A07_Amendment_0007_W91CRB-16-R-0010.pdf

VTP FRP Questions and Answers #2

Q.11. 1.6.1 The Contractor shall conduct First Article Test (FAT), Lot Acceptance Test (LAT), and conformance inspections per the contract, Purchase Description, and Contractor internal procedures. All tests, inspections, and procedures used are subject to Government review and approval. The Contractor shall provide test data, traceability to materials, and procedures that verify the outcome contained in all Certificates of Conformance (CoC).

To what extent/level must the contractor provide material traceability, procedures, and CoCs? For every component that goes into the plate?

A.11. The contractor must be able to provide material traceability and the procedures used to verify that the component meets the requirements detailed in the Certificate of Conformances for each component that is used in the manufacture of the end item.

Q.12. The Contractor shall produce all products IAW an approved FAT and Production Process Package (PPP).

Methods of detection or inspections described in the Purchase Description are not requirements but examples of how the Government may choose to inspect the delivered product, some may require additional analysis.

What are the methods of “additional analysis” the government may choose to use? Does this imply that inspection/acceptance as outlined in solicitation clause XXXX – is not final?

A.12. Additional analysis includes any analysis outside of the parameters identified in the Purchase Description (PD). The techniques and methods outlined in the Purchase Description are adequate for all previously observed defects. As Vendors manufacturing processes may adapt, the Government reserves the right to utilize methods, not delineates specifically within the PD, to screen for defects and their potential sources.

If the Government identifies defects in the end item, or has reason to highly suspect that defects exist in the end item, the method of detection necessary to adequately verify or characterize these known or suspected defects may be outside of the methods mentioned in the Purchase Description. The Government reserves the right to use additional methods to verify the presence of the defect or to characterize the nature of the defect.

Q.13. It is not a requirement for the Contractor to implement all methods of inspection described by the Government into the production of the delivered product, only to verify by a means that the product meets the requirements. The Government reserves the right to suspend or revoke production authorization for non-compliance with the contract requirements at any time during the contract.

Is this referring to Berry Compliance, Buy American act, etc; or is this referring to Purchase Description (PD) technical requirements? If referring to PD requirements, do anomalies/minor defects per Table 6 in the PD warrant revocation of production authorization?

A.13. This section principally is referring to the Purchase Description (PD) technical requirements, but this section does not constrain to only technical factors the contractual requirements against which the Government may make a determination to revoke production authorization. Non-compliance for non-technical requirements such as reporting or where applicable the Berry Amendment or the Buy American Act shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of production authorization as required to ensure product conformance to law and technical requirements and to ensure Soldier safety. Specifically, anomalies and minor defects, as called out in Table 6, do not warrant the revocation of production authorization unless they reach the level of major or critical, exceed the allowable limits as defined in the contract, or do not improve with corrective actions as directed by the Government.

Q.14. 1.6.3.1.3 A Pattern of Negative Trending or Failure (outside of the two (2) failed consecutive lots rule stated in 1.6.3.1.2). Any pattern of negative trending or statistically significant shifts in performance or degradations in workmanship over time, as defined by the Government at the time of discovery, signifying production degradation or improvement; should this occur, the Government may withhold acceptance and may immediately require the Contractor to cease production. The Contractor shall segregate the material of the lots in question from all other ongoing production lots, conduct an analysis, and submit a Corrective Action Report (CAR) to the responsible Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Quality Assurance Representative (QAR), and the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) no later than ten (10) days after notification of failure. The CAR Process will follow the same provisions outlined in Paragraph 1.6.3.1.1. Schedule delays due to the provisions of a pattern of negative trending or failure are the sole responsibility of the Contractor.

What defines a statistically significant shift in performance (improvement or degradation)? How is variation in test method at Army Test Center (ATC) accounted for; i.e.: day shift/night shift, projectile variation (weight/velocity) that was not tested during First Article Test (FAT), lightest weight plate XL plate vs. heaviest XS plate, outliers, etc?

Will the delivery schedule be defined by the government or by the contractor? Does this imply that despite 2 lots meeting all of the requirements of the Purchase Description (PD) but having “statistically significant” shifts in performance, the USG could reject the lots?

A.14. A statistically significant shift in product performance is an observed or measured shift in a PD-required, product performance parameter. The parameter has a probability of less than a 5 percent chance of being observed or measured in a product with the same measurement procedures, manufacturing techniques, material performance, and manufacturing variance as observed and quantified during previous testing (to include FAT) of the same design.

Standard variation in test methods at the ATC are accounted for (baked into and in most cases independently quantified through a Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility study or similar variance evaluation) in all test results and are unlikely to trigger a subsequent statistically significant shift in observed or measured product performance.

