SAMDaily.us | PRESOL | 10 | Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)

SAMDAILY.US - ISSUE OF NOVEMBER 21, 2021 SAM #7295
SOLICITATION NOTICE

10 -- Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)

Notice Date: 11/19/2021 8:33:27 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-21-R-0025
Response Due: 12/23/2021 9:00:00 AM
Archive Date: 01/07/2022
Point of Contact: Angelica Merino, Stephanie Kless
E-Mail Address: usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil, usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil
(usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil, usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil)
Description: The Government has additional responses to submitted questions, due to system restrictions they cannot be posted here. To receive a copy of the questions send a�request to Angelica, Renee or�Stephanie @� renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil -------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/19/2021-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents Q: Request the government extend the proposal due date at least 30 days after provision of complete TDPs to permit complete screening of the TDP for accuracy anda common build-to-print for all Offerors. A: Proposal due date has been extended. Ref: General Q: Offeror requests the Government to extend the due date of proposals to February 22, 2022 because of the following issues that impact our ability to generate a detailed proposal for US Government consideration. A: Proposal due date has been extended. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents Review of the TDP identified the part below with two different screw descriptions. o Pan Head Screw 50033917 A� Hexagon Socket Head Cap Screw ISO 4762-M5x12-A4-70 Blackening KVS-50 Q: Will the Government identify the correct description? A: Pan head"" is a typo in this case. The correct description is ""hexagon socket head cap screw. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents Review of the TDP has identified the following drawing in a language other than English. See attached drawing. o A104550 Q: Will the Government provide the listed drawing in English? A: The Government will not be able to provide the drawing in English Ref: Previous Q&A Q: Is data available on historical parts consumption in support of remanufacturing / repair activity? A: Depot maintenance cost reports (without cost data) will be provided as at attachment to the RFP. Q: It does not appear as if the USG provided the Depot maintenance cost reports (without cost data) as promised in the Industry Day Q&A response.� This data is also listed as being provided in the solicitation as Attachment 0025 (ref pg 75, Ref J of solicitation W15QKN-21-R-0025).� This data is required in order to properly plan for the procurement of parts in support of the depot activity.� We will need at least 90 days after receipt of the Depot Maintenance Cost Reports to obtain costing information and submit a proposal. A: This was omitted in error and is now on SAM.GOV for download. Ref: Section C, para C.3.2.3 Para C.3.2.3. of W15QKN-21-R-0025 states �The Contractor shall convert RWS systems from the M151 or RWS configurations to any other feasible RWS configuration and test, and deliver to the Government. The parts delivered shall satisfy all the requirements of GSPEC00008 unless otherwise noted in this SOW.� Q: No information has been provided to date on the M151 configuration and the differences between that configuration and the other RWS configurations.�� We will need at least 90 days after receipt of the M151 configuration to obtain costing information and submit a proposal. A: Conversion production are not currently separate LINs to be proposed within this solicitation. The Government has already provided a conversion TDP as a reference for the offerors under ECP-10896 and ECP 10919. Conversions will be priced after contract award utilizing the awarded labor rates from exhibit K and material prices in exhibit G. Ref: Attachment 0016, Exhibit K Solicitation Attachment 0016, Exhibit K � Depot (Pricing Matrix) states: �Material costs will be proposed on a task/delivery order basis, utilizing the unit prices negotiated and incorporated of the resultant contract in Exhibit G - SRUs.�� The Government provided amounts are shown in the chart below for evaluation purposes only.�� Q: Our interpretation of Exhibit G is this only includes pricing for �new production� SRU�s.� There are no provisions in Attachment 0016 to provide overhaul/repair pricing for SRU�s (or LRU�s) for use in depot maintenance of the Systems, Attachment 0016, Exhibit K.� Standard Depot Maintenance practices are to utilize overhauled or repaired material for LRU�s and SRU�s where allowed and practical as this practice results in lower costs and lead times.� Please clarify the acceptability of overhauled / repaired LRU�s and SRU�s for the depot operations and provide guidance on where these items are to be priced in Solicitation Attachment 16. A: Exhibit G is the Government's expected material needed at depot based on historical operations. if the Contractor chooses to repair at a different level and is bilaterally agreed to by the Government, then the material cost shall be invoiced at the actual labor hours and cost of the material used for the SRU repair. Ref: TDP In Section 1, pg 4-5 and Section 7, pg 99 of Document 1DOO60201888-01 (Work Instruction for Mechanical assembly of Main Frame Assembly, Part Number 60201888-01) there is a reference to a test document �4DOO68095598, Work Instruction for Leakage Test of Main Frame Assembly�.