submission is comprised of some number of layered panels, then each “unit” includes however many panels that it takes to create one fully functional module plus the struts and auxiliary equipment required to support that module.

Question 3: The universal strut handle is an expensive method of attaching the strut to the panels. Is it acceptable to propose a less complicated and less expensive strut assembly combination that will accomplish the same task to reduce system cost?

Answer 3: No, the proposal should consist only of armor module designs. If, at some point in the future, the PM decides to modify the design of the universal strut handle, that modification would be performed via ECP.

Question 4: D.3.2.1 seems to indicate IUID markings are required for all components of the system. Are IUID tags needed for all of the parts including each individual panel unit, strut assembly, universal strut handle, tent peg and anchor bracket?

Answer 4: Please see clause at 252.211-7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation As prescribed in 211.274- 6(a)(1).

Question 5: There are several questions regarding the water absorption testing. The Performance Specification Sheet (PSS) section 4.8.3 states that due to the size of checking the whole panel that the ASTM D570 has been modified.

For conditioning: The ASTM method D570 calls out for conditioning the material. (1 hour @ 221-230 F) The PSS did not state that the specimens to be conditioned or not. Does the specimen’s need to be conditioned prior to testing?

Answer 5: The item does not need to be conditioned prior to water absorption testing. The performance specification has been revised to reflect this and will be reposted to FBO as an attachment.

Question 6: Water: the D570 calls out for distilled water. In section 3.6.3 of the Performance Specification Sheet (PSS) it states “fresh water”. Is it distilled water or fresh water (tap, water source??)?

Answer 6: Fresh water is acceptable, the water does not need to be distilled. The performance specification has been revised to reflect this and it has been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 7: Temperature: D570 calls out for maintaining a water temperature 73.4 +/- 1.8F. The Performance Specification Sheet (PSS) does not state a temperature. Does the water need to be maintained at a certain temperature?

Answer 7: Room temperature water is acceptable. Extremely precise temperature control is not required. The performance specification has been revised to reflect this and has been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Questions 8: Long Term immersion: D570 calls out for checking after a week and then every two weeks after until weight gain is less than 1%. The Performance Specification Sheet (PSS) in section 3.6.3 made reference to 3 days.

So is the Long Term for 3 days and only checked after the 3 days or does the immersion test need to continue for weeks?

Answer 8: I am not seeing the reference to 3 days. Long term immersion should be conducted in accordance with ASTM D570 paragraph 7.4.

Question 9: For the immersion test, can the same specimen be checked for the 24 hour and then the long term?

Answer 9: Yes, the same specimen can be used for both tests. In fact, the long-term immersion procedures calls for a weighing after 24-hours and then immediate reimmersion in the water; so both tests can be accomplished with one specimen as long as the reimmersion is immediate and the specimen is not given an extended amount of time for drying.

Question 10: What are the number of specimens needed for water absorption testing? D570 calls out for 3; the Performance Specification Sheet (PSS) did not give a number. Is it one panel?

Answer 10: One panel is adequate. The performance specification has been revised to reflect this and has been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 11: Hot and Cold Testing are referenced in (sections 3.6.4; 3.6.5; & 4.8.4; 4.8.5): Can the same panel be used for the Cold storage test that was used for the Hot storage test or does a new panel need to be used for each test?

Answer 11: Each test, Hot and Cold, should use different specimens.

Question 12: Thickness measurements state “5 taken at random locations”. Are these measurements just the edge of the panel or randomly taken throughout the panel. (This is also not clear in section 3.4.1/4.6.1 under Dimensions the only reference is “Thickness shall not vary over the total area by more than 0.05 inches”.) So we are looking for clarity regarding where the measurements are taken. Do we do destructive test and cut the panel to check center or find an instrument that can check all locations on a given panel?

Answer 12: It is recommended that the measurements be taken randomly throughout the panel, not just on the edges.

Ideally, an instrument to take the measurement throughout the panel would be used, like a long reach caliper.

