If during fit up design issues are discovered they must by 08c5mV

VIEWS: 27 PAGES: 52

									         Some of the listed Questions may have been edited by the Government for the sake of improving clarity, protecting the identity of offerors, ensuring that proprieta
                                                                                              appropriate reasons.




103 A follow-up to question 27, on cost and pricing data. You have stated in your answer (to question 27) that
    other than certified cost and pricing data is being required in section L.5.4, from both us and from our major
    subcontractors. It is our understanding from FAR 15 that such data should not be required of either us or
    our major subcontractors unless it turns out that you receive only one offer that satisfies the Government’s
    expressed requirement, since price is a major factor in evaluating the proposals. (Just so you are aware, one
    of our prospective subcontractors is even a Government facility and yet has refused to provide the data you
    require in Section L.5.4.) Would you please explain to us (and so to our subcontractors) how it is that you
    must require such data, in view of FAR 15.403-3(b), which refers to 15.403-1(c)(1) for a standard by which to
    determine whether there is adequate price competition, or, in the alternative, would you strike section L.5.4?


102 For the base year contract, our support is less than $5M. If the contract is exercised through full options, our
    support is greater than $5M. Do we need to detail our data as stated in L.5.4.12?




101 Please see the attached PDF acknowledging that XXXX. has received all amendments to
    solicitation W56HZV-12-R-0084. Also, don't hesitate to let me know if this is the
    correct protocol for acknowledging receipt of amendments. If there is anything else
    we need to do let me know.
    On the Excel Pricing Spreadsheet, titled Att 9, under the Summary Tab, the formula
100 for the M915A5 B-Kits in cell C16 is =-'M915A5 B-Kit'!F47. The minus sign in the
    formula causes the amount for the M915A5 B-Kits to be subtracted from the Total
    Evaluated Price. We respectfully request validation that this is the correct formula.




99
     The question was received exactly as follows, except the name of the submitter was
     replaced by "XXXX": XXXX is questioning whether on the M915A5 requirement C.5.4 on
     Amendment is the a new revised drawing TDP to allow the wiring / electrical to be
     connected in the kits?



   In regards to subcontractors meeting the over $5,000,000 contract value, we
   respectfully request your requirements/directions for subcontractors to submit their
98 proprietary pricing and cost information (sealed bid) to PCO, Jennifer Meyer via e-
   mail. For example, is there a specific heading or information you would like the
   subcontractor to reference in order to link their sealed bid submission to the
   appropriate offeror’s proposal submission?




     Ref: L.5.1 and L.6.1.2: L.5. - The clause reads .. . "The offeror shall fill in the Government provided Excel summary spreadsheet found in
     Attachment 9. The filled in Excel spreadsheet shall contain all of the Offerors prices, Including first article test and options. Do not input
97   any proposed prices into Section B of the solicitation. The offeror shall propose range pricing for each option CLIN using the format in
     the attached spreadsheet (Attachment 9). The offeror shall provide one firm fixed price for each first article test, and each kit for the
     base, and for each kit for each projected quantity range for each of the four options. The The
     offeror may enter the same unit price for all ranges for each kit in a particular ordering year."        L.6. 1.2 - The clause reads ... "One
     copy of this solicitation (Sections A-K) with all clauses and other fill-ins completed. Any required certifications and representations that
     are required under the solicitation. "       l.5.1 - Instructs offerors to NOT input any proposed prices into Section B of the solicitation.
     The only blanks in Section B are for prices; therefore. Section B may contain no data. Is it permissible to simply omit pages 6 - 55 of the
     solicitation when complying with l.6.1.2?
   The current finish requirement for the aluminum parts of the M915A B-Kits require MIL-
   STD-171 section 7.3.1: chemical film, chromate, MIL-C-5541 Class 1A for maximum
96 protection against corrosion, painted or unpainted. Is it possible to substitute to
   TT-C-490E Aqueon Iron Phosphate Bath and TT-C-490E TYIII, MIL-C-8541 Wash Prime?
   Also, the current requirement for steel parts in the B Kits MIL-STD-171 Section 5.1.1
   Zinc Phosphate base, TT-C-490 Ty I. Is it possible to substitute to MIL-STD-171
   Section 5.1.2 Iron Phosphate base, TT-C-490 Ty II or IV?



   Ref: Substitue finishing requirements: Due to the prohibition of Hexavalent Chrome, the use of washer
   primers is not allowed on aluminum products. It is our plan to substitute a Mil-C-5541 Type II trivalent
   chrome conversion coating. Is this acceptable?        Due to the prohibition of Hexavalent Chrome, the use of
   wash primers is not allowed on steel products. It is our plan to substitute a Zinc Rich Primer A-A-59745 in
   accordance with the requirements of Mil-DTL-53072D. Is this acceptable?            Would it be to the advantage
95
   of the government to substitute a Mil-C-5541 Type II trivalent chrome conversion coating for those items
   requiring a MiI-C-5541 Type I hexavalent chrome conversion coating?            Would it be to the advantage of
   the government to substitute a Zinc Rich Primer A-A-59745 for those products requiring the use of Zinc
   Phosphate base per TT-C-490, type I?        If the Army accepts these suggested changes, offerers may then
   standardize on a single process, thereby reducing offerers costs and prices to the Army. If you agree to these
   suggestions, a change in contract language would suffice versus changing any and all technical documents.
94

     Items identified on drawings for HEMT/PLS on the CD for Amendment 2 do not have the
     next higher assembly or quantity per identified: 8338561, 8338562, 8338564, 8338566,
     8724494, 8724495, 8724497




93 What TAM part number/assembly number these below are on because I am unable to find anything on the
   drawings 3593368 3593395 3597513
     Note 5 on drawing 12558116 for the M915 front transparent armor calls out an indium tin oxide (ITO)
     conductive coating for the purposes of de-icing, as described in Note 3. The electrical parameters
     in Note 5 would require an indium tin oxide coating with a very low resistance that is only
     available from a select group of custom coaters. To exactly meet the wording in this note, a
     current manufacturer could be used to supply the M915 front transparent armor; however, this
     approach will double the First Article and Production Lot Testing costs required by ATPD 2352 since
     two manufacturers must now be qualified.        We propose two alternate solutions that would meet
     the de-icing requirement specified in Note 5 while allowing full internal production of the
     transparent armor, thus halving the qualification/lot testing costs as well as lowering the actual
     part price.   Because of the expense of ITO, a newer conductive coating called fluorine-doped tin
     oxide (FTO) has been developed by the glass industry.   We could readily incorporate this
92   commercially-available product into our own laminate design, which would eliminate the need to
     qualify a laminate from another vendor. The electrical and de-icing requirements of Note 3 and Note
     5 would be fulfilled.        Alternatively, we would use an embedded heat mat to meet the de-icing
     requirements in Note 3, which would also eliminate the need to use an outside vendor. Heat mat
     technology is the industry standard and has been proven on thousands of military vehicle windows we
     have manufactured and fielded and will be used for the HEMTT windshield included in this proposal.
     By substituting a heat mat for a conductive coating, the transparent armor design will have
     increased protection from rock strike damage as well as improved light transmittance. The current
     draw of a heat mat would be in the range specified by Note 5, and the cost of a heat mat is
     comparable or less than conductively-coated glass.          In light of the performance benefits at
     no additional piece part cost along with First Article and Production Lot Test cost savings, we
91 We understand subcontractors estimated to be providing over $5m in product in our proposal are required
   to submit Data other then Cost and Pricing for L.5.4.1 through L.5.4.11 direct to the USG. Are they also
   required to submit data for L.5.4.13 and L 5.4.14 (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) and L.5.5?

     Ref: L.5.4.1 Material Cost: This section requires offerors to provide the total direct material per vehicle. Are
90
     we correct in believing this is a drafting error and what is desired is per kit?

   We were able to open the PDFs without issue, but have not had success with the CAD files. We have tried
   using AutoCAD and the Autodesk CAD viewer, but neither have worked. Is it possible the files we received
89
   were corrupted for some reason? Perhaps the CAD folders can be re-zipped, or file extensions can be
   regenerated for the CAD files.