The Government also examines ATC test methods during each observed statistically significant performance shift to confirm or rule-out test method contribution to the observation or measurement. For deliberate changes to test method process, test equipment, procedures, et cetera, the Government measures factors such as the variance drift, mean shift, and operator sensitivity change prior to implementation of the change. Using this data, the Government accounts for any expected differences in negative trending analysis.

The intent of this paragraph is to ensure that product performance (both ballistic and non-ballistic) is consistent across lots and that no changes in the process occur without proper Government oversight. A change in product performance, either improvement or degradation, implies that a product change has occurred and the cause of that change must be identified. Product conforming to the specifications examined during Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) but with statistically significant changes in performance from that baselined by previous testing may be rejected by the Government until the source of the variation is clearly identified and approved by the Government. In these cases, the Government may require the lots in question to undergo additional verification testing to ensure that there is no statistically significant degradation in other performance parameters not typically examined during LAT.

Q.15. 2.2.1 During the Product Readiness Review (PRR), the Contractor shall declare their production readiness and document their readiness levels in the briefing to the Government in support of their production readiness declaration. The Contractor shall present to the Government, as part of their presentation, internal audits records (e.g. internal reports of their Quality Management (QMS), Purchase Orders, Configuration Management System, Internal Audits of their subcontractor, and their readiness level for production). The briefing shall address the following:

a. Adequacy and stability of the supply chain during the Period of Performance (POP) of the contract. What are the evaluation criteria for this requirement?

b. Program is properly staffed with qualified production, quality (engineers and inspectors), and manufacturing personnel. What are the Evaluation criteria for this requirement?

c. Delivery schedule is executable (technical/cost risks, long lead items). How and when will the delivery schedule be defined since contract is Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)?

d. Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Plan is in place and mitigates the risk of obsolescence during production. To what extent does the contractor need to plan for shortage/obsolescence? Which components? Is this just for the PoP of the contract or for some other duration?

A.15.

a. The prime contractor should be able to determine whether or not the supply chain being used for this contract is stable enough to perform for the entirety of the contract ordering period. This could include evaluation criteria such as the financial health of the supplier, the ability to meet delivery schedule, the ability to meet schedule should a ramp up occur, the ability to retain work force, etc.

The prime contractor should also have addressed continued availability of end items and raw materials with suppliers and subcontractors.

b. The contractor should be able to ensure that they have the number of personnel necessary to perform throughout the ordering period of this contract. Each of these positions should be staffed by a trained individual capable of carrying out the requirements necessary to perform their responsibilities on this contract.

Employment and training records will be audited to assess competency. Contract records will be inspected to assess the level of manufacturing planning, number of lots per week, personnel used to estimate planning, process flow plans, in-process inspection strategy, production startup and shutdown plans, etc.

c. Delivery schedules outside of the initial First Article Test (FAT) will be proposed by the prime contractor to the Government in response to subsequent Fair Opportunity Notices.

d. The contractor needs to ensure that all components that go into the end item will be available throughout the entirety of production. If there is a material that the contractor assesses may become obsolete or experience significant material shortages during the course of production, a plan must be in place to:

1) identify a replacement,

2) assess the performance of the replacement item,

3) assess the replacement item compliance to requirements,

4) Develop a contingency plan (must include the source of supply, letter of intent etc.) to obtain the item(s) to mitigate the risk of schedule slippage.

Q.16. 2.2.3 Workmanship. The finished product shall conform to the quality requirements established by the Purchase Description (PD). This implies zero defects which conflicts with “Table 6: Defect Classification” in the PD. The Contractor shall verify and validate that all fabrication procedures will yield quality workmanship to meet product specification and contract requirements. Is this intended to imply 100% first pass yield; this is likely an impossibility to perform concern. All materials to be used in the construction shall consist of quality levels to assure conformance to all requirements, unless otherwise authorized. How is Acceptance Quality Limit (AQL) defined for each component? By the contractor’s Quality Management System (QMS) or by the customer?

A.16. The defect requirements are called out in the Purchase Description. There is no implication that the Government requires 100% first pass yield. The AQL levels associated with the production process are defined in the contract.

The contract does not allow a contractor to knowingly present or submit defective products, and the contract requires a contractor to take actions to prevent the presentation or submission of defective products. The intent is for manufacturer to develop processes that are robust enough to detect and correct defects with the defined parameters of the Product Process Package. Procedures to address in-process defects must be clearly defined and in compliance with the Critical Safety Item (CSI) Material Review Board (MRB) conditions defined in the contract.

Q.17. All workmanship shall be conducted to eliminate and avoid human induced defects. Manufacturing practices shall be capable of consistently yielding product that conforms to all requirements in this purchase description and internal specifications for the product and their components.

Is this intended to imply 100% first pass yield which is not possible. Also this requirement conflicts with “Table 6:

Defect Classification” in the Purchase Description.

A.17. The Government does not require 100% first pass yield. The Government expects the contractor to be able to meet the quality requirements detailed in the Purchase Description.

