QA Log W912CH26B0007.docx

Last Updated: 13 July 2026 8:26 am EST W912CH-26-B-0007 - Q & A Log

Question: As we look at sourcing all the components for this kit we are wondering if there is a consolidated spread sheet with items/parts and numbers that would simplify the referencing for procurement.

Answer: Please reference “TDPL COVER SHEET (EH4L0188EH)” located within Attachment 0001 TDP 0631A0000. This PDF lists the product drawings and associated lists tied to this procurement.

Please also note that per A.1. (c) of the IFB: “BIDDERS MUST RETURN A SIGNED COPY OF THE TDPL COVER SHEET WITH THEIR BID SUBMISSION OR THE BID SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED.”

Question: (Drawing Number: 0631D2001) The plastic hex key holder in question does not exist anymore. All the hex keys are produced, but with the sizes and part numbers called out, there is not a set that is an exact match. Do you have a suggested part number, or can this be excluded from the BOM?

Answer: The part in question - 0631D2001 - was intended to be made especially for this set to contain all the hex keys that are necessary for the kit. Recommend exploring locating a vendor to create the mold. At this time, there are no changes to the required hex keys and no change to the requirement to have them grouped together for ease of use, identification and inventory.

Question: We are interested in working on W912CH-26-B-0007. Please allow us access to the drawings so may proceed to possibly quote.

Answer: Please reference Attachment 0001 TDP 0631A0000 for the drawings available under this solicitation.

Question: We are a little confused on which PN the government is looking to purchase. On doc 0631D0000 it lists different dash numbers which denote the various parts to be purchased for the kit itself. We need to know which dash number the government intends on purchasing.

Answer: The dash numbers included for the specific items on drawing 0631D0000 coordinate with the items on the actual drawings that are available to be included in the kit. We have had many parts have to be removed due to lack of availability, this is notated on the lower level drawings with "removed" in the source information. The same number is used on set drawings that require entire sets be from the same supplier. If a source is listed on the drawing and not on the assembly drawing it's because it can't be provided without mixing the set.

Question: Upon review of the drawings, there are a few tools that have been discontinued and superseded by the manufacturer. These are all direct subs. Are these acceptable?

Answer: TBD – This is response is being revised.

Question: The solicitation states that offerors require a NIST Medium or High Assessment review by government personnel for adherence to NIST SP 800-171A and the contractor’s System Security Plan. _ is completing its NIST SP 800-171 System Security Plan, Basic Assessment score, and POA&M for entry in SPRS under CAGE _.

Please advise whether the Government will initiate the required Medium or High Assessment for this solicitation, whether an existing SPRS Medium/High assessment is required prior to award, or whether offerors may request assessment coordination through DCMA DIBCAC.

We are prepared to provide our SSP, Basic Assessment summary, POA&M, CUI boundary description, and supporting evidence package upon request through the appropriate secure channel.

Answer: The SPRS file on record may be used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s performance. For ensuring an appropriate SPRS file, we recommend contacting your assigned DCMA office (based on your region), as they are more aware of the processes and requirements for SPRS.

Question: Drawing 0631D2002, SOCKET RAIL, 1/4" DRIVE SET (and related drawings). Section C.4(4) of the IFB requires that when a tool is removed from its retention feature, a layer of color-contrasting foam is exposed to indicate the tool is missing. Where individual sockets are retained in dedicated, color-contrasting foam cutouts that satisfy this requirement, are socket rails still required, or may individual sockets be foamed separately without rails? Individually foamed sockets provide positive retention and immediate visual indication of a missing tool, consistent with the intent of QAP 0631E0002.

Answer: Socket rails are still required. The sockets are divided into sets and placed on rails in the configuration provided in the drawing package to allow the user to take the entire set directly to the usage location in the tote bag while maintaining inventory control away from the tool chest.

Question: Drawing 0631D2009, TOOL POUCH, PUNCH SET. If individual punches are retained in dedicated, color-contrasting foam positions within the case in accordance with Section C.4(4) and the packaging requirements of Section D.1(k), is the tool pouch still required?

Answer: The tool pouches are still required. The punches and chisels are divided into sets and placed in tool pouches in the configuration provided in the drawing package to allow the user to take the entire set directly to the usage location in the tote bag while maintaining inventory control away from the tool chest.

Question: The following drawings identify Snap-on as the only approved source:

- 0712E0003 — RATCHETING SCREWDRIVER, 2 BLADES

- 0714E0012 — WRENCH, ADJUSTABLE, 8"

- 0714E0014 — WRENCH, ADJUSTABLE, 1-1/2" x 12"

- 0718F0000 — PLIERS, LOCKING, LONG NOSE, 6.5"

- 0718F0001 — PLIERS, LOCKING, CURVED JAW, 10"

- 0719K0000 — HANDLE, FILE, ADJUSTABLE

- 0721B0000 — HAMMER, HAND, BALL PEEN, 16 OZ

Will the Government accept alternate items of equal form, fit, and function that meet the salient characteristics of the cited drawings? If so, what supporting documentation should accompany the bid (e.g., manufacturer, part number, CAGE code, and a characteristics comparison)?

Answer: In accordance with the terms of the Invitation for Bid (IFB), drawings with only one source identify the only known conforming source. Bidders must bid based on the conforming source identified on the drawing.

If a bidder intends to offer an alternative source that meets the exact form, fit, and function of the specified part, these substitutions may be submitted post-award for evaluation through the Request for Variance (RFV) process, as outlined in Section C.2, Configuration Management Documentation, and CDRL A002.