Question 13: Now that we have seen the prints we have a question on print 5-10-2022. Some of the drawing pieces on page one of the print do not correspond with the numbers they are given on page 2. The design also appears to contain parts that serve no function. The toggle handle is machined with a 2 1/2” slot, but the threaded rod is welded to a 1/2” stainless pivot pin at the front of the slot that cannot slide. There is a 1/2” – 6 coil thread square nut that is placed into the slot in the toggle handle, but it is not attached to anything. It appears it would just be in there sliding around. There is a 1/4” x 7/8” slotted pin inserted in a hole in the end of the toggle handle that also doesn’t seem to have a purpose except to keep the square nut from falling out of the end of the handle. Was this part originally designed to have the threaded rod be retractable and the design never updated to reflect a change to a fixed position threaded rod? The mismatched numbers for some of the parts on page one versus page two makes it look like changes were made for this part and not completely updated. Is there a purpose to these parts that my engineer is missing?

Answer 13: It does appear that there is a discrepancy between the numbering scheme on page 1 and 2. The 2 1/2” slot is not in place so the threaded rod can slide, but so the threaded square nut can slide. It can be difficult to visualize, but this ability to slide the square nut allows the ESPS to more easily be built into corners. The pin is indeed in place to prevent the square nut from falling out of the handle. The drawings have been revised to address this discrepancy and they have been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 14: In section 9.1.4 section c the instructions read “Documents shall be stamped FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY AND SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE”. Does this mean that verbiage should be stamped on every page in all 5 volumes of the proposal or just on the front page of each binder?

Answer 14: “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY AND SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE” should be included on all pages of the proposal.

Question 15: In the proposal content section 10.1 section 2 part b it mentions “Section E: Complete ‘Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement’”. The higher-level quality requirement is listed on page 28 under section D – Packaging and Marking. Does this matter or do we just insert our ISO certification paperwork in section II b of the administrative volume?

Answer 15: Offerors are required to submit "Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement" IAW L.10.1 Volume I:

Administrative. The higher-level quality requirement listed on page 28 under section D – Packaging and Marking was moved to Section E in solicitation amendment 0002.

Question 16: Print 5-10-2021 under note 3. Finish requires the part to be powder coated IAW MIL-PRF-21712A. I cannot find that specification. Does it mean MIL-PRF-32348 or MIL-PRF-24712A which are powder coating specifications? If the specification listed is correct, where can we get a copy of it?

Answer 16: “MIL-PRF-21712A” is a typo. The part is required to be powder coated IAW MIL-PRF-24712B. The drawings have been revised to address this discrepancy and they have been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 17: On drawing 5-10-2022 there is no length measurement for the toggle handle. The longest measurement shown is from the end to the slotted pin at 3.125 inches. What is the full length of the toggle handle?

Answer 17: The toggle handle itself is 4.44 inches long. The total length of the handle + threaded rod fixture is 9.85 inches. The drawings have been revised to address this discrepancy and they have been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 18: On drawing 5-10-2022 the pivot pin is noted as ½” hardened steel on page one and as 1/2” 304 stainless steel on page 2. Which material should the pin be made from?

Answer 18: It does appear that there is a discrepancy between the numbering scheme on page 1 and 2. The pin material should be 304 stainless steel. The drawings have been revised to address this discrepancy and they have been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 19: Can an extension be granted on the question timeframe and proposal submission timeframe due to the change in required hardware that was released on October 19th?

Answer 19: An extension to the question timeframe and submission timeframe will not be granted due to the solicitation amendment that was released on 19 October 2016.

Question 20: The solicitation calls for a great deal of documentation for a system that will consist of 6 or 7 parts.

None of the parts can be repaired. Are manuals for MTA, LORA, MAC, PPL, EDFP, Operator and Field Maintenance Manual, Manual Validation Plan and Report, NMWR, NMWR Validation Plan and Report, NMWR PPL and NMWR EDFP necessary for this system?

Answer 20: Each logistics requirement should be priced IAW solicitation instructions. Whether each and every one of the logistics requirements CLINs will be executed is at the discretion of the PM and will be decided during the Logistics Guidance Conference.

Question 21: On print 5-10-2022 there are a number of parts that do not specify the material. The 1/4” x 7/8” mil spec slotted pin, 1/2” 6 coil thread nut and 1/2” 6 coil thread wing nut do not state what material should be used.

What should they be made out of?

