W91CRB-15-R-0024-0005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

A. Amendment 0005 provides Government responses to [open] industry questions received as of 5 October 2015.

B. Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC APG) POC is Andrew Mitchell: phone (410) 306-2765 or e-mail Andrew .C.Mitchell1.civ@mail.mil.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 5

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Oct-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91CRB-15-R-0024

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Aug-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-Oct-2015

CODE

ACC - APG - W91CRB

4310 BOOTHBY HILL AVENUE

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-3013

W91CRB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91CRB-15-R-0024

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

Q AND A: AMENDMENT 0005

W91CRB-15-R-0024 Amendment 0005 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Question #41 Reference Section B CLIN 0019; Section C, 3.2.5.4.5, FWS-CS First Article Test (FAT) Exit Criteria; and Table

3.2. Anticipated FWS-CS LRIP Test Schedule. Section B states, “CLIN 0019, PY5 FIRST ARTICLE TEST (FAT) REPORT FFP FWS-CS First Article Test (FAT) Report, IAW SOW paragraphs 3.3.8.7 "Test Reports" and 3.2.5.4.6 "FWS-CS First Article Test (FAT) Exit Criteria.” Section C, 3.2.5.4.5 states, "The Contractor shall successfully address the following questions and deliver all CDRLs, see CDRL-GGG associated with the event. CLIN 0019 shall apply toward FAT report. Government approval that the Contractor has accomplished/verified the following:"

SOW paragraph 3.2.5.4.6 refers to "FWS-CS PRR Exit Criteria" and we assume this CLIN 0019 reference should instead be to 3.2.5.4.5.

SOW paragraph 3.2.5.4.5 requires FAT as a 3.2.5.4 FWS-CS LRIP Formal Review, Table 3.2 indicates it as an LRIP Test Event 4 months after FRP. Does the Government require FAT to be priced during LRIP as part of CLIN 0012, the tests performed for CDRL-GGG? This would be outside of the LRIP period of performance and would use the FRP First Lot Build. Or is CLIN 0019 to be used to price all FAT activities and FRP First Lot Build units?

Or is CLIN 0019 used only for FAT activities and test reports? Please clarify the intent of First Article Test as an LRIP event as well as the CLIN(s) used for FAT pricing.

Response to Question #41 FAT is to be conducted on a sample from the first production lot of the final production configuration of LRIP, incorporating all changes resulting from prior testing (IOT&E, RGT-2, PQT, etc). Conduct of the FAT is not a separately priced event and should be captured in the offeror's LRIP system production unit pricing in CLIN 0003 (reference Question #33 of Amendment #3). CLIN 0019 should include pricing for the FAT Report, not conduct of the FAT itself. Execution of the FAT on a sample of systems from the first production lot of LRIP will occur per the timeline cited in Table 3.2, approximately 4 months following the FRP decision.

Section B, CLIN 0019 narrative was revised to correct the SOW paragraph reference to 3.2.5.4.5 for FWS-CS First Article Test (FAT) Exit Criteria in Amendment 0003 (Question #25).

Question #42 Reference RFP Amendment 0003 Question #29 Answer, and Section C 3.3.4.1 Level of Repair Analysis (LORA).

The RFP states, "The Contractor shall initiate the LORA process for the FWS-CS system and associated TMDE during EMD, see CDRL-DDD, and update during LRIP, if an option is awarded, (see CDRL-HHH and CDRL-III) to aid in assessing the supportability of a system."

The first requirement for TMDE availability begins with the LORA requirement to initiate the LORA process during EMD with CDRL-DDD as deliverable. The first TMDE unit delivery does not occur until LRIP as noted by the Answer to Question #29 for TM training and for PQT. No design review is required for the TMDE prior to LORA.

Additionally, no guidance is provided on how TMDE NRE should be priced. We assume we should price TMDE NRE in CLIN 0001. Is this assumption correct? Please clarify the timing and CLIN (s) to be used for TMDE NRE as well as when design reviews of the TMDE occur.

Government Response to Question #42 TMDE NRE pricing should be included as part of CLIN 0010 (CDRL-EEE, LRIP System Engineering).