   We received the technical data CD but we are encountering some difficulty opening the
   drawings. Would you be able to tell me the format in which they were originally
88
   saved. The files lack an extension. We have tried the Autodesk Viewer without
   success.




   1. Ref PN: 12558089 Roof for M915. As drawn this is a machined product. We propose
   a bent roof which would provide significant savings by a magnitude of approximately
   4x. We can specially procure .80” thick plate (matching the reference dimension on
87 the Roof drawing 12558089) which would allow us to provide the component to the
   drawing by bending material to the final overall thickness of .080 rather than
   procuring 3.00 thick material and machining down to .080 thickness. The only
   potential issue is the interference between the bend radius of the roof panel & the
   peak at the joint between the Rear Middle Plate 12558251 & the Driver/Passenger Rear
   Plates 12558250/52 which is .003” which we consider insignificant. Can a bent plate
   roof be proposed rather than the machined roof configuration?
   2. Ref. PN 12558116 Front Window for HEMT/PLS. The drawing calls for ITO defrost.
   We propose a heated wire type which is electrically & geometrically a direct
   replacement for the specified ITO conductive coating type specified and provides a
   significant savings of approximately 3x. Typically an ITO coated window has reduced
86 visibility due to the area being defrosted is limited to the spacing of the bus bar
   and electrical current provided. In order to maximize visibility and electrical
   conductivity for ITO the outer layer of glass must be a minimum thickness which does
   not provide for rock strike capability. A heated mat defrost system maximizes the
   defrost area to almost 100% of the viewable area utilizing the same electrical
   requirement as well as providing an effective rock strike capability. Can we propose
   a heated mat windshield instead of the ITO windshield?




85

     3. If it is required we propose according to the TDP, that is, a machined roof and
     ITO coated windshield at a much greater cost, how do we propose a bent roof and heat
     mat windshield as an alternate so the USG can evaluate the significant cost savings
     and performance improvement?



   Ref: M915A5 B-Kit Roof. Part Number 12558089: In the Notes section of this print (upper left hand corner),
   the material callout for this part is to be made from 3.0 inch thick material. The finished geometry does not
84
   allow for a bend radius in two locations; therefore, is it possible to change the geometry to allow for the part
   to be formed from thinner gauge material, such as .75" to .88"? If the government would allow this thinner
   gauge, our cost estimate would be significantly lower and allow us to offer a lower price to the government.
83 Ref: M915A B-Kit. Per drawing 12558053. as found in Attachment 0004: The parts list calls for item 19, part
   number 12558057, Door Assist Kit, 1 per. The Drawings folder for Attachment 0004 contains a document
   named "DAS Install M915A5 BKIT. Our reading is that there is no link between the hardware described in the
   referenced technical drawing and the DAS Install M915A5 B-Kit. To provide an accurate quote, we require a
   complete understanding of the relationship between these two. Specifically, should we omit any price for the
   effort to link these two, on the basis that the contractor is not responsible for that effort?




   In solicitation W56HZV-12-R-0084 Section D.3.1.2 it is stated “Container shall not be
   larger than can fit inside of a standard 20-foot ISO container (dimensions given) and
   shall weigh less than 10,000 pounds. Each shipping container shall be designed to
   hold one (1) kit and to allow for removal of top panel and one side panel.” 1.) May
82 the kit be packaged in two (2) separate containers i.e. ‘1 of 2’ and ‘2 of 2’ in
   order to maximize packaging efficiencies?   Section D.3.1.1 states “Kit components to
   be arranged so that they are removed from the container in installation sequence”?
   2.) If it would result in better packaging efficiencies and utilization of available
   packing space, could this requirement be waived? Packaging in a ‘nesting’
   arrangement could possibly provide better stabilization for the parts as well as
   minimize the packaging space required for the kit (resulting in lower freight costs),
   however these benefits would not be realized if this requirement is enforced.
   Ref: L.3.2(b) (I): This section states to "Provide the dimensional size of all structures, storage areas, lots, test
   facilities. open areas, and shipping/receiving areas." Our offer uses these descriptions of the qualifications of
   these requirements: a) For "'Structures", we use GROSS square feet, as measured by the OUTSIDE
81 dimensions. For all other entries, we use NET square feet. as measured by the INSIDE dimensions, indicating
   the space actually available for use. (b) "Lots" means open floor space for unique or special batch products.
   "Open Areas" means floor space available and NOT being used for manufacturing processes or equipment.
   Question. Do these descriptions meet the Army's needs for evaluation?




   Does C.5.1.1d(1) really mean that if the Contractor suggests a change, and the Government approves, the
   Government will not be responsible for the added costs? This will certainly discourage the Contractor from
80
   suggesting contract changes. We respectfully suggest you either delete this clause, OR replace it with:
   C.5.1.1d(1) "If the contractor makes a request for change, and the Government approves, such changes will
   be subject to an equitable adjustment in the contract price."

   We would like to use the Past Performance from a subcontractor providing materials and include additional
79 value added labor on those materials before delivery to us. May we use that company's Past Performance, in
   spite of the L.4.1. clause?

   Are the pre-packaged HEMTTA4, PLSA1, HEMTTA4 TAM, and M915A5 B-Kits available for review to industry?
   If so, where are they located and may we visit that location to examine the details not available through a
78
   picture? This additional information would decrease our risk and allow us to provide a lower price to the
   Army.
   Ref: General Tolerances: The HEMTT A4 B-Kit and the PLSA 1 B-Kit TDP are mature designs. Their tolerances
   are in alignment with the manufacturing process required for this program. In contrast, each of the HEMTT
   TAM TDP and the M915A TDP are newer designs, with tolerances significantly lower than the standard
77 manufacturing processes. For example, all two place decimals on the HEMTTA4 B-Kit and the PLSA1 B-Kit
   have tolerance + or - .060" while the tolerance for two place decimals on the HEMTT TAM and M915A5 are +
   or - .020". In some cases, this may not be physically possible. For example, the current tolerance would
   cause the manufacturer to attempt to place labels to + or -.020" . Would the government agree to relax
   these tolerances, to be consistent with the tolerances from the more mature designs?


   We are an Israeli company and we are trying to answer the Solicitation for the HEMMT
76 B kit. We are currently waiting for the Israeli Embassy to obtain the classified
   annex for us, and I was wondering if there is a way for us to view the sketches of
   parts for the HEMMT outside the classified annex? I haven’t found a way to view them.



75 I am missing p/n 12558190 (Door Inside Window Frame Base) from my M915A B-Kit TDP. Could you please
   provide this print?




74

     We have one more question for you regarding Subcontractors over $5,000,000.00. Can
     the subcontractor submit their pricing and cost (transparency data) information
     through a sealed bid function?



     Regarding Volume Pricing Section 2.8 Major Subcontractors, does the major
73
     subcontractor’s data other than cost and pricing need to be integrated into the Prime
     Contractor’s Cost and Pricing data or should it be submitted separately?
   Ref: Missing Prints for HEMTT TAM B·kit: The following Part Numbers are missing from the Attachment 0003 -
   Technical Data Package: 12536649 Upper Ladder, 12536658 Lower Ladder, 12536668 Top Railing and RIA
   153607 Placard. We have found the Cage Code for these Part Numbers in the installation instructions;
72
   however, to be consistent with the other components in the kit. we request manufacturing data so that we
   may provide a competitive price to the government. Please provide these missing Part Numbers at your
   earliest convenience.

   After a complete review of the provided attachments ( 3 & 4) we have found the
71 following drawings on CDs/Attachments are missing: HEMTT TAM (Disk/Attachment 3):
   57K6850-HEMTT TAM B-KIT ARMOR, 12536649 - Upper Ladder, 12536658-Lower Ladder,
   12536668-Railing, Top, RIA153607-Placard.




70

     We respectfully requests the M915A5 missing TDP drawing, 12558273 SHIM, DOOR HINGE for Solicitation
     W56HZV-12-R-0084.