Answer 21: The 1/4” x 7/8” slotted pin should be 400 stainless steel or equivalent; the 1/2” 6 coil thread nut should be 304 stainless or equivalent; the 1/2” 6 wing nut should be 65-45-12 cast iron or equivalent. The drawings have been revised to address this discrepancy and they have been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 22: On print 5-10-2022 there is a 1/2” 6 coil threaded rod. The print lists it as stainless coated. Should this rod be made of stainless steel or a regular steel with a spray on stainless coating such as STEEL-IT? A stainless rod would seem to be a more durable solution.

Answer 22: The 1/2" 6 coil threaded rod should be 1035/1038/1045 steel with a stainless finish or equivalent. The drawings have been revised to address this discrepancy and they have been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 23: Paragraph A5 states proposals shall be valid for at least 120 days. Paragraph A7 states that proposals shall be valid for 180 days. Please clarify the required validity period for the proposal.

Answer 23: Proposals shall be valid for 180 days. The discrepancy will be corrected in solicitation amendment 0003.

Question 24: Paragraph L.1.4 regarding Contractor Nondisclosure Agreements, requires offerors to agree to permit the listed contractors to view proposal information and assist the Government in the proposal review process. There were no companies named in this paragraph as participating in support of the Government. Please provide.

Answer 24: There are no known contractor personnel that will be part of the review process. This paragraph has been revised in solicitation amendment 0003.

Question 25: L.9.1.4.d. states that each ‘section’ shall have a Table of Contents. Does the Government mean that each ‘Volume’ shall have a Table of Contents?

Answer 25: L.9.1.4. (d) will be updated to state “Each page shall contain as a header the Offerors company name, address, solicitation number, date, volume number, and page count. A Table of Contents for each volume shall be provided.”

Question 26; Paragraph L.10.3.3 Manufacturing Plan – it appears that the incorrect information was placed in this paragraph, as it addresses the Past Performance volume and not the Manufacturing Plan. Please provide the instructions for the Manufacturing Plan.

Answer 26: Paragraph L.10.3.3(a) will be revised in solicitation amendment 0003.

Question 27: Referencing the above misplaced paragraph, will this paragraph remain as a requirement for Past Performance?

Answer 27: Yes the misplaced paragraph is still applicable. In solicitation amendment 0003 the paragraph will be moved to the correct location within Past Performance.

Question 28: Regarding the definition of ‘Subcontract”, is a material supplier who provides the threshold value defining ‘significant’ provided in Paragraph L.10.4.d considered a ‘subcontractor’ for purposes of the past performance requirements?

Answer 28: Yes

Question 29: CLIN 0017 shows a required quantity of 50 – did the Government intend for the quantity to be one?

Answer 29: Solicitation amendment 0003 will change the max quantity to 1 for CLIN 0017.

Question 30: CLINs 0029 and 0030 – Travel and Shipping – These CLINs are shown as FFP but the description indicates reimbursement of cost. Please clarify.

Answer 30: CLINS 0029 and 0030 are FFP. These CLINS will be reimbursed based on actual costs only.

Question 31: In the performance spec the V50 velocity of the 7.62x51 M80 ball round is stated at 2850 ft/sec. This is higher than published muzzle velocities in STANAG and NIJ 0108.01 which states 854m/s (2800ft/s) and 838 m/s (2750ft/s), respectively. The velocity stated in NIJ 0108.01 Table 1. is stated correctly 838 m/s or 2750 +-50 ft/s, but is incorrectly converted on page 7 written "(2850+-50 ft) per second". Is the V50 velocity in the performance spec the intended velocity for M80 ball?

Answer 31: The velocities listed in the performance specification are correct. The muzzle velocity of 2750 ft/s is the intended velocity for the V0 test and is in line with the specified muzzle velocity of that round.

Question 32: Paragraph L.10.1, Volume I: Administrative, Section II b. states that Section “E” Complete “Higher Level Contract Quality Requirement” shall be included. We believe the reference should be to Section “D”. Please confirm.

Answer 32: This was updated in amendment 0002 and is reflected on the current conformed copy of the solicitation that is available on FBO.

Question 33: The CLINs for Contractor Support and for Future Product Development require the offeror to provide fully burdened hourly rates for various named labor categories. Are there specific requirements/qualifications for these categories that must be met? What is the basis for each of the various categories?

