Loren Data's SAM Daily™

SAMDAILY.US - ISSUE OF AUGUST 23, 2020 SAM #6842
SOLICITATION NOTICE

10 -- 155mm Mobile Howitzer / SBCT Shoot-Off Evaluation

Notice Date

8/21/2020 9:19:50 AM
 

Notice Type

Solicitation
 

NAICS

332994 — Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing
 

Contracting Office

W6QK ACC-PICA PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 USA
 

ZIP Code

07806-5000
 

Solicitation Number

W15QKN-20-R-0135
 

Response Due

8/31/2020 2:00:00 PM
 

Archive Date

09/15/2020
 

Point of Contact

KLAUDIA A. GRABIAS, Scott Dern
 

E-Mail Address

klaudia.a.grabias.civ@mail.mil, scott.r.dern.civ@mail.mil
(klaudia.a.grabias.civ@mail.mil, scott.r.dern.civ@mail.mil)
 

Description

Background: The US Army is seeking a more mobile, lethal, and survivable 155mm system to replace its current fleet of towed howitzers. In 2019 the US Army approved the requirement to conduct a Shoot-off Evaluation of candidate systems in Fiscal Year 2021 in order to inform US Army future requirements. The requirement is for vendors to participate in a Shoot-Off Evaluation at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona in FY2021. Information from the Shoot-off Evaluation will feed an Army Senior Leader (ASL) Decision Point concerning the future of the US Army mobile howitzer effort. Joint Program Executive Office Armaments and Ammunition (JPEO A&A) is the Office of Program Responsibility (OPR) for the Shoot-off Evaluation. The Contractor shall participate in the United States Government (USG) run 155mm Mobile Howitzer Shoot-off Evaluation. The Contractor shall make available and bear cost of the necessary test hardware to support the Shoot-off Evaluation testing. The Contractor is responsible for managing the transportation of their test hardware to and from Yuma Proving Ground. Test Hardware will be due at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG), AZ at the beginning of the USG assigned test window expected to be in 2nd Quarter FY21(January-March 2021). Test hardware will remain at YPG through the entire testing window. The USG will provide test ranges, crews to fire and drive systems, ammunition for testing, and common USG consumables such as fuel and Nitrogen. The Contractor shall have support personnel on site for the duration of the testing. Government Furnished Equipment: The USG recognizes the risk of US ammunition compatibility with foreign cannon systems, so the USG will provide a M776 Cannon Assembly, currently used on M777 Towed Howitzer and qualified with all US ammunition, to vendors who wish to utilize it in their Shoot-off Evaluation system. Providing the M776 Cannon as GFE is contingent upon the contractor having a viable integration concept for its use. Contracting Strategy: This procurement is unrestricted and will be competed utilizing Full and Open Competition. The United States Government anticipates multiple awards of Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts in support of this requirement. The Government will select for award proposals that are the most advantageous and represent the best value to the Government. INDUSTRY QUESTIONS/INQUIRIES AND USG RESPONSES: Q1: Would the USG prefer to evaluate a M776�Cannon Assembly for the shoot off rather than another Cannon Assembly offered by the vendors to limit the risk US ammunition compatibility of foreign cannon systems? A1: There is no preference for the use of the M776�Cannon Assembly over any other vendor supplied cannon.� The risk of using a vendor�s cannons will be managed by testing Q2: With respect to CLIN 0001, the contractor will quote for three (3) persons to support as part of the proposal. Is the vendor allowed to have additional persons at the Shoot-Off Evaluation to provide full support of the shoot-off activities? A2: The contractor is allowed to have additional personnel at the Shoot-Off Evaluation. Q3: Is there a maximum of people authorized to participate to the Shoot-Off Evaluation? A3: There is no maximum of personnel authorized to participate. Q4: Is the three (3) month test period continuously? A4: Yes, the test period shall last for three (3) months or ninety (90) days continuously. Q5: What fire control system will be used at the Shoot-Off Evaluation? A5: The fire control system to be utilized at the Shoot-Off Evaluation is the vendor�s system. Q6: Can you confirm each vendor will be able to use their own