   Under section H. Government Furnished Material GFM sub- paragraph H.2 Calls out the purchase of the
   suspension upgrade for the PLSA1 B-Kit via the Oshkosh point of contact provided in the solicitation. *It is to
   be understood that we (the bidder) will be provided the suspension upgrade as GFM? *With no pricing
69
   included in our bid submission? *Or should it understood that we (the bidder) will purchase the suspension
   upgrade from Oshkosh incorporating suspension upgrade cost into our PLSA1 B-Kit bid pricing? *If we are to
   purchase the upgrade from Oshkosh will all bidders receive the same upgrade pricing to ensure a level
   playing field?

   The delivery schedule requires delivery of 3 of each kit for FAI. However, the schedule for delivery of Gov't
   furnished vehicles for Contractor fit up is also 180 DAC and the Contractor will have access to these machines
68 only until 210 DAC. It would be more appropriate to have the Gov't vehicles delivered by 120 DAC which
   would allow 60 days for the Contractor to do his own fit-ups and modifications prior to delivery of the FAI
   kits. ( see H.1.2 of the solicitation )
   During a review of attachments 1 & 2, the TDP drawings packages appear to be
67 identical. Is this the correct intention of the Contract Administrator?
   Disk/Attachment 1 (HEMTTA4 B-Kit TDP) and Disk/Attachment 2 (PLSA1 B-Kit TDP) appear
   to be identical.


   We are supporting multiple primes on the subject solicitation and have
   experience with the transparent armor on the platform B kits. In fact we
   currently hold TACOM contracts for transparent armor on a few of the platforms.
66 We would like to make sure we are reaching out to all potential primes to
   support the program with proven solutions. In that interest, can you please
   provide me with a list of parties that has either expressed interest or
   requested the TDP?




65 DATA ITEM NO. A010, 2. TITLE OF DATA ITEM: Armor Material Test Report, 3. SUBTITLE:
   Ballistic Certification, Section 16: REMARKS: Ballistic certifications shall be
   provided in accordance with section F of contract. Question: We think this should be
   Section E of the contract, not F. Can they confirm?

   DATA ITEM NO. A008 , TITLE OF DATA ITEM: First   Production Kit Inspection (FPKI),
   DATE OF FIRST SUBMISSION: 180 Days, Question:    We believe this date should be
64 210 days? The contract specifies 180 days for    delivery of the First Article
   Samples, and then there are 30 days to perform   the fit-up and testing. Can they
   confirm the due date DAC on this?



   In your responses to prospective offeror questions, you have indicated (answers
63 11,18,20,22 and 25) that you will be issuing an amendment to the solicitation.
   Respectfully, we would appreciate having the benefit of that amendment soon so
   we may incorporate the changes into our solicitation response.

62 We request permission to use the TACOM logo on our submission cover.
   This may be a follow-up question: If the values are fixed, is this glass
61 considered to be build to print? If so, would you provide the laminate
   construction?



   Transparent armor designs have differing numbers of layers, layer thicknesses,
   and sequencing of the layers, the number of potential transparent armor systems
60 that can meet the desired performance and basic dimensions is numerous. However
   if the drawing step breaks and thickness' are fixed this limits the number of
   possible designs that meet the drawing's specifications and desired performance.
   Are the thickness and step placement within the laminate, as noted on these
   drawings, fixed values?



   Referencing drawings: 12508381, 12508440, and 12508503 for PLS; 12508381 and
   12508503 for HEMTT. The drawings indicate that transparent armor thickness
59 should be 4.47" +/- .10". The drawings also indicate a step (or "offset") in the
   glass laminate positioned 3.43" +/- .10" from the strikeface (for the
   windscreen) and positioned 2.92" +/- .10" from the strikeface (for the side
   glass). The drawing notes indicate that the step should occur between layers.
   Referencing drawings: 12558116 and 12558198 for M915A5. The drawings indicate in
58 note 4 that the allowable thickness shall not exceed 5 inches. However, the
   detail within the drawings shows a step placement in the laminate occurring
   2.38" from the strikeface and 2.38" from the spall liner, effectively requiring
   the TA to have a total thickness of 4.76". Is the thickness of the M915A5 TA to
   be 4.76"? Or will any TA solution less than 5" be acceptable? Likewise, is the
   step position within the TA required to be 2.38" from the strikeface (or spall
   liner)? Or can the position of the step be adjusted based on the natural
   location of the layers within the TA laminate?

     Here is another drawing that we found missing. Parent is 12558054 M915A5 B Kit
57
     Assay, Missing drawing is 12558273 Shim, Door Hinge.



   Are our potential U.S. subcontractors (subcontractors bidding directly to us)
   required to be registered with the Joint Program Office (JPO) (via DoD Form
56 2345, "Military Critical Technical Data Agreement”) before we can send them a
   request for quotation containing a DoD drawing marked as export-controlled, that
   includes Distribution Statement D, and which is not Critical Technology (i.e.
   The Reason in the Distribution Statement is “Administrative or Operation Use” or
   something other than “Critical Technology”).?
   Drawings 12614886 Item #9 on 12508581 Item #39 on 57K6070 12124107 Item #1 on 12508581 Item #39 on
   57K070 12052850 Item #4 on 12508581 Item #39 on 57K6070 12048086 Item #3 on 12508581 Item #39 on
   57K6070 2045773 Item #2 on 12508581 item #39 on 57K6070 8724497 Item #2 on 12508576 Item #35 on
   57K6070 8724495 Item #1 on 12508576 Item #35 on 57K6070 8724494 Item #4 on 12508576 item #35 on
55
   57K6070 8338564 item #6 on 12508576 Item #35 on 57K6070 8338562 Item #5 on 12508576 Item #35 on
   57K6070 8338561 ITem #4 on 12508582 item #38 on 57K6070. 12536649 Item #1 on RIA 153500 and
   12536658 item #2 on RIA 153500. 12558276 on drawing 12558054 (M915A5 B-kit assy, hardware) #25 on
   drawing 12558053




54 As part of our internal review process of the B-Kit TDP we have noticed the
   installation manuals refer to the OEM per numbers. There is not a way to cross-
   reference these PNs to the supplied drawings therefore we cannot accurately
   determine the best package method to meet the requirement that the shipping
   container be packed IAW the installation instructions (first in-last installed).
   Further, the manuals will have to be rewritten to correct the part number call-
   outs. Is there a cross-reference available we can use?


   Per data provided under solicitation W56HZV12R0084, we request the following drawings
   that were missing from the data provided. Please provide the detailed drawings at
53
   your earliest convenience. These parts are components of the TAM package in
   Attachment 0003. Thanks. 12536649-UPPER LADDER, 12536658-LOWER LADDER, 12536668-
   RAILING, TOP, RIA153607-PLACARD
52 The following drawings were missing from the TDP by vehicle\kit type: HEMTTA4 /
   PLSA1- 12504326 Brackets and Assys. 12504325 Handle, M915- 12446987 – Retainer
   Assy, Tiedowns 12558190 – Door, Inside, Window Frame, Base, TAM-12536649 – Upper
   Ladder 12536658 – Lower Ladder RIA153765-3 – Bracket RIA153607 – Placard .
   Also, are there shipping crate drawings available for each kit?

51 RESERVED

50 Are the payments progress payments?

49 Is this small business set aside?


48
     Where can I find the packaging information other than page 60 of the request?


   There is a particular classified document that is germane to Solicitation W56HZV-12-R-0084. The document
   in question is DTA184044, which is a classified drawing, and it is required for a different solicitation that we
   are working on. We are in possession of this classified document; however, it has come to my attention that
   this drawing is also required for this Solicitation W56HZV-12-R-0084. Solicitation W56HZV-12-R-0084 further
47
   states that contractors will have their proposal rejected if they do not order and receive this document as
   part of the solicitation. Since we already ordered and received this document from
   dami_standardization@conus.army.mil; which is the same address listed in Solicitation W56HZV-12-R-0084,
   can we receive acknowledgment for already having this document and not have to order and retain duplicate
   classified documents?

