MODIFICATION
13 -- M212 Aircraft Countermeasure Flare
- Notice Date
- 11/16/2007
- Notice Type
- Modification
- Contracting Office
- US Army ARDEC, AMSTA-AR-PC, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey 07806-5000
- ZIP Code
- 07806-5000
- Solicitation Number
- W15QKN-07-R-0117
- Response Due
- 11/19/2007
- Archive Date
- 12/19/2007
- Point of Contact
- Kelly Gorman, Contract Specialist, (973)724-2164
- E-Mail Address
-
Email your questions to Kelly Gorman
(kelly.gorman@us.army.mil)
- Description
- 1. The purpose of this action is to amend to solicitation W15QKN-07-R-0117 is as follows: a. Section C, Page 20, change paragraph C.3.2.6-C.3.2.6.3 as follows: C.3.2.6 Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) - A physical configuration audit is a requirement of this contracting effort(DI-CMAN-81022C). C.3.2.6.1 A minimum of five (5) of each component and subcomponent, assembly and sub-assembly shall be analyzed, examined, and/or tested to show conformance with all applicable drawing requirements. For components manufactured from multiple machines, molds, mold cavities or cutting dies, etc, not less than three (3) parts shall be inspected or tested from each machine, mold, mold cavity, or die for each requirement. PCA samples shall be manufactured using the same vendors, methods, materials, equipment, processes, procedures and facilities as will be used during regular production. C.3.2.6.2 The PCA shall occur subsequent to complete approval of Acceptance Inspection Equipment and a minimum of 15 days prior to performance of First Article Testing. The Contractor shall provide to the Contracting Officer at least 15 calendar days advance notice of the scheduled date for the PCA so that the Government may attend. C.3.2.6.3 The contractor shall submit results of the audit demonstrating compliance of each component, subassembly and assembly to all applicable drawing and specification requirements. Inspection results should validate 100% of all drawing dimensions and characteristics with actual variable data provided as per (DI-CMAN-81022C). b. Section I, Page 70, Change FAR 52.246-17 Warranty of Supplies of A Noncomplex Nature, paragraph 5d. This clause is being modified to remove paragraph 5d and renumber 5e to 5d and 5f to 5e. Additional the word Tailored is hereby removed from the title. c. Responses to questions received as result of the solicitation and previous amendments are listed as an attachment below. Parties interested in receiving a copy of the previous questions referenced in the attachment below should refer to amendment 0006 2. The closing date remains unchanged as 19 November 2007, 3:00 PM EST. 3. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. Attachment Questions and Responses to additional vendor questions: Ref. Answer #16: According to the last response it is understood that performance testing is demonstrate 99% reliability with 90% confidence. With 90% confidence and 99% reliability, some small number of test units will fail over long term production. The accept/reject criteria in the TDP does not allow for any failures. Is it the intent of the government to accept performance results which support 99% reliability with 90% confidence using a standardized (industry recognized) statistical approach? What approach will be used? Under stable production conditions, the M212 has demonstrated performance reliability in excess of 99% reliability. Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) requirements are as prescribed in the specifications and contract. The contractor may propose to the Government alternate acceptance criteria for evaluation by the Government. It would be expected that such a proposed alternate acceptance test plans would provide the Government an equal or better level of risk mitigation. Ref. Answer #17 & 57: Responses to these questions indicated that M212 flares and packaging components shall be free of visible oxidation/rust. Drawing 12988836, Fwd Closure, material callout is a Brass ?? hard, IAW ASTM B16. Brass is an alloy containing copper. Copper oxidizes (tarnishes) naturally on exposure to air and will always become ???visible oxidized??? absent some protective coating. As written, it is physically impossible to comply with the specification. Strapping material in the M212 Packaging Specification is galvanized, and the PA19 Ammo Can is painted carbon steel. Any irritation to the coatings on these materials may provide an opportunity for visible oxidation/rust to occur. Is it possible to distinguish between acceptable cosmetic surface discoloration and actual oxidization damage to the surface as evidenced by a raised or pitted surfaces? Regarding oxidation: a. Regarding the Fwd closure, is in accordance with ASTM B16 (referencing ASTM B249 para. 7.3.3 or B250 para. 7.3.3) ???Superficial films of discoloration, or lubricants, or tarnish inhibitors are permissible unless otherwise specified.??? b. Regarding the PA19 ammo cans, MIL-STD-406 provides visual acceptance standards for Ammo Cans. No rust is permitted on the inside of the ammo can, exterior rust shall not exceed ?? square inch. c. Regarding the strapping ASTM D3953 requires ???The finished coat of the strapping shall be adherent, free of scratches, runs, embedded foreign matter, uncoated areas, rust areas, or loose oxide scale.??? (para. 10.2). Note that this is also true for the strapping seals (para. 10.3) d. Differentiation for ???cosmetic??? is as specified above. Ref. Answer #18: Full ignition of the M212 flare has not been a past requirement. When