digital Fire Control System for the Shoot-Off Evaluation? A6: Yes, each vendor will be able to utilize their own Digital Fire Control System (DFCS). Q7: Could a firm utilize air transport for transportation of the howitzer to and from USA? A7: Yes, a vendor may utilize air transportation to transport their system to and from the USA. Q8: Paragraph C.3.1.1 mentions the beginning of the test window being 12 January 2020. When will the USG confirm each competitor�s test window? A8: Each vendor selected for award will be notified of their test window at the time of contract award. Q9: Please clarify for the purposes of scheduling, what is the test window, 3.1.1 it is defined as December 1, 2020 to May 1, 2021, however on the cover page the window is defined as 2nd Quarter FY21 (January-March 2021). A9: The start date for testing for each vendor will be assigned at contract award. The testing of each awardee�s system will be staggered and shall be expected at any time between January 2021 and May 2021�due to scheduling constraints at the test range. If a start date of January 2021 is assigned to a vendor, pre-testing work can begin in December 2020. Q10: What is the earliest date that gun system could be expected to arrive at YPG? A10: The delivery of howitzer gun systems shall be coordinated with the USG and is dependent on the test window schedule the awardee has been given. Q11: Does the end date of the test window correlate to the CDRL delivery for thirty (30) days after test completion?� A11: Yes, the end date of the test window correlates to CDRL delivery.�CDRLs requiring delivery thirty (30) days after test completion will be dependent on the test window assigned. Delivery of CDRL deliverables shall be thirty (30) days after the end of the vendor�s test window. Q12: Paragraph C.3.1.1.2.5 indicates the delivery schedule (between Q1FY23 � Q3FY23), what is the expected date for contract award for production of the eighteen (18) howitzers? A12: The dates provided by the USG within the RFP are a prediction and best guess for a schedule. The official dates for delivery of production units are dependent on results from the Shoot-Off Evaluation and Army Senior Leader Decision. Q13: Are CDRLs A001-A004 expected to be submitted at the time of proposal submission and then thirty (30) days after contract award? A13: Yes, CDRLs A001 through A004 are expected to be submitted with the offeror�s proposal and then thirty (30) days after contract award. Q14: Is a cover letter allowed?� If so, does it count towards the technical volume page count? A14: A cover letter is allowed at the offeror�s preference. Inclusion of a cover letter would not count towards the technical volume page count. Q15: Attachment A � Item 18 � Ammo Resupply Time � Please identify the desired number of rounds to be reloaded during the stated timeframe. The number of rounds capable of being loaded may vary by system. A15: The number of rounds to reload is the total complement of rounds the gun vehicle is designed to carry. Q16: IAW 3.1.1.1.1. � Does the Mobile Howitzer System include the ammunition resupply vehicle for the purposes of the USG reimbursing the cost of shipping? A16: The USG will only support shipping for the Gun Vehicle. Q17: Does the USG desire that the system come equipped with a tactical radio communication system? A17: No. Q18: IAW Attachment E � Porting of the Barrel � Please provide clarification of how the USG plans to seal the transducers during installation. A18: The USG plans to seal the transducers via metal face seal between the transducers and the barrel. Q19: Please provide the external/outer diameter of the electrical cable/wire will be connected to the E30F2 pressure transducer. A19: The pressure transducer wire diameters range from 2mm � 5mm. Q20: Attachment E - Ported Tube Interface Control Document (ICD) provides detailed drawings and sketches for the location and size of the measurement holes in the cannon.� Is the vendor responsible for drilling the holes or would this be completed by the Army? A20: Holes shall be drilled by the vendor prior to delivery to YPG. Q21: Will the Army have its own transducer and measurement devices or is the vendor expected to provide them for their cannon? A21: The USG will provide transducers and measurement devices. Q22: Please provide firing tables for Inert Projectile and Propellant charges for evaluation of fire control settings. A22: Firing solutions will be calculated at Yuma Proving Ground. Information to be provided by the contractor according to CDRL A007 will be utilized to calculate the firing solutions. Q23: Regarding CDRLs A002 through A004 states:� Blocks 10-13 on each CDRL states: The first report to be submitted 30 days after contract award. The second report to be submitted 30 days after testing completion.