   L.5.1 states "Do not input any proposal prices into Section B" Isn't this why we submit (in Volume IV Terms
46 and Conditions") Section B, to include our prices? Or does the submission of our prices as part of "Volume III
   Price" obviate the necessity to fill in the "B Tables"?
   Reference question 12. Does the answer mean the USG does not expect any TDP issues
   at FAI fit-up because the TDP is correct as issued or, that it will corrected in time
   to support fit-up?Those part number drawings referenced in my previous email (see
45 Q&A#44) relative to the TDP call out hexavalant chromium coating which is prohibited
   by the FAR within the solicitation and therefore any of these products certified to
   chromium coating IAW with the drawing presented for F/A will be rejected. The TDP and
   the FAR callouts are in opposition with each other and affects our ability to
   properly provide pricing. I hope this clears it up. Thanks."



   The following drawings call out for ASTM B633 Type II, which is hexavalent
   chromium. Presently this plating is banned on the MRAP vehicles. This is only an
   issue for the HEMT and PLS which are not MRAP. Is it permissible to use this
44 banned substance? Please advise ASAP so I can have our suppliers who are
   quoting this switch their response to trivalent, or something other than a
   chromate which may have a impact in our price volume. Obviously a change of
   this type would necessitate ECP activity after award. The affected drawings
   are: 12508511, 12508533, 12508402, 12508453, 12508457, 12508464, 12508475,
   12508494, 12508496, 12508501, 12508509, 12508510.

   We would like to receive the files in a different format for the MASTER B-KIT
   PRO-E MODELS. STEP or Parasolid is preferred. I’m not sure what feedback you
   might’ve received from other vendors, but we’re finding that we seem to be
43
   missing parts from the Pro E assemblies; our software throws an error each time
   an instance is found. For example, 12508379.asm is missing 12508630.prt,
   12508631.prt, as well as a few others.




42
     Following a cursory review of the TDP for all type B-Kits, how do we address the
     following observed issues? - Finish call-out differs between M915 driver &
     passenger version of same assembly
     The solicitation , at E-4(b) refers to ISO 9001:2008 (untailored). Our ISO certifying authority is unfamiliar with the use of the term "untailored." We
     suppose it means that we are certified in all respects, based on our being a manufacturing company. As a manufacturing company, we do not provide
     services, only manufactured goods, and thus our ISO certification includes the following exclusions, both related to providing services: this offeror has
     claimed exclusions from clauses 7.5.1 (Control of Service Provision) and 7.5.2 (Validation of Processes for Service Provision) of the ISO standard. These
     exclusions do not affect the organization’s ability or responsibility to provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory requirements. If
     the nature of the business conducted by this organization changes in the future to incorporate servicing processes, the QMS will be revised accordingly.
41   XXXXX has claimed exclusions from clauses 7.5.1 (Control of Service Provision) and 7.5.2 (Validation of Processes for Service Provision) of the ISO
     standard. These exclusions do not affect the organization’s ability or responsibility to provide product that meets customer and applicable regulatory
     requirements. If the nature of the business conducted by this organization changes in the future to incorporate servicing processes, the QMS will be
     revised accordingly. These exclusions are as allowed by the ISO standard*, at section 1.2, which reads as follows: 1.2 Application All requirements of
     this International Standard are generic and are intended to be applicable to all organizations, regardless of type, size and product provided. Where any
     requirement(s) of this International Standard cannot be applied due to the nature of an organization and its product, this can be considered for
     exclusion. Where exclusions are made, claims of conformity to this International Standard are not acceptable unless these exclusions are limited to
     requirements within Clause 7, and such exclusions do not affect the organization's ability, or responsibility, to provide product that meets customer and
     applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Per the ISO 9000 standard, which defines "service" as opposed to "production," there is the following
     note: NOTE 2 Service is the result of at least one activity necessarily performed at the interface between thesupplier (3.3.6) and customer (3.3.5) and is
     generally intangible. Provision of a service can involve, for example, the following: — an activity performed on a customer-supplied tangible product
     (e.g. automobile to be repaired); — an activity performed on a customer-supplied intangible product (e.g. the income statement needed to prepare a
     tax return); — the delivery of an intangible product (e.g. the delivery of information in the context of knowledge transmission); — the creation of
     ambience for the customer (e.g. in hotels and restaurants). Based on this, can you pls. confirm that we are to consider ourselves, for the purposes of the
     present solicitation, certified to ISO 9001:2008 "untailored"?*International Standard, Quality Management Systems – Requirements; ISO 9001:2008(E);
     Fourth Edition 2008-11-15 .




40
     Notice to potential offerors regarding solicitation Amendment 0001.
39
     Attachment 4: The folder named M915A5B-KIT Models, subfolder M915A5 B-KIT
     UniGraphics native: The models appear to be missing data or corrupt. I am unable
     to convert to Solidworks. Can you provide new UniGraphics data or .step file
     model info for the top level assembly?

     Attachment 2 calls out drawing #3841293 which refers to the PLSA1 Suspension
38
     Upgrade Kit, this appears to be missing.



     This appears to be a first time buy, but if not could you please provide the
37
     current contractor name and contract number? If new is there an NTE or estimated
     value associated with this requirement?


36
     A.2 small business set aside.


35
     Clarification of A.4 classified Information both prime and non-prime
   Oshkosh has informed us they are being inundated with phone calls from small
   vendors on the PLSA1 Suspension Upgrade kit (drawing 3841293) and they have
   advised that at this point they are only quoting this item to certain companies.
   Originally their response was they were quoting to only one company. As yet
34 Oshkosh has not provided a quote for this item which is a cause for concern and
   affects our proposal development. For example, as there are not drawings
   provided for this item we cannot develop and design the packaging for final
   delivery and consequently submit effective package pricing as part of our
   proposal submission. We are concerned such a situation may affect our proposal
   evaluation results or cause us to be deemed unresponsive.



   Is there any information available for the items below? There are not any
33 drawings nor suggested suppliers. The CAGE identified has no knowledge of these
   items. CSAL-LTX-DOS EE291 sling., 3 leg, 3 ft, CSAL-LTX-TOS EE291 sling, 2 leg
   , 6 ft
                                        Questions

     In section L.4.1.2, requiring "Contract Information" for each contract relied on
32
     for past performance, we assume that the term "Performance Schedule" means the
     delivery schedule required by the contract. Is that correct?

   After several scans through the solicitation and associated attachments I could
31 not find the email address mentioned.   I request the classified annex for this
   solicitation.

   The following drawings call out a photosensitive anodized aluminum plate .022
   thick, Grade A , Type 11, Class 1 per spec GG-P-455, Color 170038 per FED-STD-
30 595.” RAI153493, RAI153494, RAI153495, RAI153496, RAI153497, RAI153498,
   RAI153499, RAI153501. Color #170038 is not a valid color number per Fed Std 595
   . Please provide proper color #.
   We noticed that in Section L.4.1.4 that we should have submitted a past
   performance matrix to you by 2/26/2012. Unfortunately, we were in the process of
   creating a partnership arrangement and wanted to include our partner’s
29
   experience so we could not answer with a quality response. If this is submitted
   in the near future, would this exclude us from consideration for this
   solicitation?



   In reference to subject solicitation, page 4, A.4 “offerors who are considering
   a subcontractor must also submit documentation indicating that its subcontractor
28
   has obtained the necessary clearance in order to be considered for award for
   those subcontractors that will handle classified material.” What level of
   “classified material” will the subcontractor have to meet ?   SECRET ?




27




     Some of suppliers who are anticipating their response to our RFQ to exceed $5m
     are reluctant to provide the Other Than Cost and Pricing Data per L.5.4
     (L.5.4.1 through L.5.4.14). Their position is this is a competitive RFP and as
     such, Cost or Pricing data is not required.


26
     We are asking if we are able to upload Microsoft Office 2007 Visio Files?
25 While reviewing the technical data package it has been made aware that drawing
   12504326-003 is missing from the packages. Would you kindly send a copy of that
   drawing so that we can completely assess the TDP’s.

   Clarification of Attachment Number for Past Performance Questionnaire. Is the
   Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 008 or 009? The Past Performance
   Questionnaire is saved as "Attachment 008" but the questionnaire header is
24
   labeled as follows: PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE, HTV B-KITS, W56HZV-12-R-
   XXXX, Attachement 009, PART 1 – General Information, (To be completed by the
   Offeror)

   On page 112, Section L.4.1.4 states in addition, the offeror is requested to
   prepare and submit to the Contract Specialist, within ten (10) days of the
   Government's posting of the final RFP, a past performance matrix of the
23 references to whom the offeror sent the past performance questionnaires. Can you
   please confirm the correct submittal date for this request based on the posting
   of Attachment 008 to fed bizz opps since this attachment was not posted at the
   time of the solicitation?