The contract does not allow a contractor to knowingly present or submit defective products, and the contract requires a contractor to take actions to prevent the presentation or submission of defective products. The intent is for manufacturer to develop processes that are robust enough to detect and correct defects with the defined parameters of the Product Process Package. Procedures to address in-process defects must be clearly defined and in compliance with the Critical Safety Item (CSI) Material Review Board (MRB) conditions defined in the contract.

Q.18. All component materials shall be properly marked and identified, and protected during storage. What are the acceptable marking and storage requirements? Materials shall be produced and integrated to extend durability (How is extended durability defined?) and provide consistency of appearance throughout life of the product. How is consistency in appearance defined? Is the intent to introduce subjective criteria here?

A.18. Marking and storage requirements will vary by component material. The intent is not to introduce subjective criteria, but to ensure all storage requirements are met and that the contractor is able to protect components before, during, and after use to ensure the Government receives a product that is consistent and meets all Purchase Description requirements.

Proper marking of materials includes all those markings required by federal, state, and local statute as well as those required by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Army. Markings not otherwise specified or required by law must be legible, clearly identify the component material in support of traceability requirements, et cetera. All materials should be protected during storage, at a minimum, in accordance with the storage criteria recommended by the material supplier. More restrictive criteria developed by specific experience and based on data and observations indicating the need for such should be used in every applicable circumstance.

Appearance requirement are defined in the Purchase Description; the contractor should not introduce marking, foreign object debris, manufacturing debris, thread breaks, discoloration, grease etc. into a product.

Q.19. Material layers shall be free of contaminants (such as, but not limited to: foreign object debris, any media not associated with the technical data package, loose fragments of component materials/adhesives, operator elements not part of component materials, cleaning residue) which may result in de-lamination between layers. What is the minimum acceptable size for FOD, adhesive residue, etc, and what is the field of view to be used for detection? Is there a specific method of inspection and measurement that will be employed?

A.19. Refer to PD Section 4.9.1 Workmanship and Areal Density, Table 6 – Defect Classification.

Q.20. Material interfaces shall be compatible and ensure ease of use. How is “ease of use” defined at the material interfaces?

A.20. Material interfaces includes all aspects of integration such as interfaces between Hard Armor Protective Insert and carriers or other components as defined in the Purchase Description (e.g., PD Section 3.5.1).

Q.21. The Contractor shall ensure that the finished product, all subcomponents and parts are free of foreign objects, scaling, burrs, frayed edges, material tears, torn edges, stains, holes and other imperfections when visually examined, subjected to destructive deconstruction examination. What if the destructive deconstruction method causes foreign object debris (FOD), scaling, burrs, frayed edges, etc?

A.21. This question is out of the context with regards to requirement section 3.4. The requirement states the finished product and subcomponents shall be free of overall defects at the time of inspection.

If a vendor has specific evidence that a particular inspection technique introduces defects against which the vendor is evaluated, the Government will takes such findings into consideration. If the vendor claim is found to have merit, the Government will change to an alternate inspection technique that does not introduce defects.

Q.22. Visual examination using nondestructive test methods (X-Ray, Microscopic analysis, Liquid penetrant inspection, Ultrasonic testing, and Computed Tomography (CT) Scanning or other like technologies) and the terms and conditions of the contract. Once again, does this imply that no defects are allowed, even those stated in “Table 6: Defect Classification” in the Purchase Description?

A.22 The Purchase Description clearly delineates the level of defects allowed by the Government for acceptance.

There are no implications of further constraint.

Q.23. 3.2.1 Lot Definition. For the purposes of this statement of work (SOW) and the production of the end items for this contract, the VTP test article production run shall consist of homogeneous ballistic material in which only whole (complete and unused) lots of ballistic materials are used.

How is a “whole lot” of ballistic material defined; supplier’s lot number or prime contractor’s lot number?

A.23. A lot of ballistic material is defined by the supplier of the material used.

Q.24. 3.3 Responsibility for Compliance. Items shall meet all of the requirements of the Purchase Description, Interface Control Document (ICD), Capability Production Document (CPD), and this Statement of Work (SOW).

The absence of any inspection requirements shall not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility of ensuring that all products and supplies submitted to the Government for acceptance comply with all requirements of the contract.

Sampling inspection, as part of manufacturing operations, is an acceptable practice to ascertain conformance to requirements; however, this does not authorize the submission of known defective material nor does it commit the Government to accept defective material. If there is a conflict between the stated requirements of the contract and the Contractor’s Quality Manual (QM), the more restrictive requirement shall apply.

The last sentence of this paragraph seems like a potential for scope creep regarding Quality Assurance requirements.

(Recommend removing this question).

