A07_Attachment_12_Solicitation_Questions_ACH_12_Sept_2016.pdf

Attachment 7, Questions and Answers dated 25 April, 2016

Document Question Answer Changes made (y) or (n)

1 Product Description, Appendix B Regarding elimination of the 9mm requirement in appendix B, it seems the FAT has two purposes, but could this please be clarified?

The 9mm Resistance to Penetration (RTP) requirement exists as detailed in Purchase Description AR/PD 14‐01. 9mm Ballistic Transient Deformation (BTD) is no longer an accept/reject criteria, but will be measured and recorded for Government reference during each 9mm RTP shot. It is unclear what two purposes are being referenced in this question. The purpose of First Article Test (FAT) is to qualify the helmet design for production. Appendix B details the intended calculations to be conducted to review BTD performance for

Government reference.

N

1a Product Description First, what is the reason for checking on statistical differences between test conditions?

In order to conduct a valid statistical analysis, data from statistically different distributions cannot be aggregated. Checking the difference in BTD performance across test conditions allows for aggregation and examination of the largest statistically allowable sample size without introducing data from different distributions.

N

1b Product Description Second, given the “baseline BTD performance” established during FAT, what is the stability measurement approach during LAT?

See response under Question 1d N

1c Product Description How is the comparison done statistically? See response under Question 1d N

1d Product Description How would the check for statistical difference be done and over what sample size?

Combined answer for 1.b‐d.: BTD performance will be measured during FAT and LAT for Government reference. It will not be used as an accept/reject criteria. The Government intends to use this data to document BTD performance of the ACH Gen II. Exact calculations may vary depending on the specific goals of different analyses. One possibility is to conduct a rolling Upper Tolerance Limit (UTL) of the last 48 shots of the same helmet size, to mirror the analysis in FAT. However, the Government may use this data for other analyses as necessary for understanding the performance of the ACH Gen II.

N

2 RFP, Section M

In reference to evaluation for integration/compatibility (table 12, technical sub‐ factor 4), testing against NVG type III is required.

How are these to be checked against a 3 hole system if a 3 hole system does not exist? Only NVG type I and II are listed in the PD.

ACH NVG (Type III – Three Hole Configuration) low profile shroud was removed from the evaluation criteria, Section M, of the RFP as of Amendment 02.

Y ‐ see updated Section M of the

RFP

3 RFP

Basis of award notes that weight is significantly more important than price and represents the best value to the Government in a trade‐off with price.

What is the expected trade‐off percentage or ratio?

The RFP intentionally did not include a specific percentage or ratio assignment to the execution of a trade‐off determination. Based upon the comprehensive evaluation of all stated evaluation criteria in accordance with their stated relative order of importance, the Government will make a final award decision based on which offer represents the best value to the Government. Based on the best value trade‐off analysis, its possible award can go to the lowest priced offero

N

4 Product Description

A change was made on page 46 of the PD to include the statement that HPI would be "determined by ATC". Given this, when will we know these values and why would ATC need to determine this and not use the legacy ACH values since this is the same geometry? These values are needed in order to validate our helmet to this requirement.

The HPI values are now present in the ACH Gen II PD in Paragraph 4.10.13(12).

W91CRB‐15‐R‐0027 Ballistic Combat Shirt

5 Product Description The bolt lengths supplied by the NIB are a fixed length. Are these bolts required to be used if there is a different shell thickness?

Yes, the standard retention system bolts are required to be used for the ACH Gen II. Integration with the IRS bolts may be accomplished by using spacers to ensure proper fit of the hardware. The spacers shall be placed between the exterior surface of the helmet and the head of the IRS screw. Spacers on the interior of the shell or helmet are not permitted. Any spacer shall be included in the weight of the finished helmet. If using a spacer, the finished helmet and its components shall still meet all requirements, including 9mm hardware RTP and blunt impact, and shall not negatively affect the integration with specified components such as the helmet cover.

N

6 RFP What constitutes delivery order 1? Is delivery order 1 synonymous with CLIN 1? Delivery Order 0001 is for the Contract Minimum which is CLINs 0001 and 0002 N

7 Product Description, SOW, RFP Is the Government open to extending the 45 day FAT turn‐around?

The Government does not intend to extend the 45 day FAT delivery requirement.