22 On Page 114 of the RFP, Section L.6.1.5 states, “The Offeror is notified that
   there is a classified specification in the PM-HTV B-Kit TDPs.” Are there any
   other classified specifications relative to this RFP? If the offeror does not
   currently possess the classified specification, our Security         Office will
   request access to this document through the PCO.
   In the subject solicitation, Section 2, the following instructions are provided:
   H.2 Reference drawing 57K6835 for the PLs-B Kit: Purchase of the suspension
   upgrade (part number 3841293) which is required in addition to the B-Kit for the
   PLSA1 (part number 57K6070) can be obtained from the following point of contact
21 at Oshkosh Corporation (CAGE 45152): Oshkosh Corporation
   Jeff Hall, Parts Sales Manager
   PO Box 2566
   Oshkosh, WI 54903
   Or call 800-392-9921. Per these instructions, I contacted Jeff Hall at Oshkosh
   to request this drawing and Oshkosh will not release this drawing as it is
   proprietary.   What is your alternative solution to this requirement?




   Following a cursory review of the TDP for all type B-Kits, how do we address the
   following observed issues?Missing part specifications\drawings. For example: a.
20 12504326-003 "Dovetail Bracket Assembly" is shown on the parts list on 12508427
   "Right Panel Assembly", but there is not a drawing for 12504326-003 in the TDP
   (HEMTT). The "dash number" (-003) indicates this is one of multiple "sizes" of
   this part and is probably shown on a tab sheet numbered 12504326, which is also
   missing?




19
     Following a cursory review of the TDP for all type B-Kits, how do we address the
     following observed issue? - Incorrect threat level of 3C ambient on HEMT
     ballistic glass.
18


     I would like to request the classified section of RFP W56HZV-12-R-0084.



   Section F-9(c)(1)(i) requires that we provide IUID for all delivered items with
   an acquisition unit cost of $5,000 or more. Is the term "delivered items" a
   reference to the containerized kit defined by the CLIN or to the individual kit
17 components defined by the TDP within the containers that make up the entire kit?
   Please define so we can respond correctly. Is the term “unit acquisition cost”
   for each "delivered item" over $5000 determined by the Offeror or by the
   Government? Per the solicitation we are quoting a price for each kit, not each
   component over $5000.

   After careful review of the TDP requirements (Paragraph C.1.1 calls out PLSA1
16 LTAS B-Kit) and CD ROM contents, we request the drawings for the Suspension
   Upgrade Kit ASAP as they were not included on the TDP CD-ROM.

     In the past and on other major solicitations such as this the PCO has asked
15
     offerors to provide questions by a certain date for answers.



   The solicitation required that we provide within ten days a matrix of past
   experience including that of our subcontractors. At this stage in our preparing
   our proposal we are not certain of which subcontractors we shall use, if any.
14 But we are considering at least two others besides those for whom we indicated
   past performance in our matrix sent to you per the solicitation. Would the
   Government allow us to provide past performance for other subcontractors in
   addition to what we have already provided, including questionnaires, even if the
   number of contracts we would then provide would exceed the maximum of five
   seemingly allowed by the solicitation with the proposal?
   Is our understanding correct that F-11(c) requires that we provide the test
   report for the test of the transparent armor (per ATPD2352R) by 210 DAC, as
   opposed to providing the test samples by that date? (As there is a 56-day sun
13 exposure test (SET), which cannot be accelerated (see 4.3.5(a), Attch. 5
   (ATPD2352R)), we would anticipate having to begin the testing NLT approximately
   120 DAC.) Please confirm. Also, TARDEC is required to perform testing on the
   samples provided which would need to be completed before commitment to purchase
   for production.




   Per E.7.2, we are to receive the GFE vehicles for fit up at the latest 180 DAC,
   but we are to fit up and identify any discrepancies in the TDP, complete the FAI
   and report on the FAI by 210 DAC. It appears to assume that fit up would
   discover no issues with the TDP. If during fit-up design issues are discovered
12 they must be addressed by formal USG change process. Thirty days from receipt
   of GFE to FIA report is a very tight schedule for which the USG has involvement
   in processing any resultant changes. Realistically FAI would not complete until
   all changes in the TDP are processed, the necessary changes are made to the
   affected components and fit up is validated. Upon acceptance of the FAI after
   fit-up the contract would then begin the procurement process for production
   items after FAI acceptance so as to avoid extra costs to the USG for components
   made to the TDP but later discovered to have issues during fit-up.




11
     We do not currently have a Secret Facility Clearance. If we have a request for such a
     clearance in process, would we be considered for an award for this solicitation?
   On the TDP CD that our company received for the PLSA1 B-kit (CD labeled 120216_1209)
   there is a readme.txt note file that states the following: “The PLSA1 B-kit TDP
   consists of drawing 57K6835, the PLSA1 Suspension Upgrade kit (drawing 3841293) and
10 the HEMTTA4 B-kit TDP”. The CD that we received does not have the drawing#3841293
   referred to in this text note. The files on the CD are 57K6835.pdf, HEMTT A4 B-kit
   TDP for solicitation and the text note referenced above.   Is it an intentional
   exclusion that drawing #3841293 is not on the CD? If not, could we request a copy of
   this drawing?



9
    What are the specifications on the B Kits.?



    Section L.4.1.2 seems to allow that in case the offeror was a subcontractor on a
    government contract for which the past performance is to be completed, the respondent
8
    could be the contractor issuing the subcontract. Is that correct, or must the
    respondent be the government?




7
     We notice that the questionnaire, itself (near the top of page 1), indicates it is
    Attach 9, but the solicitation indicates it is Attch 8 (at L.4.1.3).  Should we fix
    the questionnaire in that regard?

    We also notice that Part 1 of the questionnaire, which is indicated as to be
    completed by offeror, includes the instructions for returning it to Vincent
    Strongarone as if the recipient of the Questionnaire is to send it back to us, for
6   forwarding to you, but we understand from Section L.4.1.3 that the recipient of the
    Questionnaire is to send it directly to you (either Vincent Strongarone or Elizabeth
    Oberlin, whichever is your answer to our question #3). Please correct us if we
    misunderstand.
      We notice that the past performance questionnaire itself (top of page, in Part 1)
    says to return it to: vincent.strongarone@us.army.mil
5   <blockedmailto:vincent.strongarone@us.army.mil> whereas section L.4.1.3 says it is to
    be returned to: Elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil
    <blockedmailto:Elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil> .Which is it?

     In some places in the solicitation, Mr. Oberlin's email is given as
4   elizabeth.oberlin@us.army.mil, and in other places as
    elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil. Does it make a difference?



     First, it appears from Section L.1.6 that all questions are to be directed to
3
    richard.l.harris197.civ@mail.mil, but SF33, block 10, indicates that for information,
    ask: elizabeth.oberlin@us.army.mil. Who would you like us to direct questions to?




    REF Past Performance Questionairre (Vol. III) L.4.1.1.3. May we provide more than a
2   mix of five (5) offeror and subcontractor past contracts? Until we receive cost
    estimates we are unsure of which supplier we might use. Or, do we submit our top 5
    any number of which may not be the final choice in our proposal?

    What is the size of the small business for the W56HZV-12-R-0084, is 500 or 1,000
1
    employees for the manufacturing company?
ty, protecting the identity of offerors, ensuring that proprietary data is not released or for other
easons.