A.24. The referenced sentence does not cause and cannot cause scope creep. Contractors are free to align their quality manual with the exact minimum requirements stated in the contract. Contractors also are free to impose greater restrictions upon themselves than those mandated by the contract. If a contractor chooses to impose a stricter standard, that contractor must follow the increased restrictions as documented in their Quality Manual and attested as procedure to the Government.

Q.25. 5.5 Identification and Traceability. Reference ISO 9001:2008 Clause 7.5.3, Identification and Traceability, is a requirement under this contract. Lot numbering is applicable. The Contractor shall maintain traceability records for all component parts used to manufacture the Vital Torso Plate (VTP). All component parts lot identification shall be traceable through to VTP’s lot number and contract number. Subcontractor’s component part lot information shall enable traceability to the raw materials used in the component part. Each VTP lot shall consist of only one product variant (size and color, etc.). A VTP lot can be made from multiple lots of ballistic material, where a lot of ballistic material is defined as an individual roll of ballistic material. However, in the case where any additional ballistic material is left over from the production run, that material may only be used in the next consecutive VTP lot.

Please provide clarification whether this requirement is specific to roll materials, of it applies to other ballistic materials as well (tile, foam, spall).

A.25. This applies to all materials (tile, foam, adhesives, spall, etc.) used to achieve the ballistic performance requirement in accordance with the Purchase Description.

Q.26. 5.6 Production Data. The Contractor shall maintain records and furnish on request of the Contracting Officer the following information determined during production. The Contractor shall identify this data with the serial number/lot number of the Vital Torso Plate. Data generated during inspection or other protocols per quality system/Quality Manual (QM)/Production Process Package (PPP); this includes, but is not limited to, the items below:

a. Dimensional measurements (weight, thickness, etc.) What are the other specific dimensional measurements the customer would like the contractor to record in production?

b. Supplier lot information and traceability for all component parts identified in the technical data package.

This shall include material compliance forms signed by the Contractor, each subcontractor or material supplier supported by independent test data (Material Test Report). Contractor shall ensure that Material Test Reports exist to support each compliance form per lot. A copy of the manufacturer’s material test report for each lot is required with shipment of material stating to which specification the material was made. These reports shall include the following information:

1. Signature and title of authorized test facility

Is this applicable for non-ballistic materials and/or individual ballistic components?

c. 5. Operational, ownership, and environmental test data generated by the Contractor on the plates.

Please provide clarification on this requirement.

d. 6. Ballistic performance test data generated under all first article, lot acceptance, conformance, and validation testing.

Is this applicable for non-ballistic materials and/or individual ballistic components?

e. Also what comprises of conformance and validation testing?

A.26.

a. This production data requirement does not specify what the contractor must measure during production. Instead, this production data requirement specifies that the contractor must maintain records of any dimensional production data the contractor generates through inspection or other protocols. For the purposes of this requirement, it does not matter if the data was required by the Government or not. If the contractor takes the measurement during the course of production to either satisfy a Government request or to ensure adherence to production parameters, the contractor shall keep a record of those measurements and shall furnish those records to the Government upon request.

Dimensional data includes any contractor-defined dimensional parameters as well as any of the dimensions called out in the drawings referenced in the Purchase Description to include weight.

b. Yes

c. Contractor conducted testing to validate performance IAW the Purchase Description and Solicitation.

d. Yes

e. Contractor conducted testing to validate performance IAW the Purchase Description and Solicitation.

Q.27. 7.0 Product Improvement/Technology Insertion - CLIN 0009. & 7.1 White Papers shall be submitted in reference to CLIN 0009. If the offeror has a novel concept for a product improvement/technology insertion within an area of interest covered by CLIN 0009 the offeror shall submit a white paper within the first forty-two (42) months of the contract.

Can re-First Article Test (FAT) costs be included in white papers submitted against CLIN 0009?

A.27. White papers will be used to investigate new technology initiatives. FAT, and reFAT, costs are a separate discussion.

Q.28. What is the expected Period of Performance (PoP) for Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) activities on CLIN 0009, 1 year, or 2 years, etc?

A.28. CLIN 0009 can be proposed under during the 4 year ordering period of the IDIQ. PoPs of work proposed should be within the 4 year ordering period.

Q.29. Is the intent of this to allow contractors the opportunity to create new design(s) deliverable under the production CLIN of this contract?

A.29. See Statement of Work paragraph 7.0.

Q.30. E1.2 The Government reserves the right to require full or modified First Article Test (FAT) to be accomplished or re-accomplished when it is deemed that there is evidence of potential degradation or failure of specific Contractor designs prior to institution of stop work procedures as described in the FAT Approval Letter.

The cost of such testing will be borne by the Contractor.

a. What is the definition of “potential degradation”?

b. Is this intended to suggest that the Government can revoke FAT approval at any time for any reason?

c. Is there a timeframe for testing?

d. Could this apply to accepted product?