N

8 Product Description, SOW, RFP What is the driver of the 15 day TDP turn‐around time?

TDP Government review and approval is required prior to submisison of FAT articles. Contract award is based upon the submitted design, assuming all TDP required information is in place. The 15 day submission requirement is deemed adequate to assemble and submit the TDP and maintain a minimum turnaround time for authorization to submit FAT articles.

Y, RFP CLIN 0001

9 Product Description Would it be possible to have the specific weight tolerances for liners and the

Improved Retention System (IRS)?

The following information is provided for reference only. Actual weights of the items may be different. The vendor shall confirm that their submitted finished helmets meet the weight requirement and that the weight of the finished helmets used for any testing (source selection sample testing, FAT or LAT) shall be no greater than the vendor's proposed weight for each size.

Suspension system:

Circular Pad: Mean: 26.11 grams (g); Max: 28.18g; 90th Percentile: 26.76g, Standard Deviation: 0.79g

Trapezoid Pad: Mean: 14.82g; Max: 15.60g; 90th Percentile: 15.28g, Standard Deviation: 0.37g

Oblong Pad: Mean: 9.33 g; Max: 10.01g; 90th Percentile: 9.63g, Standard Deviation: 0.25g

The retention system for each finished helmet uses one (1) circular pad, two (2) trapezoid pads, and four (4) oblong pads. The above weights were taken from a random sampling of 3/4" ACH pads delivered between 2014 and 2016, using

30 circular pads, 60 trapezoid pads, and 120 oblong pads.

Retention System:

The Improved Retention System weighs approximately 3.28 oz with hardware and 2 oz without hardware.

N

10 Product Description If an interoperability shim is required to use an NVG, is it included in the final helmet system weight? We believe it should not be included.

Per section 3.11.1 of the PD, NVG bracket integration solutions can be integrated or a separate item. In either case, the solution shall be delivered as part of the finished helmet and the weight of the solution shall be included in the finished helmet weight. Section 3.2.c of the PD has been updated to include any NVG bracket integration components (but not the bracket itself or the bracket bolt) as part of the finished helmet configuration.

Y, PD Section 3.2.c

11 Product Description BTD is listed as government reference only. Are all references to BTD in the PD to be considered “for Government Reference Only” as well (i.e. 3.7.3; 4.10.11, etc.)?

Yes. BTD measurements from Source Selection Sample Testing are required to be reported in the test report supplied with the proposal for Government reference. BTD will also be measured during FAT and LAT for Government reference.

N

12 Product Description, Section 4.10.13 What is the modified pad configuration for 9mm ballistic testing referenced in

AR/PD 14‐01, section 4.10.13?

The "ballistic pad configuration" is now specified in section 4.10.11.4. Y, PD Section 4.10.11.4

13 RFP

Is there additional advantage to a helmet that exceeds the “Outstanding” weight category, i.e. >24% reduction from legacy ACH?

Any helmet that exceeds the requirements can be addressed a strength or significant strength. This would be a trade off with price and other factors as stated in Section M.

N

14 Product Description, Section 3.8

Attachment 1: AR/PD 14, Paragraph 3.8 – states that “Five (5) of each helmet system size of S through XL shall be tested. Testing shall be conducted in accordance with 4.10.12.” Should that be four sizes and remove the XXL reference.

Five finished helmets of each size (S through XL) shall be tested. This means five (5) size small finished helmets, five (5) size medium finished helmets, five

(5) size large finished helmets, and five (5) size extra‐large finished helmets, for a total of twenty (20) total finished helmets. The maximum weight for each size is considered the highest weight out of the five helmets under evaluation for that size. Section 3.8 of the PD has been changed to clarify this.

Y, PD Section 3.8

Is it required that DCMA approval be obtained for each PO prior to releasing to our supplier or is it acceptable to do this activity in parallel if the Company accepts the risk that we may need to update PO based on DCMA feedback?

DCMA involvement occurs post‐contract award. DCMA will review purchase orders to suppliers to ensure the appropriate quality language and contract requirements are flowed down to the suppliers. Vendors are responsible to ensure the appropriate language is included in these purchase orders and are responsible for corrective actions as required to correct any non‐conformances to the contract requirements.

N

16 SOW, RFP

Current requirements state that we must maintain a QMS certified to

ISO9001:2008. If the contract is awarded over a long period of time, when will the customer require approval to ISO 9001:2015?