� In Q&A #1, Q13 answer states:� A13: Yes, CDRLs A001 through A004 are expected to be submitted with the offeror�s proposal and then thirty (30) days after contract award.� The answer to Q13 appears to conflict with CDRL A002 through A004 specifically as it relates to being submitted with offeror�s proposal.� Please confirm submission timing for CDRL�s A002 through A004. A23: Content supporting CDRL�s A001, A002, A003, and A004 shall be delivered as part of an offeror�s proposal in accordance with Section L. Post contract award CDRL�s A001, A002, A003, and A004 shall be delivered twice (30 days after contract award and 30 days after completion of test activities). Q24: Please provide clarification on the CDRL delivery requirements. Please define �same as issued with proposal� from the C.5.1. CDRL table. Please define if CDRLs A001 through A011 are required at the time of proposal submission per L.1.3.1. A24: Section L requires some of the same content/information that is requested in CDRLs A001, A002, A003, and A004. �Same as issued with proposal� refers to the USG�s willingness to accept the same/similar response as in the proposal. Q25: Is the support for the three (3) month DFCS integration effort concurrent with the Shoot-Off testing time period? A25: The three (3) month DFCS effort does not have to coincide directly with the three (3) month Shoot-Off testing time period. This will be discussed in detail at the Start of Work Meeting post contract award. Q26: Please define the plan for DFCS integration. Will the DFCS be integrated on supplier system computers with USG providing source/binary applications? Will the DFCS be supplied on USG hardware to be integrated into the existing supplier system? If so, what type of hardware? Please provide the GUI and ICD for the DFCS. A26: The USG and Contractor will work together during the DFCS IPT to assess the risk of integrating US DFCS onto the vendor system. Q27: Please define �Requirements Matrix Compliant System.� Is this a system that meets all 43 requirements? A27: �Requirements Matrix Compliant System� is the proposed system in Section L, Volume I, Factor 3. Q28: Please provide a drawing and any requirements related to the US Army Heavy Duty Tow Bar. A28: Heavy Duty Tow Bar � NSN: 4910-01-267-2912 Q29: Is there a formula to level set this evaluation given that ammunition capacities vary from vehicle to vehicle? A29: The USG will evaluate the total system to include ammunition capacity. Q30: Please provide the Mechanical Envelope Drawing for the M795. A30: The ICD for the M795 will be provided to the Contractor as part of contract execution. Q31: Please provide the latest version of AEP-35. A31: The latest version of AEP-35 will not be provided. The USG does not see this to be necessary for proposal submission. Q32: Is it correct to assume that the filled in DFCS Questionnaire is to be delivered with CDRL A011 and not at the time of proposal submission? A32: The DFCS Questionnaire to be delivered as CDRL A011 and does not have to be submitted as part of the proposal. Q33: Do CLASSIFIED materials from a Foreign Government have to be submitted to the USG by the due date of the proposal submission to be considered as part of the proposal materials? A33: All submissions to the USG shall be UNCLASSIFIED. Q34: Is there a particular Security Classification Guide the offeror should comply with when preparing and marking the proposal? A34: A DD254 is not required. No program specific security classification guide exists at this time. All information submitted as part of a proposal is to be UNCLASSIFIED. All proprietary documents to be marked appropriately. Q35: L.1.3.1.a. and L.3.5.1. require the submission of DD Form 1423 with Blocks 17 and 18 completed. Section B, Page 4 and CLIN 0005 do not clearly indicate if the efforts to complete the CDRLs are to be priced separately and that price entered next to CLIN 0005, or if the CDRL completion efforts are to be priced as part of CLIN 0002 pricing. A35: Section B, Page 4 of the RFP represents the USG�s anticipated CLIN structure. CLIN 0005 shall be considered Not Separately Priced or �NSP.