Answer 33: These labor categories are simply provided as a guideline to indicate that a variety of personnel may be required to execute the functions described in those CLINs. If the offeror has more precise or descriptive titles for the various personnel that may be required for execution, those titles may be used.

Question 34: Performance Specification, Paragraph 4.7.2, Abrasion, dictates testing in accordance with Procedure B of ASTM G65. This is an aggressive test and may result in increased panel cost. Would the Government consider modifying the test standard to ASTM D4060 for abrasion testing?

Answer 34: ASTM D4060 is not suitable for hard composite panels of this kind. ASTM G65 is a more appropriate test method. However, the abrasion requirement has been revised in the performance specification to be approximately 1% specimen volume loss if a specimen of the maximum allowable thickness is used. The revised performance specification has been reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 35: CLINs 0001 and 0002 are FFP with terms of FOB Destination. It is assumed since CLIN 0030 for shipping is not to be priced at this time and will be authorized via individual delivery orders, that the FFP for CLINs 0001 and 0002 pricing will not include shipping. Please confirm.

Answer 35: Correct CLINS 0001 and 0002 shall not include shipping. Shipping will be handled under CLIN 0030 Shipping.

Question 36: Section C.4.3.2 one ESPS Module from each production lot is to be selected for Lot Acceptance Test (LAT). A lot is defined as 50 complete modules or the quantity of one delivery order, whichever is fewer.

Attachment 0001 performance specification, section 4.2.2 states that LAT shall occur at a frequency of once per 500 units produced, unless otherwise specified. Please clarify the intervals within which the LAT shall occur. With the assumption of a maximum quantity of 15,000 modules there would be 600 modules consumed by the testing as called out in C.4.3 and Table III of the specification section 4.2.3. Is this the government’s intent? Does the AAO of 15,000 accommodate end user demand as well as test units?

Answer 36: The “50 complete modules” stated in paragraph C.4.3.2 is a typo. One lot is 500 complete modules or the quantity of one delivery order, whichever is fewer. Paragraph C.4.3.2 will be revised in solicitation amendment 0003.

Question 37: Given there is no page limit associated with the Sub-factor A - Product Demonstration Model and the government has assigned a filename of TECPDM to this sub-factor, it is assumed that a narrative in addition to delivery of the PDM is expected. Please confirm.

Answer 37: Yes, a brief narrative describing the PDM being supplied – particularly a description of how the offeror intends for the PDM to be shot – should be included.

Question 38: The performance specification describes a module as being “a single panel or combination of panels.”

However, the drawing at Attachment 0023 indicates the modules include three panels. Please clarify the number of panels required per module.

Answer 38: The intent of the solicitation is not to dictate how many panels comprise a module. If the requirements contained in the performance specification can be met with a single panel design, so be it. If a design consisting of multiple panels stacked together is necessary in order to meet the requirements, so be it. The number of panels that comprise a module is at the discretion of the offeror. The panel drawing in Attachment 0023 is provided simply to indicate that the areal dimensions of any proposed panel must comply with that drawing, with the exception of thickness, which is defined in paragraph 3.4.1 of the performance specification.

Question 39: Questions 2 and 38 both asked how many panels are being ordered and were not clearly answered. We realize a panel solution can have one or multiple layers to meet the ballistic requirements. When pricing item number 1 and 2, the unit is listed as each and they are called test units and production units respectively. The drawing for a module shows three panels side by side with all of the hardware to support them. When ordering a unit does this mean providing protection for a single 48” X 84” area whether using a single or a two-layer solution? Does a unit mean a module consisting of (3) 48” X 84” panels and the associated hardware for a single layer solution and

(6) 48” X 84” panels and the associated hardware for a two-layer solution?

Answer 39: A unit is a single (1) module plus the equipment required to keep that module standing. The drawing is simply demonstrating how three (3) modules would be positioned side by side – particularly detailing overlap length and so on. The drawing is not intended to indicate three modules equals one unit. So, one unit/module is protection for a single 48” x 84” area (whether that protection is comprised of a single layer or multiple layers), plus one (1) strut required to support that protection, plus the universal strut handles to fasten the protection to the struts, plus the staking equipment to fasten the protection and struts to the ground. As two modules will be supported on a shared side by a single strut, additional struts will be required to fully assemble a section of modules. For each set of 12 modules, one (1) additional strut, universal strut handle, and staking equipment will be required.