A.30.

a. Potential degradation includes evidence of policies, processes, or procedures not followed by Contractor, negative trending data, indications of contractor inability to effectively constrain the manufacturing process, and failure to meet performance specifications attached to the contract.

b. No, see definition above.

c. PM-SPE is not clear if the Vendor is referring to the length of time the actual re-FAT testing will take to be completed at Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) or if they are talking about the amount of time the Vendor has to complete the FAT after the Government notifies them of the need to complete another FAT.

If the former, the amount of time ATC has to complete FAT testing, then PM-SPE cannot put a timeline on ATC as it is workload dependent.

If the latter, the amount of time to complete the FAT after notification, then the answer is no. Presently the only mechanism for completing a re-FAT would be through the Corrective Action Process. PM-SPE will not put a timeframe on this as it depends on the root cause analysis (RCA) findings (complete redesign vs small process change). The RCA will determine the magnitude of the changes required and subsequently that determines the schedule.

d. Yes, see definition above.

Q.31. E3.1 Early life failures are caused by latent defects; therefore the Contractor shall implement product assurance to eliminate and minimize these defects to meet the Government’s requirement of good quality, durability and resultant reliability in the field.

Can the “latent defect” clause be applied to Hard Armor Protective Inserts outside the 365 day warranty period?

How is “resultant reliability” defined and assessed?

A.31. Yes, a latent defect exists since the product’s initial date of manufacturing, which is within the 365 day warranty period. Resultant reliability is the result of a products successful completion of its intended purpose, and is assessed on its ability to complete that task.

Q.32. E5. BERRY AMENDMENT COMPLIANCE. The Contractor shall ensure that all Vital Torso Protection plates provided are in compliance with the “Berry Amendment”, in that all applicable components of the item are to be “grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States”. All component parts shall be identifiable and traceable throughout the supply chain and compliance with the “Berry Amendment”. Reference Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause 252.225-7012 Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities (February 2013).

Does this apply to ceramic powders, other constituents, TPU materials for spall, foam materials, adhesives?

A.32. The Contractor should consult legal experts to ensure compliance with the Berry Amendment.

Q.33. H1.1 Critical Safety Item (CSI) designation means the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) will engage in continuous in-plant audit surveillance and product examination of critical and major characteristics in accordance with ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 zero-based sampling approach. The Acceptance Quality Limit (AQL) of 0.10% is established for critical/major defects in accordance with ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 General Inspection Level II. The AQL of 4.0% is established for minor defects. Any lots submitted to DCMA for inspection and acceptance shall be subject to the AQLs above: critical and major characteristics: zero defect, minor characteristics: 4.0% AQL. These requirements conflict verbiage in Section 2.2.3 Workmanship, which clause prevails?

A.33. The Government finds no conflict between Section H.1.1 and Statement of Work (SOW) Section 2.2.3 Workmanship.

Q.34. H3. BALLISTIC TESTING REQUIREMENTS. All ballistic testing for First Article Test (FAT) or Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) will be conducted at Aberdeen Test Center (ATC). PM SPE will provide the appropriate test report distribution lists to ATC.

H3.1 Ballistic testing on end items shall be considered acceptance testing. Notify this office ten (10) days prior to any testing in the event the Government wants to witness testing. No lot shall be released from the Contractor’s plant prior to receipt of approval of passing test reports by PM SPE and acceptance from the appropriate Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Quality Assurance Representative (QAR).

After ballistic FAT/LAT, within what time frame should the contractor expect approval of passing test reports by PM SPE and DCMA?

A.34. The Government makes every attempt to expedite the testing and evaluation of product under contract.

Q.35. 52.209-4 First Article Test (FAT) Approval

(g) The Contractor is responsible for providing operating and maintenance instructions, spare parts support, and repair of the first article during any first article test.

Is this referring to the contingency plates, or is this in addition to the contingency quantities listed in the Purchase Description?

A.35. This refers to any and all maintenance instructions, spare parts support, individual components, and finished end items.

Q.36. 52.246-17 WARRANTY OF SUPPLIES OF A NONCOMPLEX NATURE (JUN 2003)

(2) When return, correction, or replacement is required, transportation charges and responsibility for the supplies while in transit shall be borne by the Contractor. However, the Contractor's liability for the transportation charges shall not exceed an amount equal to the cost of transportation by the usual commercial method of shipment between the place of delivery specified in this contract and the Contractor's plant, and return.

What is the “usual commercial method of shipment”? Airfreight, surface, etc?

A.36. The methods by which the supply was delivered, which may include, but are not limited to airfreight, surface, etc.

Q.37. (ii) Instead of correction or replacement by the Government, the Contracting Officer may require an equitable adjustment of the contract price. In addition, if the Contractor fails to furnish timely disposition instructions, the Contracting Officer may dispose of the nonconforming supplies for the Contractor's account in a reasonable manner. The Government is entitled to reimbursement from the Contractor, or from the proceeds of such disposal, for the reasonable expenses of the care and disposition of the nonconforming supplies, as well as for excess costs incurred or to be incurred. Is this intended to imply that the contractor is responsible for disposition instructions on previously accepted plates?