TMDE hardware is not required until LRIP. SOW paragraph 3.4.6 TMDE, cites that TMDE is required to fulfill CLIN 0013 (CDRL-HHH, LRIP IPS & HSI for TMDE) and CLIN 0014 (CDRL-III LRIP IPS & HSI), along with CLINs 0002 (LRIP Qual Systems), 0008 (TMDE), and 0009 (TMDE Spares), all which occur during LRIP.

In SOW paragraph 3.4.7 EAD, it states that the Government will verify all repair actions using the Contractor's Fault-Tree analysis. CDRL-DDD (IPS & HSI), which is part of CLIN 0001 EMD, references Operator/Crew

Training Materials, and DID-023 states specific content for basic diagnosis and fault finding. CLIN 0001, CDRL- DDD, Technical Guide would include Root Cause System Fault Tree Flow Chart to be used at EAD. The intent is to analyze the vendor's process for repair before building any TMDE equipment. This is reinforced per SOW paragraph 3.4.8.2 Maintainer Level LD, which is a subparagraph of 3.4.8 Logistic Demonstration, where the Government states that the Sustainment LD(s) will demonstrate that the FWS-CS and TMDE meet all logistics/maintainability and HSI requirements at the Sustainment-Level, and will identify any system design changes needed for improved supportability and/or reduced life cycle cost. FWS-CS and TMDE must be available to support the FWS-CS Sustainment Level LD, and supporting tasks shall be shown in the Contractor's IMS.

SOW paragraph 3.4.10 Training, cites that the Government requires training as stated - During LRIP, the Contractor shall provide required training material to the Government for RGT-2, GDT, LD and IOT&E and to adequately reflect the FWS-CS, and TMDE being provided under this contract and in accordance with the approved maintenance concept.

In SOW paragraph 3.4.10.2 Training Materials, the Government states that training shall provide students with the skills necessary to operate and maintain the system(s), see CDRL-HHH for TMDE training materials. CDRL appendix shows CDRL-HHH as LRIP IPS & HSI for TMDE, and DID-023 provides the specific content to be addressed for CDRL-HHH.

Question #43 Reference RFP Amendment 0003, Question #29 Answer. The Answer to Question #29 states, “… Starting at PQT, 18 systems and 1 TMDE system will be required." It is our experience on programs of similar size, scope and structure that the initial delivery of a TMDE set occurs during EMD. Question #29 indicates the first delivery of a TMDE set occurs during LRIP. Does the Government require the delivery or the availability of a TMDE set in EMD? If so, when? Please clarify the earliest Government required TMDE availability or delivery.

Government Response to Question #43 See response to Question #42. TMDE hardware is not required until LRIP.

Question #44 Reference Section C, 3.4.1 Warranty of Equipment which states, “"... For the production phase, the Contractor shall provide a storage/transportation warranty, which extends from the date of initial Government acceptance and expires one year hence or until initial issue, whichever occurs first. TMDE warranty will be for a minimum of 1 year for LRIP, and through production... During the warranty period, the Contractor shall repair or replace within 3 months of receipt - at no cost to the Government - any FWS-CS system, TMDE, and related spare parts that fails under normal operations, while in storage, or during transportation... Government acceptance of a storage warranty does not limit the Government's rights under any other term or condition of this contract."

Are Offerors correct in interpreting the requirement as two separate warranties?

1. For Systems (a storage/transportation warranty of ≤1 year): "For the production phase, the Contractor shall provide a storage/ transportation warranty, which extends from the date of initial Government acceptance and expires one year hence or until initial issue, whichever occurs first."

AND

2. For TMDE (a standard 1 year warranty for material and workmanship): "TMDE warranty will be for a minimum of 1 year for LRIP, and through production."

Then is the word "applicable" implied as interpreted correctly here, "During the (“applicable”) warranty period, the Contractor shall repair or replace within 3 months of receipt - at no cost to the Government - any FWS-CS system, TMDE, and related spare parts that fails under normal operations, while in storage, or during transportation."?

And the Government clearly understands, by reaffirmation, that they have accepted a storage warranty as detailed in 3.4.1, "Government acceptance of a storage warranty does not limit the Government's rights under any other term or condition of this contract." and that no other warranty exists or is implied? Please clarify that this interpretation of

3.4.1 is correct.