� Q36: Reference: Solicitation, Section L.1.3.1. a. � The RFP states, ""Acknowledgment of all amendments to the solicitation and all continuation sheets are to be filled in as directed, i.e., Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0001) and Digital Fire Control System (DFCS) Questionnaire (Attachment 0003 Domestic; Attachment 0004 Foreign), any fill-ins required..."" As the Attachments are named A-F and are not numbered as referenced in the RFP, we do not see Attachment 0004 Foreign. We do see Attachment C Digital Fire Control (DFCS) Questionnaire. Is this reference intended to be the provided Attachment C� and that reference Attachment 0004 Foreign does not exist and has been replaced with Attachment D; i.e. Attachment 0004 M776 Interface Control Document (ICD)? A36: The attachments to the RFP are defined in Section J as follows: Attachment 0001 � Attachment A � 155mm Mobile Howitzer Requirements Matrix Attachment 0002 � Attachment B � Outline Test Plan (OTP) for 155mm Mobile Howitzer Shoot-Off Evaluation Rev. 1 26 June 2020 Attachment 0003 � Attachment C � Digital Fire Control System (DFCS) Questionnaire Attachment 0004 � Attachment D � M776 Interface Control Document (ICD) Attachment 0005 � Attachment E � Ported Tube Interface Control Document (ICD) Attachment 0006 � Attachment F � Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) List There will be a forthcoming amendment correcting the misrepresentation of Attachment 0003 � Attachment C � Digital Fire Control System (DFCS) Questionnaire as Attachment 0003 Domestic and Attachment 0004 Foreign. It shall read as �Attachment 0003 � Attachment C � Digital Fire Control System (DFCS) Questionnaire.� Q37: Where in the RFP is �D.3� as mentioned in L.1.3.1.b.? A37: There will be a forthcoming amendment correcting the misrepresentation of �D.3� in L.1.3.1.b. L.1.3.1.b. shall read �One electronic copy of the proposal volumes, as reflected in L.2., shall be compiled using the Microsoft Office for Windows suite of applications, submitted via DOD SAFE and formatted for an MS Windows compatible computer. The Price Factor shall be contained in a separate file from non-price Factors. Price breakdown, when applicable, must include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulae intact. Each file must be clearly marked with the Offerors Name and the Solicitation Number. Alternatively, files may be provided in Portable Document Format (.pdf) provided an MS excel spreadsheet is also provided for the price factor.� Q38: Reference C.7.7. � Is the Cyber Awareness Challenge current in place for the same requirement for varying programs sufficient to meet the required DoD Information Assurance Awareness Training? A38: The training is program agnostic. Per C.7.7. the Contractor shall maintain a valid training certificate throughout the requirement. Q39: Reference C.7.8. � Will the Government provide a basic OPSEC Plan for the program? A39: IAW C.7.8. �The Contractor shall develop and OPSEC Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) / Plan within 90 calendar days of contract award, to be reviewed and approved by the responsible Government OPSEC officer.� Q40: At what point is an offeror bound to the various paragraphs and FAR/DFARS clauses in the RFP / contract process? Is the vendor legally bound when they submit the proposal or sign a US Army contract award? A40: PLEASE REFER TO CLAUSE 52.215-1 OF THE RFP AND 52.215-1(f)(10) IN PARTICULAR.� FOR RFP TERMS ABOUT WHICH KMW IS NOT FAMILIAR, WE SUGGEST YOU CONSULT THE RFP ITSELF AND APPLICABLE CLAUSES AS THE ANSWERS ARE OFTEN FOUND THEREIN, CONSULT WITH YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL, AND IF THAT FAILS THEN SUBMIT YOUR QUESTIONS AS YOU HAVE DONE HERE.� A PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IMPLIES AN UNDERSTANDING OF, AND THE INTENT TO BE BOUND BY, ALL RFP TERMS SHOULD 52.215-1(f)(10) WERE TO OCCUR FOR SAID PROPOSAL. Q41: Would the Army consider an extension of the submission deadline beyond 31 August 2020 17:00 EST for all potential vendors to allow additional time for review of critical documents and ensure adequate proposal submission? A41: Any potential vendor anticipating proposal submission shall submit a formal request for extension to Klaudia Grabias (klaudia.a.grabias.civ@mail.mil), Contract Specialist and Scott Dern (scott.r.dern.civ@mail.mil), Contracting Officer. Q42: In Attachment B � Outline Test Plan (OTP), Figure 3: Consolidated OMS/MP � Top Charge Test, mentions �MAX� in the Charge column.