Question 40: EMD Technical Testing- Starts after panels are delivered, but how long after delivery will government start this test? What is the duration of this testing event?

Answer 40: EMD testing will commence as soon as possible after delivery of the EMD test units and coordination with ATEC.

Question 41: EMD Logistics Demonstration- Starts after government acceptance of 2nd version of Technical Manual. How long after acceptance before it starts and what is the duration of the LD?

Answer 41: Logistics Demonstration will commence approximately one month after the 2nd version of the TM is accepted to allow for travel and schedule accommodations to be made. EUE and LD should not take more than 2-3 days.

Question 42: EMD Early User Evaluation-What determines when it starts, how long it lasts?

Answer 42: For a system of this simplicity, the presumed plan is to conduct EUE and LD concurrently. EUE and LD should not take more than 2-3 days.

Question 43: EMD Government Verification of Technical Manual- Starts after government accepts the 3rd version of the Technical Manual that incorporates the government’s mark ups from the LD. What is the duration of the Government Verification of the Technical Manual?

Answer 43: The Government TM Verification Conference typically takes approximately five days.

Question 44: PN 5-10-0209 (STRAP, RETANING MBPS)

a. Suppliers provide straps in ft. length, not inch. Is it acceptable to use OEM defined 2 ft. length vs 25.25”?

Answer 44(a): This part (strap) is no longer part of the system.

b. Color of the strap isn’t specified.

Answer 44(b): This part (strap) is no longer part of the system.

Question 45: PN 5-10-2022-4(TOGGLE HANDLE 6061 ALUMINUM)

a. Raw material aluminum 6061 temper designation isn’t defined, -0,-T4,-T6, other?

Answer 45(a): Aluminum designation is 6061 T6. The drawing is being revised and will be reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

b. Coating/Finish isn’t specified. Part exposed to environment. If coating required, welding of the coil threaded rod can damage part coating.

Answer 45(b): This part should be anodized or equivalent. The Coil thread rod is not welded to PN-5-10-2022-4.

The drawing is being revised and will be reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 46: PN 5-10-2022 (UNIVERSAL STRUT HANDLE)

a. Filled welding all around .0625” (Part 5-10-2022-6 to 5-10-2022-7) can’t be done all way around once part inserted into aluminum toggle handle.

Answer 46(a): 5-1-2022 drawing has been updated to add a welding note and assembly methodology. 5-10-2022-6 assembles into 5-10-2022-4 then weld the coil rod into the pin.

b. Welding of Part 5-10-2022-6 to 5-10-2022-7 is high carbon to stainless steel. May have potential cracking, might require austenitic stainless welding wire 310.

Answer 46(b): Material call out on part 5-10-2022-7 shall be changed to stainless steel. The drawing is being revised and will be reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

c. After welding, this connection is exposed to weather and might corrode due to carbon steel contamination.

Answer 46(c): The connection will be stainless steel to stainless steel and welded with stainless wire. The drawing is being revised and will be reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 47: PNs 5-10-0200-7, 5-10-0200-8 and 5-10-2021-4 call for HOT ROLLED, GRADE 50 PER ASTM A36.

a. Can’t allocate hot rolled A36 Grade 50 steel type, is A572 Gr.50 will be acceptable?

Answer 47(a): PNs 5-10-0200-7 and 5-10-0200-8 are obsolete. For Part 5-10-2021-4 (STRUT TOP BRACKET) material call out will be for Grade 50 per ASTM A36 or equivalent. The drawing is being revised and will be reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

Question 48: PNs 5-10-0200-1, 5-10-0200-2 and 5-10-2021

a. 0.08” and 0.125” welding of pipe to pipe joints can’t be done all way around as shown due to geometry limitations. Is the welding size can be increased to ¼”-3/8” fillet all around to fill the gap?

Answer 48(a): Fillet call out will be changed to a minimum ¼”.

Question 49: PN 5-10-2021-5 (COIL THREAD NUT)

a. Part don’t have definition of material and dimensions.

Answer 49(a): PN 5-10-2021-5 will be updated with a detail notation on the drawing which identifies material and dimensions. The drawing is being revised and will be reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.

b. Is this part identical to 5-10-2022-3?

Answer 49(b): Yes. Drawing will be revised for consistency.