Government Response to Question #44 Yes, there are two different warranties required (one for systems/spares and one for TMDE). The intent for systems/spares is a storage warranty. For TMDE, a standard 1 year warranty is required. The statement referenced in paragraph 3.4.1 remains as stated. There may be occasions where specific additional warranty remedies may be required (i.e. a defect specific warranty may be agreed upon as part of closure a failure report, which would be in addition to contract warranty requirements).

Question #45

Reference Section C, 3.4.10, 3.4.10.1 which states, "The TMDE shall command the LRF to fire and measure pulse energy and beam divergence." While the performance of a phosphor coated camera is less than an InGaAs camera, the InGaAs camera performance comes at an exponentially higher cost. We believe a phosphor coated camera provides sufficient information for a maintainer repair decision. Can the field-expedient LRF beam divergence measurement be limited to what is possible using a phosphor coated camera? This would enable a higher TMDE value proposition (TMDE cost versus performance). Will the government approve the use of a phosphor coated camera for the LRF divergence measurement? Please modify the requirement to allow a phosphor coated camera for the LRF divergence measurement by the TMDE.

Government Response to Question #45

The Government is not requiring specific equipment as part of the TMDE, but rather specifying TMDE capabilities needed for maintenance and verification testing in the field. The offeror shall determine what equipment is required to meet the stated requirement "The TMDE shall command the LRF to fire and measure pulse energy and beam divergence" for their proposed FWS-CS solution and provide supporting narrative as part of Subfactor 3, Logistics, of the proposal.

Question #46 Reference Section C, 3.4.11.1 Instructor and Key Personnel Training (I&KPT) which states, “The Contractor shall prepare I&KPT materials. The Contractor shall conduct an Operator and Crew-level training course and a Maintainer-level training course. Training shall be conducted within the Continental United States (CONUS) Government-selected sites. The objective of the I&KPT is to provide FWS-CS operators and maintainers the required skills to operate and support the systems in a structured school environment, in garrison, and in a field environment, see CDRL-DDD and CDRL-III." The Government requires a Maintainer-level training course during EMD with submission identified in CDRL-DDD. To develop the maintainer-level training a complete TMDE Set is required. Is it the Government's intention to require a TMDE Set be built for these classes? Please clarify the Government's intent on availability of the TMDE during EMD.

Government Response to Question #46 See response to Question #42. TMDE hardware is not required until LRIP.

Question #47 Reference Section C, 3.4.11.1 Types of Manuals which states, “For the EMD phase, the Contractor shall deliver a Technical guide for the operator/crew level and maintainer level maintenance and training documentation for operator/crew level, maintainer level training, see CDRL-DDD, for presentation for EAD. The Technical guides shall provide inspection, basic operation procedures, and troubleshooting procedures for FWS-CS during the EMD phase." The Government requires a maintainer level maintenance and training documentation for operator/crew level, maintainer level training, see CDRL-DDD, for presentation for EAD during EMD To develop the maintainer-level Technical guides a complete TMDE Set is required. Is it the Government's intention to require a TMDE Set be built as would be required to develop these guides? Please clarify the Government's intent on availability of the TMDE during EMD.

Government Response to Question #47 See response to Question #42. TMDE hardware is not required until LRIP.

Question #48 Reference Section C, Appendix A 6.6.1 which states, “The TMDE shall command the LRF to fire and measure pulse energy and beam divergence." While the performance of a phosphor coated camera is less than an InGaAs camera, the InGaAs camera performance comes at an exponentially higher cost. We believe a phosphor coated camera provides sufficient information for a maintainer repair decision. Can the field-expedient LRF beam divergence measurement be limited to what is possible using a phosphor coated camera? This would enable a higher TMDE value proposition (TMDE cost versus performance). Will the government approve the use of a phosphor coated camera for the LRF divergence measurement? Please modify the requirement to allow a phosphor coated camera for the LRF divergence measurement by the TMDE.

Government Response to Question #48 See response to question #45.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES, AMEND 0005

SUMMARY OF CHANGES, AMENDMENT 0005: 6 October 2015

A. Amendment 0005 provides Government responses to [open] industry questions received as of 5 October 2015 B. Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC APG) POC is Andrew Mitchell: phone (410) 306-2765 or e-mail Andrew.C.Mitchell1.civ@mail.mil.

The following have been deleted:

Q AND A: AMENDMENT 0004

SUMMARY OF CHANGES, AMEND 0004

(End of Summary of Changes)