A.37. The contractor is responsible for dispensation instructions, as stated in Section (4)(i)(B), “Fails either to accept return of the nonconforming supplies or fails to make progress after their return…”

Q.38. Does the title not transfer to the US Government upon delivery? Is the contractor responsible for all costs associated with the retrieval and disposal of fielded plates?

A.38. The Contractor is responsible for all costs associated with products discovered to have latent defects.

Q.39. What is the definition of “excess costs incurred or to be incurred”?

A.39. The referenced terminology is found in clause 52.246-17(c) in regards to remedies available to the Government. The contractor is responsible for the disposition cost of nonconforming supplies incurred by the Government when the contractor fails to furnish timely disposition.

Q.40. On the pricing spreadsheet the US Government is asking for pricing based on the number of units purchased per year, but can the US Government provide the size break down for how many of each size they intend to buy within each bracketed quantity. Also, what percentage of the total quantity ordered will be each size?

A.40. Yes, Extra Small 13%, Small 23%, Medium 40%, Large 16%, Extra Large 5%, Small-Long 3%.

Q.41. Will the US Government consider offering contractors financing options such as Progress Payments or Performance Based Payments?

A.41. No, at this time the Government is not considering Progress Payments or Performance Based Payments as financing options under the proposed contract.

Q.42. Relative to Sub-Factor 1 Ballistic Protection, if competing bidders achieve the same adjectival rating but receive differing Product Demonstration Model (PDM) Tests Scores, are they viewed as being equal or does the bidder with the lower PDM Test Score receive a more favorable evaluation? For example, if one bidder receives an XSBI PDM Test Score of 0 and another bidder receives an XSBI PDM Test Score of 4 (both of which have an “outstanding” adjectival rating), is the bidder with the PDM Test Score of 0 viewed more favorably than the bidder with the PDM Test Score of 4 for the purposes of award?

A.42. No. The rating method used for this source selection is the combined technical and risk rating method. In order to receive the outstanding adjectival rating the vendor needs to both have very low technical risk and a Product Demonstration Model Test Score in the range given. Failure to achieve either evaluated parameter (Technical or Technical Risk) could result in the receipt of a lower rating. In the hypothetical given above, both vendors would be rated equally with regard to the technical input to the rating. However, the degree of technical risk may not be the same for both vendors.

Q.43. Relative to Sub-Factor 2 Weight Reduction, if competing bidders achieve the same adjectival rating but achieve differing weight reductions, are they viewed as being equal or does the bidder with the lower weight receive a more favorable evaluation? For example, if one bidder has a compliant medium XSBI weight of 1.949 lbs. and another bidder has a compliant medium XSBI weight of 1.926 lbs. (both of which have a “good” adjectival rating), is the bidder with the weight of 1.926 lbs. viewed more favorably than the bidder with the weight of 1.949 lbs. for the purposes of award?

A.43. No. The rating method used for this source selection is the combined technical and risk rating method. Both evaluated parameters (Technical or Technical Risk) contribute to the adjectival rating. In the hypothetical given above, both vendors would be rated equally with regard to the technical input to the rating. However, the degree of technical risk may not be the same for both vendors.

Q.44. Based on the Product Demonstration Model (PDM) protocols, it appears that it may be possible to achieve an adjectival rating of “outstanding” for a particular design and have that same design fail First Article Test (FAT).

(For example, an XSAPI design with a PDM Test Score of 2 would be rated as “outstanding”, but in reality that design would likely be marginal for FAT.) This creates unnecessary risks to both the Government and the contractors. It is recommended that the Government adjust the Adjectival Ratings for ballistic performance to more closely align with the FAT protocol.

A.44. The Government is not revising the adjectival ratings for ballistic performance at this time.

Q.45. Clause 52.209-4 sub-paragraph (c), if a first article is disapproved, the contractor must submit an additional first article for testing. There is potential for this to become an infinite loop, should a contractor never be able to pass First Article Test (FAT). Is there a limit to how many subsequent FATs the contractor would be required to provide?

A.45. No, there is no set limit to the number of FAT attempts, however the contractor will only be allowed to re- FAT if requested by the Government as stated in clause 52.209-4.

Q.46. Section M of the Request for Proposal (RFP) states that delivery of production articles will begin NLT 90 days after First Article Test (FAT) approval. Since the Government’s Production Readiness Review (PRR) occurs after FAT submission and is a condition for gaining production approval, it is requested that the delivery of production articles be triggered based on the PRR approval instead of the FAT approval.

A.46. Production will not be authorized until FAT approval.