    ANSWER: As indicated by FAR 15.402(a)(2) and (a)(2)(i), under appropriate
    circumstances, FAR 15.403-3(b) provides for an exception allowing the
    Government to request data other than certified cost or pricing data from
    the offeror for the purpose of establishing price reasonableness, even
    when the price is based on adequate price competition. In keeping with
    FAR 15.403-3(b), the Government has determined that it needs to request
    the other than certified cost or pricing data itemized in section L.5.4 of
    the solicitation for the purpose of supporting price reasonableness. In
    that connection, the Government does not consider it practicable to obtain
    that data from sources other than the offeror and its major
    subcontractors. The Government is requesting the data in the manner it is
    doing so, in keeping with FAR 15.403-3(b), in the context of unusual,
    prolonged foreign theater conflict. That state of affairs has
    necessitated a volume and pacing of acquisition efforts that, like in this
    case, militates against handling the matter differently. The Government
    is confident we will all be able to work through this acquisition process
    successfully. In that regard, we also offer the following observations.
    In the case of a major subcontractor (see L.5.4.12) that is a Government
    facility, the direct submission allowed by L.5.4.12.1 might be considered.

    ANSWER: The threshold stated at L.5.4.12 is "$5,000,000 for the entire contract". In the context
    of L.5.4.12 the phrase "entire Contract" is intended to mean the toal of everything to be
    included in the base award and the full option quantities.

    The required protocol for acknowledging amendment(s) is stated in block 11 of the Standard
    Form 30 used as the cover page of each amendment. If the offeror chooses to use method
    "(b)" referred to in block 11, the appropriate information can be entered at A-4 in the
    solicitation. The Government also notes that the referenced "attached PDF" only explicitly
    identifies Amendments 0003 and 0004. Receipt of every Amendment issued should be properly
    acknowledged.
ANSWER: The Excel Pricing Spreadsheet, titled Attachment 0009, under
the Summary Tab, incorrectly contained the formula for the M915A5 B-
Kits in cell C16 as =-'M915A5 B-Kit'!F47. The spreadsheet has been
updated by Amendment 0004 to remove the minus sign in the formula. Now
cell C16 is ='M915A5 B-Kit'!F47.


See Q/As 85,86 and 92. The answers to those questions referred to the "change" addressed in
Amendment 0003 regarding M915A5 front windscreen transparent armor de-icing. Section
C.5.4 to the solicitation. For the purposes of Solicitation W56HZV-12-R-0084, and the resulting
contract award, the requirmenet now stated at Section C.5.4 takes precedence over any
contrary stated requirement within related TDP/drawing material. The requirement now stated
at Section C.5.4 is now operative for this solicitation without related TDP/drawing material
being revised in any other manner.




ANSWER: No specific format. The e-mail subject should reference the solicitation number and
the body of the e-mail should reference the prime offeror.




ANSWER: Each offeror must submit all pages of the solicitation in
accordance with L.6.1.2. Price entries are to be made in Attachment 009
and not in Section B, in accordance with L.5.1.
ANWER: On Drawings where Hexavalent Chrome pre-treat is specified, the
following shall be substituted: "MIL-DTL-5541 Type II Class 1A". On
Drawings where Zinc Phosphate base per TT-C-490, type I is specified, the
following shall be substituted: "For non-armo, use Type I spray or
immersion Zinc Phosphate per TT-C-490 or use A-A-59745 zinc -rich primer
via spray ; for armor, use Type I spray Zinc Phosphate per TT-C-490 or A-A-
59745 zinc-rich primer. This change is addressedd in Amendment 0003 which
has been or will shortly be issued.




ANWER: On Drawings where Hexavalent Chrome pre-treat is specified, the
following shall be substituted: "MIL-DTL-5541 Type II Class 1A". On
Drawings where Zinc Phosphate base per TT-C-490, type I is specified, the
following shall be substituted: "For non-armo, use Type I spray or
immersion Zinc Phosphate per TT-C-490 or use A-A-59745 zinc -rich primer
via spray ; for armor, use Type I spray Zinc Phosphate per TT-C-490 or A-A-
59745 zinc-rich primer. This change is addressedd in Amendment 0003 which
has been or will shortly be issued.
ANSWER: Items 8338562, 8338564, 8724494, 8724495, 8724497, are required on
drawings 12508576, 12508577, 12508578, 12508579, and 12508580. Quantities
required for the TDP are listed within drawing 12508576, 12508577,
12508578, 12508579, and 12508580. Items, 8338561, 8338562, 8338564 are
required on drawing 12508582. Quantities required for the TDP are listed
within drawing 12508582. Part number 8724494 is shown on tabulated
drawing 8338561, Part number 8724495 is shown on tabulated drawing
8338566. See the HEMTT/PLS installation instructions for the installation
of 12508576, 12508577, 12508578, 12508579, 12508580, and 12508582.

ANSWER: The parts are part of the TAM assembly. See the TAM TDP Kit
Drawing RIA153500 Rev XD, items 12-14. These parts are to be ordered from
Oshkosh. See section H.2, added by Amendment 0002.




ANSWER: We will allow the following: The front windscreen shall be
equipped with a De-Icing system using an Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) coating
deposited on the glass with a bus-to-bus resistance of 2.1 +/- 0.05 OHMs
at room temperature with 10.5 - 17.5 AMP draw at 28 VDC, OR shall be
equipped with an electrical De-icing system IAW ATPD 2352, with heated
area to operate on nominal 28 VDC at a maximum 17 AMP draw. Regardless of
the electrical De-Ice system employed, it shall comply with ATPD 2352.
This change is addressed in Amendment 0003 which has been or will shortly
be issued.
ANSWER: Yes, subcontractors estimated to be providing over $5m in product
in the Prime Offeror's proposal are required to provide the same data as
for the Prime Offeror (excluding commercial or competitive items). This
includes L.5.4.13, L 5.4.14, and L.5.5.

ANSWER: RFP has already or will shortly be revised via Amendment 0003 to
read "per kit" rather than "per vehicle."



ANSWER: The files were provided in both STEP and Unigraphics. STEP is the
only file form that is universal to various CAD software. The original
native Unigraphics file(.prt) can only be opened in Unigraphics.




ANSWER: The documents are PDFs. The offeror can download adobe at adobe.com




ANSWER: See Drawing "12558089 Rev A.pdf" in the M915A5 B-Kit drawing
package, this drawing allows bent plate or machined roof.
ANSWER: Drawing/PN 12558116 front Window is for the M915A5. We will allow
the following: The front windscreen shall be equipped with a De-Icing
system using an Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) coating deposited on the glass with
a bus-to-bus resistance of 2.1 +/- 0.05 OHMs at room temperature with 10.5
- 17.5 AMP draw at 28 VDC, OR shall be equipped with an electrical De-
icing system IAW ATPD 2352, with heated area to operate on nominal 28 VDC
at a maximum 17 AMP draw. Regardless of the electrical De-Ice system
employed, it shall comply with ATPD 2352. This change is addressed in
Amendment 0003 which has been or will shortly be issued.



ANSWER (Roof Issue): See Drawing "12558089 Rev A.pdf" in the M915A5 B-Kit drawing
package, this drawing allows bent plate or machined roof. ANSWER (De-Ice Issue): We will
allow the following: The front windscreen shall be equipped with a De-Icing system using an
Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) coating deposited on the glass with a bus-to-bus resistance of 2.1 +/-
0.05 OHMs at room temperature with 10.5 - 17.5 AMP draw at 28 VDC, OR shall be equipped
with an electrical De-icing system IAW ATPD 2352, with heated area to operate on nominal 28
VDC at a maximum 17 AMP draw. Regardless of the electrical De-Ice system employed, it shall
comply with ATPD 2352. This change is addressed in Amendment 0003 which has been or will
shortly be issued.




ANSWER: Revised drawing 12558089 was sent to all potential offerors that requested the TDP
package via Fed X on April 16, 2012. If not received by your firm submit request to Elizabeth
Oberlin at elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil. This change is addressed in Amendment 0003
which has been or will shortly be issued.
ANSWER:   Drawing 12558053 requires item 19, part number 12558057, Door
Assist Kit, 1 per M915A5 B-Kit. Drawing 12558057 is a source control
drawing directing what to acquire and from whom. The "DAS Install.PDF"
are the instructions on how to install the DAS specified in 12558057. The
DAS is part of the M915A5 B-Kit. The contractor is responsible for
including one (1) each DAS, item 19 for each M915A5 B-kit.    Additionally
Note: In accordance with the contract, the contractor will be responsible
for assembling and installing the DAS onto the truck/B-kit doors using the
DAS Installation Instructions for all M915A5 fit-up vehicles used in
verifying and validating the first few B-kit builds.