� Can a vendor offer the use of foreign propellant charge in lieu of the US MACS propellant?� If yes, can an offeror provide a cost estimate for the foreign propellant charges within the proposal?� If no, is the Army allowing vendors to shoot their systems with non-US propellant to demonstrate maximum range? A42: For the Shoot-Off Evaluation the USG will only fire M795 Inert projectiles with MACS propelling charges.� �MAX� refers to the maximum zone of USG MACS that the USG and contractor agree should be fired. Q43: The test plan refers to manually loading rounds and charges.� Would the USG consider testing a system with automated processes?� Is this something that will be addressed by the firing teams in YPG? A43: The amount of system automation allowed will be evaluated during contract execution and may be considered as part of System Unique Testing as identified in Attachment B � Outline Test Plan (OTP). Q44: Would it be possible for a vendor�s engineers to have an opportunity to physically inspect rounds prior to the Shoot-Off Evaluation test activities? A44: Upon contract execution, the vendor will have the opportunity to physically inspect rounds prior to the Shoot-Off Evaluation test activities at Yuma Proving Ground. Q45: Please provide an envelope drawing or dimension for the �special munitions� mentioned in requirement 9 of Attachment A. A45: The overall dimensions are 0.155 meter diameter X 1.00 meter length. Special Munitions are defined as those that require storage in the upright, standing position. Q46: Please provide a list of all required munitions for comparison and review. A46: The USG has not compiled a list of all required NATO munitions for USG use in the Mobile Howitzer. Interested parties are encouraged to submit the list of NATO munitions with which their system is compatible. Q47: Within Attachment E � Ported Tube Interface Control Document (ICD) there are instructions for required geometry of the ports: Is it approved to increase dimension 3.345 at the muzzle port and 3.62 at the chamber port in order to get thicker wall under the transducers? � Is there a minimum and maximum dimension for that? A47: The USG will allow variation in these dimensions so long the instrumentation can still take accurate readings and there is no interface between instrumentation, the cannon, and other weapon components. Please reference the attachment for Q47 and A47 as there is a visual as part of the question.� Q48: Please clarify if ton is the US or metric definition. Is the unit of measurement intended to be defined as 2,000 pounds or 1,000 kilograms? A48: The use of ton is defined as US ton which is equal to 2,000 pounds. Q49: Will video clips of live fire exercises be accepted as part of the proposal submission in order to demonstrate the various capabilities of the system being proposed? A49: Should a vendor deem it necessary to submit video clips in order to demonstrate capabilities of the proposed system throughout live fire exercises, the following requirements must be met: Similar to other data that will be submitted to support claims in meeting requirements, the video shall be tied to a particular requirement and would need to applicable to the system being proposed. All video clips must have timestamp throughout and must be recent. Video must be delivered in Microsoft Viewer format/capability. Videos may not exceed ten (10) minutes in total viewing time. Q50: How soon should an offeror submit an End User Certificate (EUC)? A50: The USG does not believe an End User Certificate (EUC) requires to be signed by the USG for this requirement. The USG requests any offeror requesting a signed EUC by the USG to provide explanation of why the determination was made for the request and to clarify the purpose of the requirement of an EUC.
 

Web Link

SAM.gov Permalink
(https://beta.sam.gov/opp/cd102371618d442db735299622ff4908/view)
 

Place of Performance

Address: Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, USA

Country: USA
 

Record

SN05769257-F 20200823/200821230205 (samdaily.us)
 

Source

SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's SAM Daily Index Page |