Section M of the RFP will be updated to state that delivery of production articles will begin NLT 90 days after production authorization. Except as authorized by a waiver, production authorization will not be granted until after achievement of First Article Test Approval and a favorable Production Readiness Review.

Q.47. Paragraph 5.5 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) states “A Vital Torso Plate (VTP) lot can be made from multiple lots of ballistic material, where a lot of ballistic material is defined as an individual roll of ballistic material.

However, in the case where any additional ballistic material is left over from the production run, that material may only be used in the next consecutive VTP lot.” What is the purpose of this requirement? Why can leftover material only be used on the next consecutive lot? Assuming adequate traceability systems, this requirement should be unnecessary.

A.47. The intent is to contain potential defects, support trending analysis, and enhance traceability.

Q.48. Section 3.2 Construction states that “If metallic components are used in the construction of the Hard Armor Plate Insert for crack detection they must not increase or decrease the ballistic performance”.

How will this requirement be evaluated? If the weight of the crack detection sensor is counted towards the weight of the plate then it must displace ballistic material in order to meet the weight requirements. Less ballistic material will always equate to reduced ballistic performance for the design for any given weight so this requirement is impossible to satisfy. Please consider revision.

A.48. Any metal used in the design of the hard armor plate insert shall not contribute to or influence the ballistic performance of the product. Section 3.2 states HAPI with crack detection components (regardless of crack detection method or material) must meet the same base requirements (weight, protection, durability, environmental robustness, ease of use, et cetera) as those HAPI without crack detection components.

Q.49. Section 3.2.1 Cover states that “The cover, including all edges, shall be free of cuts, holes, tears, abraded areas, wrinkles, bubbles, or creases. The cover shall no exhibit any areas of under adherence. There shall be no visible peeling of the cover before or after any operating environment conditioning.”

These requirements disagree with the allowable limits established in Table 6: Defect Classification Table. Please revise this section to point to Table 6 for allowable limits for these quality requirements as right now it implies a zero allowable limit for these defects which is impossible to meet.

A.49. Section 3 of the Purchase Description (PD) is the requirement and Section 4 of the PD is the verification.

Contractors will be evaluated on the verification section in the event of a disagreement between the two sections.

Q.50. Section 3.2.2 Assembly of Components by Bonding states “There shall be no evidence of under adhered delaminated, or otherwise separated components.”

There are no allowable limits implied by this statement which disagrees with the allowable limits stated in Table 6.

This section of the Purchase Description should be modified to point to Table 6 for allowable limits.

A.50. Section 3 of the Purchase Description (PD) is the requirement Section 4 of the PD is the verification.

Contractors will be evaluated on the verification section in the event of a disagreement between the two sections.

Q.51. Section 3.3.a. states that “Data generated during inspection or other protocols per quality system and Production Process Package (PPP). This includes, but is not limited to chemistry, weight, thickness and dimensional measurements. If ceramics are used, grain structure analysis is required e.g. grain size maximum, minimum, average or histogram plots or both.”

The ceramic data is expensive and time consuming to obtain so it must be made clear how frequently this data is expected to be acquired so that getting it can be accurately accounted for in the bid submission price. Is the data expected once per furnace run, once per ceramic lot, once per finished plate lot, etc?

A.51. The vendor is required to submit a grain structure analysis as part of the Technical Data Package that uniquely defines their design submission. Subsequent analysis may be advised or required by the Government during the course of failure analysis; however, the Government does not dictate to the contractor exactly what tests, measurements, or checks should be conducted at what intervals for effective quality control. The contractor is responsible for the development of such parameters, documenting, implementing, communicating, and demonstrating them to the Government during audits as required.

Q.52. Section 3.3.b. states that “Supplier lot information and traceability for all component parts identified in the Technical Data Package (TDP) and used in configuration of the finished Hard Armor Protective Insert (HAPI). This shall include test data from an independent test source from each subcontractor and material supplier verifying the conformance of all materials and components.”

Almost all of the suppliers of the components used in hard body armor have internal test labs that conduct the testing of their materials for which data is reported on their certs. Please confirm that this data must come from third party test labs and not the material supplier’s own test labs as achieving this requirement will have a significant effect on the costs and lead times for the materials used in the HAPIs and will need to be accounted for in the bid price.

A.52. This requirement does not obligate the subcontractors to provide independent test data with their submissions (although the prime contractor may require that).

This requirement obligates the prime contractor to verify product performance, to include inclusion of raw materials and components, before incorporation into an end item. The prime may conduct this verification themselves (the prime is an independent test source from each subcontractor and material supplier), or the prime may rely on other parties. Regardless, the prime contractor is obligated to use something other than the subcontractor or material supplier’s own data to verify that the material or subcomponent provided is satisfactory for inclusion into the end item. Generally, this requirement may be considered a requirement for incoming inspections or independent verification that sourced material or sub-components conform to established tolerance prior to their incorporation into an end item.