ANSWER: Current approved B-kit install instructions utilize one container
with parts packaged in installation sequence. The packaging and
instructions were verified and approved that way. Putting it in two boxes
is not acceptable. The first parts out of box shall be the first parts
installed.
ANSWER: Your approach to "structures" would be acceptable. The                   remainder
of your descriptive narrative embraces only facilities internal                  to a
buiding or similar structure. The Government expects offerrors                   to provide
data for both inside and outside relevant facilities. Proposals                  that
address all relevant facilities will be accepted.




Section C.5.1.1d(1) has been or will shortly revised in Amendment 0002 to " If the contractor
makes a request for change, and the Government approves the change, incorporation of such
changes may be subject to an equitable adjustment in the contract price."




Answer: No, the contracts submitted must be in accordance with L.4.1.




Answer: We will not be providing the opportunity for industry to review
any of the B-Kits.
Answer;:The TDPs provided with the solicitation are producible as is, and
the Government will not now be reviewing the tolerances as suggested. It
is possible that future consideration may be given to suggested TDP
modifications.




Because the TDP is Distribution D: Distribution is authorized to the
Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only.



Answer: Referenced drawing is supplied in the CD that was Fed Ex out on April 5,2012. If you
have not received the CD contact Elizabeth Oberlin elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil


Answer: Each offeror is responsible for submitting a complete proposal including subcontractor
information for subcontractors over $5,000,000 by the solicitation close date. Subcontractors
may submit data that is proprietary directly to the PCO, Jennifer Meyer, at
Jennifer.m.meyer40civ@mail.mil. The Government will not communicate with any
subcontractor directly to request information or to clarify information received. Failure of the
subcontractor to submit the necessary other than cost or pricing data to the Government, prior
to the solicitation close date,shall render the prime offeror non-responsive.




ANSWER: Yes they need to be integrated.
ANSWER: The Placard drawing is on the CD that has been issued to all prospective offerors that
requested the TDP package. However the first three referenced drawings are not needed, as
these are included in the sub-kit now specified in the TAM Kit drawing update. If your firm has
not received the CD containing updated and previously missing drawings, submit your request
to Elizabeth Oberlin at elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil.

Answer: All referenced drawings are on the CD that was issued via Fed Ex on April 5, 2012 to all
prospective offerors that requested a TDP package . If you have not received the CD containing
updated and previously missing drawings submit your request to Elizabeth Oberlin at
elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil


ANSWER: 12558273, Shim, Door Hinge is a misprint. The parent drawing 12558054 has been
updated and now does not call out 12558273, but now calls out 12558179, which is in the TDP
originally issued. The updated parent drawing is on the CD that was sent by Fed Ex on April 5,
2012 to all prospective offerors that had requested the TDP package. If you have not received
the CD containing updated and previously missing drawings submit your request to Elizabeth
Oberlin at elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil.




ANSWER: The offeror will purchase the suspension upgrade from Oshkosh incorporating
suspension upgrade cost into our PLSA1 B-Kit bid pricing. We understand it is Oshkosh's intent
that all offerors will receive the same upgrade pricing.


ANSWER: The solicitation states "within 180 DAC" at E.7.2 and therefore covers providing GFE
before 180 DAC (i.e. 150 or 120 days). We expect the Government furnished vehicles to be
delivered early, and certainly meeting the solicitation NLT time frame in any event no
solicitation amendment is needed.
Answer: Attachment 1 and 2 are similar but differ by 2 files. Attachment 2 has a drawing
(57K6835) and readme file in the root folder. The HEMTTA4 and PLSA1 B-Kit armor components
are identical. The PLSA1 requires a suspension component that the HEMTTA4 does not.




The Government does not intend to post its list of potential offerors
and interested parties.



ANSWER: Section E does contain text at various locations regarding various
certificaton requirements; for example, at E.8.5 and at E.7.c. However,
the A010 reference to Section F is appropriate. Note the E.7.c reference
to examinations of Certifications as part of FAI, and the FAI references
within F-11.



Delivery of the First Article Samples Submission is 180 DAC. Date of
First Submission of the First Production Kit Inspection Report is
confirmed to be 180 days after contract award as stated in Data Item no.
A008. In that regard see the location concerning the FPKI process at
E.7.c,d and f.




ANSWER: Questions 11,18 and 22 were addessed in Amendment 001. 20 & 25 are addressed in
amendment 0002 which has been or will shortly be issued.

ANSWER: Permission will not be given to use the TACOM logo.
ANSWER: The thickness is limited to 5". The supplier must meet the
requirements per the drawing. The glass must interface with listed
frames and perform to all listed specifications.




ANSWER: Each supplier in the industry has a unique way of producing
glass. The supplier must meet the requirements per the drawing. Per
note 4 the total allowable TA thickness must not exceed 5 inches. The
step should be considered the datum and the thickness between each of
the two sides of the glass allowed to vary within the note 4
requirement.




There was no question asked and therefore no answer provided.
ANSWER: Those state that the transparent armor must interface with the
frames listed and drawings provided. The step placement would be
symmetric to the final thickness. The values for the "step" carried
out to 3 decimals is 2.375" resulting in 4.75 thickness. This should
be "minimum" thickness with the application of allowable block
tolerance variation. Due to different manufacturing processes
thickness can vary in excess of .060" depending on production lot.
Thickness must meet the performance requirements and not exceed 5",
but most importantly interface with listed frames. Competent
transparent armor manufacturers should use industry standards to
interpolate fitment requirements subject to their particular product,
within described dimensional requirement limitations. This answer
applies to M915A5 drawing 1558256, the rear window.


ANSWER: See Q/A #70




Because the TDP is Distribution D: Distribution authorized to the
Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only, Canadian
subcontractors should not be provided the TDP and therefore the question
regarding DOD Form 2345 ,which relates to Canadian firms is moot.
Answer: All referenced drawings are on the CD that was issued via Fed Ex on April 5, 2012 to all
prospective offerors that requested a TDP package . If you have not received the CD containing
updated and previously missing drawings submit your request to Elizabeth Oberlin at
elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil




ANSWER: As noted, PNs called out within the (M915A5 and TAM Kit
Installation Instructions) manuals do not readily cross reference to PNs
designated by the USG drawings. To alleviate problems for the Kit
Installers, the Government has included the M915 Master List Cross Ref and
the HEMTT TAM Install Instructions Cross Reference document on the CD that
was issued by Fed Ex on April 5, 2012 to all prospective offerors that had
requested a TDP package. (If your firm has not received the CD containing
updated and previously missing drawings, you may submit your request to
Elizabeth Oberlin at elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil.) The Government
will shortly be amending the RFP section H.1.1 to include the requirement
to print and pack those documents with each kit, appropriately.




ANSWER: 12536649- UPPER LADDER, 12536658-LOWER LADDER, 12536668- RAILING,
TOP, are not needed as these have been included in the sub-kit now
specified in the TAM kit drawing update. This is part of the CD issued to
all prospective offerors. RIA153607, PLACARD -has been provided on the CD.
ANSWER: No shipping crate drawings are available. All other
referenced drawings are on the CD that has been issued to all
prospective offerors that requested a TDP package. However, note that
12536649- UPPER LADDER, 12536658-LOWER LADDER, 12536668- RAILING, TOP,
are not needed as these are included in the sub-kit now specified in
the TAM kit drawing update. If your firm has not received the CD
containing updated and previously missing drawings submit your request
to Elizabeth Oberlin at elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil.




ANSWER: See Clause 52.232-16 at I-102

ANSWER: Yes, see Section A.2 and Q&A#36.


No other packaging information exists.




ANSWER: The dami_standardization@conus.army.mil team keep track of the vendors that have
requested and reviewed the document. We request a listing from them. See also L.6.1.5.



ANSWER: Section B and L.5.1 are in agreement as the language "Do not input
any proposed prices into Section B" is contained in both.
ANSWER: The issues raised by by Q&A#44 have been corrected in time to
support fit-up. The drawings listed in Q&A #44 will have had the referred
corresponding corrosion resistance finish note changed to the following:
ZINC PLATING PER ASTM B633 SC 3 TYPE V PASSIVATION PER MIL-DTL-5541 TYPE
II CLASS 1A. See Q&As#44 and 42.