� We are unable to locate the 4DOO68095598 document anywhere in the supplied technical data. Q: Please provide the missing 4DOO68095598 document ASAP to support the estimating for the Main Frame Assembly testing. A: Test procedures will not be provided. Test requirements are provided in the TDP. For the MFA 60201888-01, the leak test requirements are provided in A124313. Ref: RFP, page 117, d. Total Evaluated Price: States: The total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the evaluated prices for the Service LINs, the weighted evaluated prices for the Supply LINs and the price evaluation preferences for HUBZone Small Business Concerns and the Royalty adjustment, when applicable Q: Will the government confirm the Royalty adjustment is applied to new production items only and is not applied to repair or depot repair items? A: Correct, royalty adjustment is only applied to new production. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents A thorough review of the TDP has not resulted in an identifiable Bill(s) of Materials. Q: Would the government point us to the indented BOM for each CROWS variant? A: Each CROWS variant is described by a part number starting with 60201886. Within the TDP HTML structure, these are defined as type ""System Part"". The parts list icon ( ��) can be clicked next to the ""System Part"" to show the BOM for the configuration. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents Pricing efforts have encountered parts that are available exclusively to Kongsberg and unavailable for purchase. We are compiling a list but provide the following example: sell to Kongsberg only list from one wire vendor TE Connectivity (attached, TE Connectivity No Buy List.png). Q: Will the Government arrange for such exclusive parts to be made available for Offeror pricing/purchase or provide these separately as GFE? A: The government will provide direction at the conclusion of its resolution effort on this matter. Ref: Q&A�s released 11-02-2021 States: We will provide the approved LCSP and CPD. The LCSP should contain information pertaining to sustainment metrics. We do not have a baseline of the 12 IPS elements that we can share. We will answer any specific questions with respect to the 12 IPS elements that the LCSP does not address. Q: To support generating the required draft ISP for the response, when will the Government provide the LCSP and CPD? A: These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE, if you did not receive a copy please request the documents with the contract specialist. Ref: RFP, Section C, Performance Work Statement, C.3.6.4 Depot Setup and Operation States: The Contractor shall manage and maintain a depot-level maintenance and repair capability for components to include overhaul, recapitalization, warranty repairs, all Subcontractor repair actions, and other support required to return the system (new, existing, and recapitalized), assemblies or components to a serviceable condition Q: Is the word �depot� in Section C.3.6.4 defined to be an existing U.S. Army depot facility? If the definition is an existing U.S. Army depot facility, is the Offeror expected to establish a support relationship with a specific U.S. Army depot? If Offerors are expected to establish a support relationship with a specific U.S. Army depot, would the Government provide which U.S. Army depot the relationship is to be established? A: No, the word depot is not defined to be an existing U.S. Army depot facility. Offerors are required to establish their own depot facility. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents A review of the TDP has discovered that the documentation for 50031661-00 CABLE TWINAX 0026A0024-9X 100OHM WHITE,�attached (A31137_-.pdf), is incomplete and lacks reference to the part. Q: Will the Government provide the complete / correct document? A: Updated document will be provided. Ref: Q&As 11/03/2021 States: The Government is currently updating the technical manuals for the tech refresh versions. For information purposes the Government will provide the TM 9-1090-219-10, TM 9-1090-222-10, TM 9-1090-219-23&P, and TM 9-1090-222-23&P as attachments to the RFP. Q: To support generating the response, when will the Government provide the listed Technical Manuals? A: These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE, if you did not receive a copy please request the documents with the contract specialist. Ref: RFP, Section C.3.3.5 Configuration Management and Control Ideally CM would be supported by a real-time interface between the Government and the Contractor�s CM systems, or by Contractor access to the Government�s tools. Q1: What are the government�s tools for configuration management? A1: The USG uses a collaborative data environment called Windchill. This is also the same environment used for CDRL delivery. Q2: Will the contractor have access to the government�s CM tool(s)? A2: Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the contractor awardee will be given access to all relevant tools. Q3: Will the contractor also have digital connectivity to pass data to/from the government�s CM tool(s). A3: Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the contractor awardee will be given access to all relevant tools. Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents Pricing and execution necessarily include assessing the contractor�s performance risk after contract award. To that end: Q: Does the Government own and possess the TDP documents/ native files that were not originally released with the solicitation? A: Yes Ref: SOW, C.3.3.5.5 SOW C.3.3.5.5 states to procure all hardware/software/firmware to a single design. Q: When there is an Engineering Change or a variant of the single design (i.e., an option/change would classify as a variant to the single design), does the requirement need the Offeror to: (1) rev dash each variant (meaning there is a single design for the RWS, but if the option for a specific caliber was activated the result would be the same core part number with a different dash number (e.g., main design is XXXXXX-001 and the one with the specific caliber option would be XXXXXX-004); or (2) wrap the entire design in a single rev dash number with options (meaning there is a single design for the RWS, and if the option for a specific caliber was activated the same part number would be utilized with no differentiation, therefore main design and the option activated designs will be XXXXXX-001 and the Serial Number will determine if the option is enabled or not)? A: The Offeror will need to deliver everything to the one design contained in the TDP unless there is an approved ECP.� If there is an approved ECP, there would be a change in Revision or part number.� It is also possible that through engineering services the Government would add additional designs, but when the Government buys to a given design, the Offeror cannot make changes to it without an ECP (that is then reflected through a change in Revision or part number) Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents Drawing A104550_-.pdf (attached) is in a language other than English. Q:� Will the Government provide the drawing in English? A: No, the Government will not provide the drawing in English. Ref: Q&A, Released 10-23-2021 In an earlier question from 10-22-2021, the question was asked about a number of drawings written in a language other than English. In response to the Government reply �The alleged issues are stated generally and without specifics, thus preventing the GOV from addressing or explaining any perceived issues,� we provided specific examples of documents in the TDP that are in a language other than English. Q1: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents released to offerors as of today (Nov 9, 2021) are in English language only? A1: The Government acknowledges that there are documents in our TDP in languages other than English. Q2: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents in their possession are in English and not in a language other than English? A2: The Government acknowledges that there are documents in our TDP in languages other than English. Q3: Will Government re-issue those documents in the TDP that are in a language other than English to Offerors prior to the current proposal due date of 22 November? A3: No, the Government will not re-issue documents that are currently in a language other than English. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/10/2021-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The request for proposal has been extended to December 23, 2021 at 12:00pm.� -------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/09/2021-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Ref:�Multiple documents in the TDP are in languages other than English. Examples of these are Drawing 81-053 (French), Drawing A102921 (German), and others are believed to be in Nordic. Q: Request the Government provide these documents and all documents in the TDP in English. A: 81-053: Part number 68112449 is a source controlled part. This part can be purchased from EMKA Beschlagteile, with vendor part number 6004-U30-JD. A102921: Part number 60202420-00� is a source controlled part. This part can be purchased from Norelem, with vendor part number 03025-04. For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified. Ref:�Multiple documents in the TDP are incomplete or missing drawings and/or data. Examples of these are Drawing 81-053 (part of the drawing is cut off as well as the distribution statement is missing); Drawing 68098107 (missing length and width of a part); and Drawing S405009_U (data on the drawing is cut off as well as the distribution statement is missing). Q1: Will the Government correct these drawings and issue to offerors? A: 81-053: Part number 68112449 is a source controlled part. This part can be purchased from EMKA Beschlagteile, with vendor part number 6004-U30-JD. The distribution statement is on the datasheet in the TDP. 68098107: All information for this part is in the provided drawing. S405009_U: We acknowledge that there is some information cutoff, but all the relevant information to procure this part is legible.� The distribution statement is on the datasheet in the TDP. For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified. Q2:�Will the Government review all drawings in the TDP for accuracy and complete details and information? A: The TDPs are provided to set the parameters within which the contractor shall build the RWS hardware.