Q.53. Section 3.3.e. states that “For traceability every Hard Armor Protective Insert (HAPI) must be durably marked as to be traceable from production through to the ballistic test records for that lot of HAPIs. The serial number shall be marked on the outside face within 1 inch of the lower edge of the ceramic component before it is fired. It shall be marked by inscribing, embossing, or with high temperature resistant inorganic ink, or after firing with permanent marking to a maximum depth of 0.010 inch so that the serial number shall be legible when the spall cover is stripped mechanically or by the use of a solvent. Solvents, fuels, and other liquids shall not affect the serial number markings. Ceramic cores shall be marked to be traceable by radiographic analysis. If inscribed, it shall be done on the outer 0.25 in of the plate.”

In previous solicitations the ability to read the tile serial number using radiographic analysis has been stated as desirable, but not required. Please confirm that this is now a firm requirement.

A.53. Yes, the ability to read the tile serial number using radiographic analysis is required.

Q.54. The location of the marking on the tile is listed once in this section as needing to be within 1 inch of the lower edge of the ceramic component and then later listed as needing to be within 0.25 inches of the outer edge of the ceramic. Which is correct?

A.54. Section 3.3 of the PD gives examples of multiple types of acceptable marking. Section 3,3.e States the serial number shall be marked on the outside face within 1 inch (in) (25.4 millimeters (mm)) of the lower edge of the ceramic component before it is fired (i.e. inscribing, embossing, or with high temperature resistant inorganic ink, or after firing with permanent marking). Section 3.3.e further clarifies if inscribed, it shall be done on the outer 0.25 in (0.635 mm) of the plate.

Q.55. Does each individual ceramic tile need to have its own unique serial number?

A.55. No.

Q.56. Can tiles from the same furnace run all be labelled with the same serial number including the furnace run number?

A.56. Yes, each component of the system should be traceable to at a minimum a specific batch or furnace number.

The furnace number should then be traceable to its specific powder batch and formulation.

Q.57. The requirement that no solvents, fuels or other liquids shall affect the serial number markings is an impossible requirement as it does not spell out the specific solvents, fuels, and liquids that the marking must be resistant against. There are no materials in existence that are completely insoluble to all known solvents. Please specifically state which liquids the markings must be resistant to and provide a test method for verifying this requirement.

A.57. Refer to PD section 4.6 – Operating Requirements and 4.8 - Operating Environment Requirements.

Q.58. Section 3.4 Workmanship states, “The finished product shall conform to the quality requirements established by the Purchase Description (PD).

Does this include the ones that are impossible to meet, which have no lower allowable limits and which have no defined test methods called out?

A.58. Yes.

Q.59. The contractor shall verify and validate that all fabrication procedures will yield quality workmanship to meet product specification and contract requirements.

Does this imply that 100% yields are required? If so, this is an impossible requirement. Please consider revision.

A.59. The Government does not require 100% first pass yield.

Q.60. All materials to be used in the construction shall consist of quality levels to assure conformance to all requirements, unless otherwise authorized.

What is the mechanism for requesting variances to the requirements prior to bid submission?

A.60. The vendor’s proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the purchase description and requirements stated in the solicitation. Requests for waiver will not be granted prior to proposal submission.

Q.61. The exact quality requirements for all components and variances against the requirements must be clear prior to bid in order to allow for an accurate bid price.

A.61. All requirements are provided within the Request for Proposal.

Q.62.a. All workmanship shall be conducted to eliminate and avoid human induced defects. How is this requirement to be evaluated?

b. This wording implies perfection is required. Perfection is not possible. Please consider revising this wording. If defects are produced by robots are they acceptable?

A.62.

a. Refer to section 3 and 4 of the Purchase Description.

b. Section 3.4 in the Purchase Description is updated to state: “all workmanship shall be conducted to minimize and where possible eliminate or avoid defects.”

Q.63. Manufacturing practices shall be capable of consistently yielding product that conforms to all requirements of the Purchase Description and internal specifications for the product and their components.

This implies 100% yields are required. This is an impossible requirement. How will performance against this requirement be evaluated?

A.63. The Government does not require 100% first pass yield. Refer to section 3 and 4 of the purchase description.

Q.64. All component materials shall be properly marked and identified, and protected during storage. Materials shall be produced and integrated to extend durability and provide consistency of appearance throughout life of the product.

This requirement has no test methods called out, no definition of how long the life of the product needs to be, and is so broad in scope as to be impossible to satisfy. Please revise to add test methods and clear requirements.

A.64. The end of the paragraph cites above (Section 3.4) it will note both test methods and clear requirements are provided. Section 3 of the Purchase Description (PD) is the requirement and Section 4 of the PD is the verification.

Contractors will be evaluated on the verification section in the event of a…