The QMS shall be compliant to ISO 9001:2008. If ISO 9001:2015 is required, the Government will provide adequate notification and timing will be communicated upon the determination to use ISO 9001:2015.

N

17 Product Description Is using an accredited test house for the soft goods testing mandatory?

It is assumed that "soft goods" refers to the retention and suspension systems.

The are no tests of these items required for Source Selection Sample Testing.

Retention and suspension systems are tested at Aberdeen Test Center during

FAT IAW AR/PD 14‐01. LAT requirements for verification and CoCs are described in AR/PD 14‐01.

N

18 Product Description What materials are required to meet the shelf life of >95% at time of use (i.e.

shell raw material, edge time, IRS, pad set, paint, etc.)?

All finished helmet componenets shall meet the shelf life requirement. N

19 Product Description, Section 3.3.5

The 3.3.5 paragraph about Edging refers to existing periphery protection methods. Is the government open to a novel structural edge protection method that meets all requirements but is not an integrally molded or one piece construction or cut piece?

Yes. Any novel edge protection method shall meet requirements as specified in the PD.

N

20 RFP Based on our standing as a small business, must we adhere to the Small Business Participation Factor (Volume 4, page 78)?

As stated in Section L, the Small Business Participation Plan is required from all Offerors, regardless of size status. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is only required from large business.

N

21 Product Description Is the Company responsible for providing NVD brackets and helmet covers or are we only required to ensure ACH Gen II helmets are backwards compatible to support these items?

NVD Brackets and helmet covers are not required. Section 3.2.c of the PD specifies the required components of the finished helmet. Section 3.11 and

3.11.1 of the PD describes the required integration and compatibility.

N

22 RFP

With regards to the Identification of Contractor Employees (page 33), does this apply to Company employees who may be working at a government facility? Or does the requirement apply to employees working at our own facility?

As stated within the clause, if contractor employees are performing work at a Government facility, to include attendance at meetings or seminars, badges identifying them as contractors shall be worn. The requirement applies to contractors working in a contractor or Government facility for written and verbal communication as identified within the clause.

N

23 Product Description, RFP There is a discrepancy in quantities with regards to FAT on pages 10, 69 and 82 of the solicitation and on page 72 of the PD. Can the quantity (280 or 306) please be confirmed?

The required quantity for FAT is 280 total finished helmets (66 Small, 79 Medium, 69 Large, 66 Extra‐Large). CLIN 0001 of the solicitation has been updated to reflect this.

The quantities on page 69 refer to the source selection sample testing, not FAT.

Y

24 Product Description, SOW Please confirm that the Government pays for LAT The vendor shall pay for LAT. Paragraph C.3.6.2 of the solicitation has been updated to clarify this.

Y, SOW C.3.6.2

25 RFP

There is a discrepancy with regards to validity date in SF 33 and Section L. Can you please confirm whether it is 60 or 180 days?

It is unclear what is meant by "validity date". No 60 or 180 day timeline is identified in the SF 33.

N

26 Product Description Would you please provide TM 10‐8400‐304‐10 WP0005, referenced in AR/PD

14‐01, paragraph 14.10.3, subparagraph 1?

The referenced TM in 4.10.13 is incorrect; it should be TM 10‐8400‐204‐10.

The PD has been corrected. WP 0005 is a subsection of the TM. TM 10‐8400‐

204‐10 is available on Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA) website at https://www.logsa.army.mil/etmpdf/files/080000/080445.pdf

Y, PD Section 4.10.13

27 Product Description

In paragraphs 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2 benchmarks are requested on the unfinished and finished shells. The requested benchmarks need to be molded into the helmet shell per the description in those paragraphs unless an "integrally molded" edge trim is used. Our process does not allow us the flexibility of adding benchmarks to the inside surface of the shell during molding, but can be included on both inside and outside surface of a permanently bonded structural edge trim. We request that the Government allow for benchmarks to be included on both the inside and outside surface of the permanently bonded structure edge trim. The Government has previously accepted this method in another program of record and therefore believe this request is not out of scope.

The Government accepts this method and has updated the PD to clarify this.