� The Government does NOT warrant that all RWS built to the Technical Data Package will meet requirements or interface seamlessly with the provided software.� The Government only warrants that it is possible to build RWS, within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, which meet requirements.� This is represented by the RWS provided to the contractor.� The contractor shall be responsible for determining how to build RWS within the constraints of the Technical Data Package that (when combined with the provided software executable code) meet all requirements as outlined in this Statement of Work and the Detail Specification. For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified. Ref: Attachment 11 is the QSPEC008 dated 6 October, 2020. The document is watermarked as �Draft�. Q1: Will the Government confirm the Draft Document is the most recent and authoritative QSPEC008 for Offerors? A: Attachment 0011 GSPEC00008 dated 06 Oct 2020 is not a DRAFT. A DRAFT GPEC00008 was released with the DRAFT RFP. Q2: If the Attachment issued with the solicitation is not the most recent and authoritative QSPEC008 for reference, will the Government either acknowledge the draft document and provide instructions for use or will the Government issue the approved QSPEC008 for use by Offerors? A: Attachment 0011 GSPEC00008 dated 06 Oct 2020 is not a DRAFT. A DRAFT GPEC00008 was released with the DRAFT RFP. Ref: In Exhibit D, the CROWS M153 listed as LIN 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 are annotated as �TBD�. The configuration of these systems is not found in the solicitation or the TDPs. Q1:�Will the Government provide the configuration of these documents in order to configure and estimate each LIN? A: The TBD is in reference to the model number (M153Ax) only. The TDP for these LINs can be found within the entire TDP package released. Q2: Is the Government�s intent for LIN 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 to provide a plug value for all Offerors to use in our response? A: No, it is the USG's intent for the Offerors to bid based on the provided TDPs. Ref:�In the TDPs and Attachment 16 there is not a list of parts that Offerors may not deviate from. Q: Request that the Government define a list of parts for each system and variant that Offerors will not deviate from, and that list be provided to Offerors. A: All Offerors must meet all requirements of the TDP. If an item has detailed drawings, it must meet those detailed drawings. If an item is a product specification, it must meet all specifications,. For items that are source controlled, must be procured from the identified source. Any deviations to the TDP must be approved by the Government via an ECP per the requirements in the SOW. Ref: While absorbing the GFI Technical Design Packages, multiple items have been identified as sole-source products of American Rheinmetall Systems, LLC., Rheinmetall AG, Hansen Protection, and MOOG.� The list is expanding daily.� To date, two of the vendors listed in the TDP (American Rheinmetall Systems and Hansen Protection) have declined to provide prices due to an exclusive agreement with Kongsberg.� We are unable to procure quotes from alternate sources as detailed dimension data (i.e., SolidWorks drawings) are not being provided until post-award.� Consequently, we are unable to provide prices for these items. Once provided Solidworks drawings, qualifying new suppliers and products with materials made by these new suppliers will add cost and risk to the proposal for all non-incumbents. Q1: Will the Government address this issue by providing Solidworks drawings? If so, will the Government extend the proposal due date to allow time to obtain quotes from alternate vendors for these items? Q2: Alternatively, will the Government provide such items as GFE and/or provide a material plug number for all offerors to use? A: Government is looking into resolving any perceived exclusivity agreements. Please provide specific part numbers for the affected parts. Ref: Accurate prediction of risk, failure rates and estimated costs associated with the warranty program of the current design cannot be accomplished without historical reliability data for each variant at the system, SRU, and LRU levels. Q1: Will the Government provide failure data, with a minimum of two (2) years of data? Q2:�Will the Government provide warranty utilization data for the previous three (3) years? A: Historical data is provided in Attachment 0025. Ref: Paragraph C.3.3.1.3.1 states, in part: Contractor personnel shall have a favorably adjudicated Secret security clearance, at minimum, prior to perform on this contract, and prior to access to classified information/material.� Also, in part: The Contractor will be required to have a Secret facility security clearance with up to Secret safeguarding capabilities for receiving, generating and storing classified information, material, software, and hardware.� The Contractor will have the appropriate level of investigation and security clearance for each site of performance of work. Most of the manufacturing and production work performed under this contract is unclassified. Q1:� Is there a requirement to flow down classified facility requirements to subcontractors performing unclassified work on unclassified systems in unclassified facilities? A: No, if a subcontractor is exclusively performing unclassified work on unclassified systems, then classified facility requirements need not be flowed down. Q2: Is there a requirement for personnel performing unclassified work on unclassified systems in unclassified facilities to possess security clearances?