Question: Where a specified part has been discontinued by the manufacturer and a direct successor or equivalent item is offered, how should bidders identify the substitution, given that Section B does not include a CLIN-level or component-level bill of materials fill-in?

Answer: In accordance with the terms of the Invitation for Bid (IFB), all known conforming sources are listed on the drawing. Bidders must bid based on the conforming source identified on the drawing.

If a bidder intends to offer an alternative source that meets the exact form, fit, and function of the specified part, these substitutions may be submitted post-award for evaluation through the Request for Variance (RFV) process, as outlined in Section C.2, Configuration Management Documentation, and CDRL A002.

Question: If we are using the approved source tool box and tools, is the PVTR and FAT required? Traditionally, PVTs are only matching the provided tools to the DFP and confirming they match. With the PVT on this solicitation, it calls for additional testing that is like a First Article.

Answer: The solicitation was intentionally structured for the PVT and the resulting PVTR to be similar in scope to how a First Article Test is typically conducted. This ensures a comprehensive validation of the products. Please note that both PVT and destructive testing are mandatory requirements of this contract and cannot be waived, even when using the approved source toolbox and tools. The tests are to be conducted as outlined in sections E.2, E.3, E.4, and E.5 of the solicitation.

Question: Will there be another Q&A to be released?

Answer: We are working to provide the remaining answers as quickly as possible. Because we have a large, multi-disciplinary team reviewing and finalizing these responses to ensure accuracy, the answers will be published incrementally on an "as-received" basis. Your patience is appreciated as we work through this process to get you the most accurate information.

Question: The NSN number (NSN 5180-01-670-9469) for the SARTK does not match the specs of the supporting document. Have there been changes to the NSN for the SARTK?

Answer: The NSN provided on the drawings is for reference and final items shall include the NSN listed in the solicitation/contract.

Question: The Solicitation asks for both Berry Compliance and Buy American compliance, yet the only approved vendors for the tools are no longer American-owned or American-made.

Will the USG provide an additional extension to address issues with the kit components?

Answer: At the time the system drawings were finalized and approved, all listed kit components and specified tool vendors fully complied with both the Berry Amendment and the Buy American Act (BAA). We recognize that the manufacturing landscape is highly dynamic, and suppliers can alter their product lines or shift manufacturing ownership.

To help us address this issue effectively and determine the appropriate path forward, please provide a list of the specific components within the kit that you have identified as no longer meeting Berry or BAA compliance, along with their current manufacturer details, so the items can be investigated to verify their compliance status.

Question: The first ordering year requests 200 kits delivered per month, but the estimate is for 3404 kits. Will that need to be increased to roughly 300 kits per month if the full estimated quantity is ordered? With that in mind, will the delivery order for each ordering year come for all units at the beginning of the ordering year, or will they be spaced out throughout the year in multiple DOs? Finally, for the later ordering years with an estimated 750 kits/year; does the government want to stick to the 200 kits/month or have it spaced out evenly across the year (for example if the order is 750 kits, would the schedule move to ~65 kits/month?)

Answer: The required delivery schedule listed in F.1. TIME OF DELIVERY is applicable to each CLIN/ordering year and will be input into any delivery order regardless of the quantity that may be ordered. Please note that, as stated in A.1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION (i), Early deliveries are authorized at no additional cost to the Government.

With this solicitation resulting in an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, the exact quantity that will be ordered within the set minimum and maximum limits is not yet solidified. Meaning that when there is a need, delivery orders can be placed at any time, within the constraints of the contract. Please see FAR 52.216-22: Indefinite Quantity for additional information.

Question: On the delivery schedule, it states, "200 KT 120 DAYS AFTER AWARD WITHOUT PVT AT A RATE OF 200 KT PER MONTH; 210 DAYS AFTER AWARD WITH PVT AT A RATE OF 200 KT PER MONTH". However, in the Q&A, it states that the PVT will not be waived. Are we correct in understanding that the 210 days after award with PVT is for the first ordering year, and the 120 days after award without PVT is for the following ordering years?

Answer: PVT will not be waived, however, with this solicitation resulting in an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, the exact quantity that will be ordered within the set minimum and maximum limits is not yet solidified. Meaning that if there is a need, multiple delivery orders can be placed within the same ordering year. (For this example, specifically, the first delivery order in Year 1 would follow the schedule: 200 KT 210 DAYS AFTER AWARD WITH PVT AT A RATE OF 200 KT PER MONTH and if a second delivery order were to be placed in Year 1, it would follow the schedule: 200 KT 120 DAYS AFTER AWARD WITHOUT PVT AT A RATE OF 200 KT PER MONTH.)

Please refer to the required delivery schedule listed in F.1. TIME OF DELIVERY for the delivery schedule that is applicable to each CLIN/ordering year.

Question: Regarding the FAT, the solicitation states "(a) FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL-CONTRACTOR TESTING: First Article Approval-Contractor Testing shall be performed in accordance with E.3. PRODUCT VERIFICATION TESTING (CONTRACTOR FACILITY)." As there is no separate CLIN for a FAT, does that PVT serve as the FAT for this requirement?

Answer: Correct, the solicitation was intentionally structured for the PVT and the resulting PVTR to be similar in scope to how a First Article Test is typically conducted. This ensures a comprehensive validation of the products. Please note that both PVT and destructive testing are mandatory requirements of this contract and cannot be waived, even when using the approved source toolbox and tools. The tests are to be conducted as outlined in sections E.2, E.3, E.4, and E.5 of the solicitation.