3.3.3.2 Benchmarks ‐ Finished Shell. Benchmarks on a finished shell are required for FAT. Benchmarks may be placed on the helmet shell, integrally molded edge trim, or on a one‐piece molded construction. The benchmarks must be clearly visible. If an integrally molded edging is used (as defined in 3.3.5) and the edging covers any portion of previous benchmarks from an unfinished shell, periphery benchmarks may be located on the integrally molded edging and shall be at least 0.200 (+0.05 / ‐0.00) – inch long. If a bonded one‐piece molded edging is used, and the edging covers any portion of previous benchmarks from an unfinished shell, periphery benchmarks may be located on the bonded one‐piece molded edging and shall be at least

0.200 (+0.05 / ‐0.00) – inch long. If a bonded one‐piece cut to length edging is used and the benchmarks are located at the periphery of the shell, the benchmark length shall extend a distance of 0.500 (+0.250 / ‐0.375) – inch up beyond the top edge of the edging. The crown benchmark shall only reside on the interior of the finished shell. The crown benchmark shall be an “+” with each leg measured 0.250 (± 0.125) ‐ inch long from the intersection of the “+” with one leg of the “+” pointing toward the front of the shell, one to the rear, and one each to the left and right sides of the shell. The benchmarks shall be clearly visible on a coated shell.

Y, PD Section 3.3.3.2

28 Product Description Do you intend to add a Rev. level to the PD? We noticed that the HPI information was added the PD, but tracking the changes is difficult without Rev.

levels.

Yes, the original released PD will be the base, and there will be a rev added once questions slow down that incorprates all changes from the original released PD.

N

29 RFP

The source selection test matrix list 94 helmets required for testing. Several of those tests only require a finished shell (no retention/suspension), but the matrix calls for weight to be tested on all samples. Since the finished helmet weight would only be available on the samples that are to be tested on a headform (9mm RTP/BTD and Blunt impact), is weight testing on these helmets only (total quantity 60) acceptable?

For tests requiring the finished shell (instead of a finished helmet), the weight is not required. The weights of the sixty (60) finished helmets (plus any contingencies, if used) used in 9mm RTP and Blunt impact shall suffice for the reporting criteria of the Weight requirement. Note: that finished shells used for tests that require a finished shell shall be made using the same design and processes used in finished helmets for tests.

N

30 RFP and Amendments Please confirm that there are no Amendment 0005 or 0008?

Amendment 0005 was not used due to a system error. This was also noted in the description for Amendment 06 on FedBizOpps (FBO posted on 30 June 2016. There was an Amendment 08 that was posted on FBO on 16 August

2016.

N

31 RFP and Amendments Do Amendments need to be sent back in their entirety or is a signed cover page of each Amendment acceptable?

A signed cover page of each Amendment is acceptable. N

32 Proposal Submission Is it permissible to send volumes on different days? For example, if two volumes are ready to be sent on Day #1 and two volumes are ready on Day #2, can they be sent when they are ready?

It is preferrable for all volumes to be sent on the same day. N

33 Proposal Submission Is there a restriction on the size of the files being sent, ie. 5MB, 10MB? Yes, our email server can receive messages up to 25MB per message. N

34 Proposal Submission If files need to be broken up due to size, what is the protocol for naming multiple files?

Use the naming convention in Section L of the RFP and add #1, #2, etc to the end of the naming convention. For example, if the QMS submission is multiple files, the first should be named [CompanyName]SMP #1.doc N

35 Proposal Submission Are hard copies of the written proposals required to be sent in addition to electronic copies?

No, hard copies may be sent in lieu of electronic copies. As mentioned in Section L, Section 1.0, the preferred method of delivery is electronically.

However, hard copies may be utilized if electonically is not possible.

N

36 RFP CLIN #0005

RFP CLIN 0005 (Page 5) states: “The PPP submission shall be prepared in conjunction with the First Article build, and is required ten (10) days after FAT submission (based on DCMA signed date on DD 1222) IAW SOW C.3.8.5.”

(emphasis added). SOW Paragraph C.3.8.5. states: “The PPP submission shall be prepared in conjunction with the First Article build, and is required ten (10) working days prior to FAT submission (based on DCMA signed date on DD

1222).” (emphasis added).

Will the Government please clarify when the PPP is to be submitted, before or after FAT submission?

The PPP is required ten (10) days after FAT submission. The SOW, C.3.8.5, has been updated to ten (10) days after FAT submission.

Y‐ SOW C.3.8.5

37 RFP What is the Government's projected contract award date? The Government is projecting a Q1 or early Q2 FY17 award. N