�� A: No, there is no requirement for personnel performing unclassified work on unclassified systems in unclassified facilities to possess security clearances. Ref: Review of the provided TDP reveals no classified components. Q:�Will the government provide a list of classified components and subsystems on each of the variants? A: At this time there are no components on any of the systems that are classified. Ref: Review of the TDP has identified the following irregularities in the Technical Data Packages which currently deny Offerors other than the incumbent the ability to competitively price: a.�� Missing portions of drawings b.�� Drawings and technical data in languages other than English c.�� Missing distribution lists d.�� Missing specifications e.�� Identified vendors in drawings that decline to provide alternatives or pricing of components and subsystems Q: Will the government provide an updated complete and correct TDP� for all Offerors? A: Please provide specific part numbers where vendors have declined to provide pricing for source controlled parts. For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/03/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions and Answers Ref:�TDP, Multiple Documents Our review of TDPs reveals 11,711 missing documents of CAD models, CAD drawings, specifications, SolidWorks drawings, SolidWorks components, SolidWorks assemblies, test descriptions, technical notes, and more (see attached spreadsheet). These documents are important to develop BOM and our pricing. Without the documents Offerors are at a distinct disadvantage in estimating costs without undue risk to both the Offeror and the government.� Q: Will the government provide these documents to all Offerors? A:�The native files are not necessary for bid but will be sent to the winning contractor upon contract award. Ref:�TDP, Multiple Documents Q:�Given the volume of missing documents and the potential impact on our ability to develop accurate, reasonable pricing, will the government extend the due date of proposals at least 30 days beyond the release of the 11,711 missing documents?� A:�The Government does not believe that the TDP released to prospective offerors is missing any files. �If the TDP contained any material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified. Ref:�SOW, C.3.2.4.2 States: The delivered RWS shall be built within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, and the delivered RWS components shall be seamlessly interchangeable in both directions with all existing RWS components down to the lowest individual piece/part level. [emphasis added] Q:�Does �individual piece/part level� mean LRU? A:�The �individual piece/part level� means Shop Replaceable Unit (SRU) and is defined by Exhibit G which is titled SRU. Ref:�SOW, C.3.2.4.2 Q: If �individual piece/part level� does not mean LRU, will the government define �individual piece/part level�? A:�The �individual piece/part level� means Shop Replaceable Unit (SRU) and is defined by Exhibit G which is titled SRU. Ref:�SOW, C.3.3.5.5-, tates: For each item produced under this contract, all hardware, software, and firmware delivered shall be of a single design. Q:�Does this requirement apply to each variant as an instance dash number or does this apply to all variants as a whole instance dash number? A:�Don't understand the question. Ref:�C.3.4.5 states: The Contractor shall perform Conformance Inspection and Testing as specified in Section 4 of the respective Specification and Section E of the contract. Q: Would the Government clarify the reference to Section 4? A:�As of now, the only respective specification is GSPEC00008 Ref: SOW, C.3.4.5 Q:�If this Section is in the solicitation documents, would the government point to the referenced Section 4? A:�As of now, the only respective specification is GSPEC00008 Ref:�C.3.6.2.1 states: The Contractor shall conduct a warranty program for a period of two years from the date of delivery of each production system to ensure that any workmanship or material deficiency of any delivered system is corrected by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government. Q: Will the government change ��two years from the date of delivery�� to ��two years from the original date of delivery as shown on the DD250��? A:�No. The USG doesn't see the value of making this change at this time. Ref:�C.3.6.2.2.2 states: The Government will be responsible for shipping items returned for warranty service, and the Contractor shall be responsible for shipping costs for returning the warranted item to the Government within CONUS. Q:�Is the contractor responsible for shipping costs of new items to FOB? A: No. Ref:�C.3.6.2.2.2 Q:�Is the contractor responsible for shipping non-warranty items for repair or rebuild to the depot and contractor�s facility? A:�No, the contractor is not responsible for shipping non-warranty items from/to the Government. Ref:�SOW, C.3.6.4.1.1. states: If field maintenance does not have the capability to repair a particular component or system-level failure, that component or system is designated a ""Not Repairable This Station"" item and forwarded to the next higher repair authority: the depot. Q: What is the process for depot maintenance work requests (DMWR)?