ANSWER: The drawings listed will have the referenced corrosion resistance
finish note changed to the following: ZINC PLATING PER ASTM B633 SC 3
TYPE V PASSIVATION PER MIL-DTL-5541 TYPE II CLASS 1A. CD sent out. (See
Q&A#42)




ANSWER: Engineering has looked into the problem and found no issues
with the CAD files. The Government does not plan to issue the files
in a different format.


 ANSWER: One drawing was correct the other was incorrect and was updated.
This drawing is part of the CD we have issued to the prospective offerors
that had requested the TDP package. If your firm has not received the CD
containing updated and previously missing drawings, submit your request
for it to Elizabeth Oberlin, elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil.
ANSWER: "Untailored ISO" means that the Government has not itself
removed any of the requirements of the ISO standard as applicable to
the prospective offeror for this RFP. "Tailoring" is what the
Government does to its more general contractual requirements to fill a
more specific need. The ISO standard, as indicated by the prospective
offeror, itself allows for use of the specific exclusioin process
described. The use, as described by the prospective offeror's
narrative is not objectionable to the Governement.


Amendment 0001 posted to the Government sites on March 20, 2012. For example see our
PROCENT postings for this solicitation, which include the posting of Amendment 0001.
ANSWER: The files were provided in both STEP and Unigraphics. STEP is
the only file form that is universal to various CAD software. The
original native Unigraphics file(.prt) can only be opened in
Unigraphics. To open the part files in Solidworks onemust use the STEP
format provided. The two types are duplicates, but the Unigraphics
(.prt) files are modifiable using Unigraphics since that was the
software used to create them.

ANSWER: See Section H.2 to purchase the    suspension upgrade (also see
Q/A #10& 16).

ANSWER: This is a first time buy under the TDPs referred in Section J
of this solicitation. There is no NTE (not to exceed price) contraint
expressed within the solicitation; and the Government does not intend
to publish estimated values.


ANSWER: Section A.2. - Small business set-aside: See RFP clause I-23/FAR
52.219-61 Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (Nov 2011).

ANSWER: All offerors shall comply with Sections A.4 / L.6.1.5 due to the
fact this procurement involves a classified document concerning
transparent armor. See also Sections M.1.4 and M.2.
ANSWER: Oshkosh has advised the Government they now intend to send the
information out to all requestors.



ANSWER: No drawings are available but the company from which purchases
of the items would be made is Carl Stahl American Lifting, Attn:
Russell Schmidt, 21825 Doral Rd., Waukesha, WI 53186, (800) 236-0729.
The Government intends to amend the solicitation accordingly.
                                Answers




ANSWER: That is correct.



ANSWER: See top of page numbered 3 in the solicitations Attachment
0005 ATPD 2352 and see also Q/As #18 and 23.




ANSWER:All drawings listed call out color as 17038 which is listed in
FED-STD-595 Appendix V within TABLE VIII. Miscellaneous (17000,27000,
and 37000 series).
ANSWER: The matrix may be submitted in   original or revised form until
the solicitation closes. However, the    Government prefers submission
as early as possible ( See also Q/A 14   and 23). Only five contracts
will be evaluated for past performance   and no more than five total
contracts should be submitted.




ANSWER: Secret



ANSWER: It is true that Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not
required. However, the data requested will not be certified. The data
requested is in accord with the following. FAR 15.403-3 Requiring
data other than certified cost or pricing data. (a) (1) In those
acquisitions that do not require certified cost or pricing data, the
contracting officer shall— (ii) Require submission of data other than
certified cost or pricing data, as defined in 2.101, from the offeror
to the extent necessary to determine a fair and reasonable price (10
U.S.C. 2306a(d)(1) and 41 U.S.C. 254b(d)(1)) if the contracting
officer determines that adequate data from sources other than the
offeror are not available. This includes requiring data from an
offeror to support a cost realism analysis;




ANSWER: Visio file formats are not acceptable please review BRS User
Guide at https://acquisition.army.mil/asfi/ASFI_FAQ.cfm for details on
bidding.
ANSWER: The 12504326 Rev A drawing was distributed via email on
03/07/2012 if you did not receive please contact Elizabeth Oberlin
elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil. We anticipate amending the
solicitation appropriately regarding this drawing issue. See also Q/A
#20.




ANSWER: Past Performance Questionaire is Attachment 0008.   See Q/A #7.



ANSWER: The solicitation and all RFP attachments were posted on
February 16, 2012. Offerors may contact Elizabeth Oberlin at 586-282-
5521 for assistance regarding any difficulty experienced in accessing
attachments. The matrix may be submitted in original or revised form
until the solicitation closes.   However, the Government prefers
submission as early as possible (see also Q/A #14).



ANSWER: The only classified specification at issue is drawing DTA
184044 which is referred at the top of page 3 of the solicitation
attachment 0005, ATPD 2352R Purchase Description For Transparent Armor
(Dated 26 April 2010). The Government intends to amend L.6.1.5 so as
to have offerors make their requests in accordance with instructions
at the top of page 3 of attachment 0005 rather than submitting
requests through the PCO. (See also Q/A #18)
ANSWER: The offeror is to purchase the part see H.2, and see Q/As # 16
and 10.




ANSWER: The 12504326 Rev A drawing was distributed via email on
03/07/2012 if you did not receive please contact Elizabeth Oberlin
elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil. We anticipate amending the
solicitation appropriately, regarding this drawing issue.

  ANSWER: The drawing has been "redlined" to show the correct level as
3A, we expect the drawing was reviewed as a hardcopy and that hardcopy
was printed excluding mark-ups and therefore the redlined portion was
not shown. We recommend reviewing the electronic version of the
drawings again and printing the documents with the "documents and mark-
ups" option turned on.
ANSWER: Please comply with RFP W56HZV-12-R-0084 Sections L.6.1.5 and
M.1.4 to obtain classified material associated with RFP W56HZV-12-R-
0084. Please note the Government intends to amend L.6.1.5 so as to
have offerors make their requests in accordance with instructions at
the top of page 3 of attachment 0005 rather than submitting requests
through the PCO.




ANSWER 1: Yes, the contractor shall provide IUID for the kit. ANSWER
2: Within F-9(a), see definition of "Government's unit acquisition
costs".



ANSWER: See Section H.2 to purchase the   suspension upgrade (also see
Q/A #10).

ANSWER: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 will be the last day to receive
questions




ANSWER: The past performance matrix can be revised and resubmitted
until the solicitation closes. Only five contracts will be evaluated
for past performance and no more than five total contracts should be
submitted.
ANSWER: F-11(c) requires the delivery of the report for transparent
armor (per ATPD2352R) by 210 DAC.




ANSWER: The USG does not expect any TDP issues to be discovered during
FAI Fit-Up and is not planning to revise the 210 DAC requirement.

ANSWER: See RFP Sections A.4, L.6.1.5, M.1.4 and M.2. At the time of proposal
submission, the offeror must have the required Clearance and the required
classified specifications; otherwise the Government will reject the submitted
proposal and the offeror will not be considered for award. The Government
anticipates amending the RFP so that the words "may have" in the last sentence
of Section M.1.4 will read "will have".
ANSWER: See Section H.2



ANSWER: The specifications relative to the B-kit are listed within their respective TDP. See
Section A.5 on page 5 of the RFP concerning how to request a set of the TDPs.




ANSWER: If an offeror was a sub contractor, the respondent is the prime contractor. Reference
L.4.1.2 (e).




ANSWER: The Questionaire is attachment 008 please revise your copy.




ANSWER: Send to elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil
ANSWER: Send to elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil




Send to elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil




ANSWER: Direct all questions to Elizabeth Oberlin elizabeth.a.oberlin.civ@mail.mil




ANSWER: No you may not send more than 5 . Per L.4.1.3 "For each of the up to five (5)
recent/relevant contracts submitted by the offeror, and based on identification of your most
recent and relevent contracts,"


ANSWER: Small Business size for W56HZ-12-R-0084 is 1000

								
To top