Question 50: Regarding the PDM flexural sample required for submission with the proposal response. According to Attachment 0019 PDM Unit Dimensions, the sample should be 2”x24”. In Attachment 001 MIL-PRF-32521A, Section 4.9.2, it says that “The support span shall be determined using the recommended 32:1 span-to-thickness ratio.” What size requirement should we follow for manufacturing the PDM flexural sample?

Answer 50: Follow the size requirement stated in Attachment 0019.

Question 51: In Section 3.4.1, the thickness requirement is described as “The thickness of any individual ESPS panel shall not exceed 0.75 inches…” . It is probable that our solution will be comprised of two components (e.g.

panels) that are stacked together to provide the full protection. Is it required that each of these components are less than 0.75” or must the combined thickness be less than 0.75”?

Answer 51: The thickness of any individual panel shall not exceed 0.75 inches. If the solution is comprised of multiple panels stacked together, each of those individual panels must meet that requirement. The requirement does not apply to the combined stack. However, it should be noted that the combined weight requirement will apply to the combined stack.

Question 52: Our solution will likely be comprised of 2 components (e.g. panels) that are stacked together to provide the full protection module. For the PDM samples can they be “attached” together in a way that is convenient for ballistic testing but will be different than the method used for an actual ESPS module?

Answer 52: The PDM samples may be attached together in a way that facilitates ballistic testing, as long as the method of attachment does not affect the ballistic performance of the system. However, the final design will not allow multiple panels in a stack to be permanently affixed to each other. This would create a weight problem, as the affixed stack would exceed lift requirements, and the system would no longer be modular and reusable.

Question 53: The original set of drawings included a retaining strap (Drawing # 5-10-0209) as part of the drawing set. This strap was attached to the panels through a slot on the panel edge. The revised set of drawings that were posted on the FedBizOps website on November 4, 2016 do not include the slot and instead have a hole present that allows the Universal Strut Handle (Drawing # 5-10-2022) to be used. We want to confirm that the current design eliminates the strap from the solution.

Answer 53: That is correct. The current design does not feature a strap; instead, the function of the strap has been replaced by the Universal Strut Handle.

Question 54: In item no. 0001 of the above solicitation it refers to section C.3.1.1 and attachment 0001 for a quantity of 50 EMD test units, and in the item no 0004 FAT it has a quantity of 1 (job) but the section C.4.1. has a quantity of 50 modules. Are there 50 modules required for the FAT and 50 modules required for the EMD? Why is this defined as a job? Please clarify so that I can fill out the solicitation properly.

Answer 54: Yes, 50 modules for EMD and 50 modules FAT are required. 1 Job in item 0004 is listed as 1 job because it will be the total cost to conduct FAT start to finish.

Question 55: The supplied Government Drawing; number 5-10-2020 Rev C, was given to our sub-contractors. It clearly states in note #1 that "Drawing represents a single module", the drawing shows three panels and four sets of supporting hardware.

In our original request for quotes to the sub-contractors we asked for quotes on up to 15,000 modules at the maximum rate of 5,000/yr. The sub-contractors calculated that they should quote 45,000 panels and 60,000 sets of supports based on the drawing's representation of a module "unit".

Clarification concerning the quantities was sought in question #2 but was not definitively answered until question #39. Once we became aware of the change this was communicated to suppliers. However, in reviewing the resulting quotations we discovered that the sub-contractors relied on the government drawings and the original RFQ and not the follow-up instructions supplied by us in response to Q39.

In talking with the material suppliers they have told us that the magnitude of the change is such that they will have to go out for new pricing and select different manufacturing processes for the substantially lower volume. They advised us they will not be able to respond by the closing date.

We requests an extension in the closing date by two weeks to allow our suppliers to respond in kind to the answers given in Q39 and the problems caused by the inaccurate drawings.

Answer 55: Solicitation amendment 0005 has been posted with an extension to the proposal due date. The new proposal due date is listed in the amendment 0005 of the solicitation.

Question 56: Drawing 5-10-0208 calls out the material: ASTM A236. Per our research that steel specification ASTM A236 has been withdrawn. Should it be ASTM A36 carbon steel?

Answer 56: Yes, use ASTM A36. The drawing is being revised and will be reposted to FBO as a revised attachment.