� A:�The USG will establish a process with the contractor after contract award to properly integrate the USG and contractor's established processes. Ref: SOW, C.3.6.4.1.1 Q:�Is the DMWR generated by the contractor or the field maintenance?� A:�The USG will establish a process with the contractor after contract award to properly integrate the USG and contractor's established processes. Ref: Q&A released 10-21-2021 states:�The Government�s permission to release the CROWS TDP for competition purposes and the royalty for non-incumbent-made systems are both terms of license agreement with the incumbent.��The agreement itself is not releasable. Q: Will the government release the CROWS TDP in its entirety to Offerors? A:�We have released the CROWS TDP in its entirety for the purposes of this competition and will release the native files to the winning offeror upon award. Ref: SOW, C.2.1.2,��Technical Manual 9-1090-219-23&P contains data and information that would benefit Offerors in identifying parts and subsystems to Remote Weapons Systems. Q: Would the government provide an electronic media copy of the Technical Manual to Offerors? A:�The Government is currently updating the technical manuals for the tech refresh versions. For information purposes the Government will provide the TM 9-1090-219-10, TM 9-1090-222-10, TM 9-1090-219-23&P, and TM 9-1090-222-23&P as attachments to the RFP. Ref:�Attachment 0016/SOW C3.6.4.5, Exhibit K RFP States: C.3.6.4.5. Report. The Contractor shall submit a Depot Maintenance Cost Report every 90 days that includes a breakdown of labor categories, labor hours, labor rates, materials, and material prices per Contractor and Subcontractor line item repair. The Depot Maintenance Cost Report shall include the average LRU repair cost for each LRU during the reporting periods (CDRL A028, DI-FNCL-80462, Depot Maintenance Cost Report) Q: The RFP requires pricing of Depot and repair by use of the same fully loaded rates that is priced in Exhibit C. Exhibit K excludes the ability to propose for performance at a subcontractor location. If the Government requests reporting of subcontractor labor/rates, will the Government update Exhibit K to include subcontractor labor rates?� A:�The labor rate proposed on Exhibit K on this contract will be used for depot and repair regardless of whether the repair is performed by the prime or a sub-supplier. For CDRL A028 reporting, subcontractor repairs labor categories and rates shall be based on Exhibit K. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/02/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FYI, the POC's email have been changed to the following: renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil Attachment 0016 has been updated and attached along with Attachment 0025 Questions and Answers Ref: C.3.6.2.1. The Contractor shall conduct a warranty program for a period of two years from the date of delivery of each production system to ensure that any workmanship or material deficiency of any delivered system is corrected by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government. Warranty shall not apply to spare parts or repairs. Q: Exhibits G� (SRUs)� & H� (LRUs) specify a 2-year warranty period for spares, however Exhibit D (Systems) does not specify a warranty period. The SOW specifies that warranty is not to be applied to spares or repairs, but is to be applied to systems, which is opposite of what is requested in Attachment 16. Will the government please clarify how warranty is to be applied in Attachment 16 and correct the spreadsheet if it is in error? A: We don't want warranty on spares but we do want it on systems. This will be corrected on the attachment. Ref: RFP, Section C.3.6.1 C.3.6.1. states: The Contractor shall establish an Integrated Product Support program as an integral part of the RWS Production and or development process and ensure realistic application of each IPS element. The Contractor shall assess the impact of design changes on each of the IPS elements, identify risks to include achieving the necessary support for each of the IPS elements, and outline strategies to mitigate these risks. This assessment shall be documented in the Integrated Logistics Support Plan. The objective in this phase is to ensure the program develops an integrated logistics system that meets production and or development requirements, sustains system performance specifications, manages operating and support costs, optimizes the logistics footprint, and complies with environmental and other logistics-related regulations. The Contractor shall use MIL-HDBK-502A, AR 700-127, and the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) IPS Guidebook as guides for the IPS effort. The Contractor shall plan required support actions and provide the transition of all data, files, information, and records established and/or maintained under this ...
Web Link: SAM.gov Permalink
(https://beta.sam.gov/opp/30daebcda20c4e63b7f7421bd1726d8b/view)
Record: SN06181819-F 20211121/211119230041 (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 |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

10 -- Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)