referencing wind stream data from the current contract, it is readily apparent the time required to reach ???full ignition??? is consistently beyond the 12 foot ignition distance requirement (when related back to the functional testing). It does not appear that the current configuration can comply with this requirement as written. Is it the intent of the Government to update the TDP to allow compliance? Historic performance of the M212 Aircraft Countermeasure Flare has met and exceeded ignition distance requirements. Full ignition is defined as the condition where the flare grain is FULLY engulfed in flame. There shall be visible flames covering the flare grain once the precut aluminum/filament tape bursts open. The Government desires random sampling; all samples shall be pulled randomly. MIL-STD-1916 samples shall be pulled randomly as well as ???LAT??? samples (M116- velocity/ignition, M117-IR output, etc.). Ref. Answer #23: The answer to question 23 appears to drive pre-selection of parts destined for velocity and IR LAT testing. The provided response says that for a lot size of 20,000 flares, 467 samples (192_150+125) must go through the x-ray because of note ???a??? on Paragraph 4.4.2.12. However, applying this definition of the note to the 12 other characteristics identified with the IV(a) verification level will require pre-selection of velocity and IR LAT parts prior to final assembly of the flares. Pre-selection of parts destined for velocity and IR LAT testing implies that the LAT test sampling is no longer random. Characteristics in addition to 115; such as 10, 107, 110, 113 and especially 108, do not require 100% verification and would therefore require a specific sample verification of those flares destined for velocity and IR testing. Is it the intent of the government to maintain random sampling of the LAT units? In order to maintain the randomness of LAT units we recommend that only the characteristics that require 100% verification retain the ???(a)??? note. The Government does not believe that this precludes random sampling. Samples can still be randomly selected and tested. For example, from previous answer #23 the 467 total samples can be randomly sampled throughout the lot and go through the non-destructive inspections (leak, x-ray, missing components, marking, etc.); then the subsample for velocity/ignition (150) and IR (125) testing can be performed from them with the remainder (192) returned to the lot. This does not decrease the randomness of the sampling. Ref. Answer #20: The provided response states ??????1 hour max ink dry requirement and subsequent test has been decoupled from the ignition testing and test samples can no longer be used for both. Please clarify if this is contradictory to Para. 4.4.2.12 Characteristic 111, note (a). The Government does not believe that this is contradictory. As with #5 above, the samples can be randomly sampled and subjected to the marking test. The 1916 portion of the sample can then be returned to the lot and the ignition/velocity and IR output test portions can be subsequently tested. When is PCA to occur and for what quantities? Reference the changes to C.3.2.6 of the Statement of Work incorporated under amendment 0007. Will the likely quantity requirements discussed during industry day include Supplemental Budget numbers? No, the budgeted quantities indicated during Industry Day does not account for Supplemental Budget requirements. In the SYSTEMIC FAILURE LIABILITY clause, the final sentence states, ???If the systemic failure is determined to be the result of a design deficiency, redesign must be considered.??? Please clarify, does this mean redesign of the process must be considered or does this indicate redesign of the product, or both? FAR 52.246-17 - Warranty of Supplies of a Noncomplex Nature (Tailored) identified in Section I of the subject solicitation is being modified to remove paragraph 5d Systemic Failure and renumber 5e to 5d and 5f to 5e. Additional the word Tailored is hereby removed from the title. L.11.4.2.2 states ???The offeror is to include all supporting information?????? Does this mean we are required to include all the DD250s? No, you do not need to submit all the DD250???s. The Government can verify on time deliveries through information submitted in accordance with L.11.4.2. Are we required to submit any deviations? In accordance with L.11.4.2.1 the offeror shall disclose information about previous Requests for Waivers (RFWs), Request for Deviations (RFDs) etc. While you are not require to submit the actual RFW or RFD, you must provide the required information as stated in L.11.4.2.1. Would you be able to provide the make and model of the radiometers? This is provided for informational purposes only. Offeror???s are under no obligation to purchase items from this vendor or use the same set up. The detectors the Government use are liquid nitrogen cooled InSb detectors made by Judson Technology (http://www.judsontechnologies.com/indiumAnt.htm). The part number is J10D-M204-R02M-20. The key change the Government made to the detector is that we asked the vendor to make the dewar bottom thicker and add two 1/4-20 screw threads so we could bolt the detector to a mounting plate. The detector dewar normally do not have this configuration.
- Web Link
-
US ARMY TACOM-Picatinny Procurement Network
(http://procnet.pica.army.mil/dbi/Download/GoGetSolicitation.cfm?SolNum=W15QKN-07-R-0117)
- Record
- SN01453989-W 20071118/071116231124 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |