MODIFICATION
99 -- Modular Advanced Composite Armor Kits for Non-Standard Civilian Vehicles
- Notice Date
- 7/12/2007
- Notice Type
- Modification
- Contracting Office
- US Army ARDEC, AMSTA-AR-PC, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey 07806-5000
- ZIP Code
- 07806-5000
- Solicitation Number
- W15QKN-07-R-0500
- Response Due
- 7/20/2007
- Archive Date
- 8/19/2007
- Description
- The following are questions that have arisen due to this solicitation: 1. RFP SOW Paragraph 3.7.4 refers to a Technical Point of Contact for the SOW. Is that person available to us and, if so, could you please provide contact information. - No, that person is not available to you directly. If you need to ask them questions, please send them to me and I'll forward them for you and send you their reply. 2. INSTRUCTION FOR SUBMISSION Technical Details - Volume 3 is limited to 10 pages. Since SOW Paragraph 3.4 requires a full description of the armored kit and required accessories and the Evaluation Factors require us to demonstrate our full understanding of the requirements plus cover all of the specific items requested for Chapters 1, 2, and 3, we respectfully ask that you consider adding 5 pages to the Volume 3 page limit. - The page limitation needs to stand as it is due to the various comparisons that will be made with the many offers that are coming in. If there is any need for further evaluation, the evaluators will ask for more details and you can expound at that time. 3. Are fold-out pages allowed? - Yes 4. RFP SOW Paragraph 3.2 requires top drawings, in-process drawings and process descriptions to be delivered on the contract. Could you please confirm these are not required for the proposal since they are not addressed in the INSTRUCTION FOR SUBMISSION? - At this time, I'll say no but if it changes, we will ask for it separately. 5. Are you making bidder Questions and Answers available to all bidders and if so, could you please provide them to us? - To date, no other questioners have come to my attention. 6. On page 4 of 56, under 3.7: We are instructed to "manufacture two modular armor kit prototypes for two trucks (four kits total) listed below within sixty days of contract award." The trucks listed below are: Toyota Tundra: 5 kit minimum (US model year 2007 4-door w/short bed, auto A/c, no options, no accessories), and Toyota Tacoma : 5 kit minimum (US model year 2007 4-door w/short bed, auto A/c, no options, no accessories) Yet on page 16 and 17 of 56, ITEM NO 0003, SUPPLIES/SERVICES, QUANTITY 2: We are directed to buy 2 each: Toyota Tundra Truck 2007 FFP 2 Door Base Model FOB: Destination and Toyota Tacoma Truck 2007 FFP 2 Door Base Model FOB: Destination Will you please clarify? - For consolidation of space, the descriptions on pages 16 & 17 were shortened. The description on page 4 is the correct and complete one for the kits - 2 kits per truck. 7. What criterion will be used to determine the performance of the armor material, MIL-STD-662F and/or other? Follow up: How is the 95% probability going to be calculated if there are only 3 shots fired with no penetrations allowed? -MIL-STD-662F will be used to determine the performance of the armor material. The confidence level will be inferred from analysis of the level of damage inflicted by the threat munition. 8. Why is the transparent glass specified at a lower threat level (9x18mm) than the opaque armor? Is this intentional or an oversight? -The transparent glass is a desired feature and considered to be a much more difficult technical challenge. 9. Why is the much higher .50 caliber AP threat specified as a desired goal for vehicles that cannot support the weight of such armor? Is there a minimum distance that is desired for that round other than the 100 meters specified as 100 meters is unrealistic for these vehicles? -The .50 caliber AP threat is a desired goal. 10. What is the intended purpose of the 12??? Swatch? Our material is provided with an environmental protective coating. Will the swatch be inspected ???as is??? with this coating intact or will the coating be removed? If so, what types of testing will be performed; specifically, what is meant on page 10, under Volume 2, by ???physical and chemical validation???? If the swatch is to be dismantled, is there a non-disclosure agreement for proprietary materials? -The swatch is required to validate the contractor's approach. Tests conducted will vary with the type of materials submitted. The swatch will be inspected "as is" if the sample is so labeled. As long as the material is labeled proprietary, the US Government is legally obligated to safeguard such materials. 11. Is there a preferred vehicle color? -No color preference exists. 12. Page 5 of 56, the last sentence in 3.7.4 reads: "For additional information on blast protection, the contractor with confirmed appropriate security clearance may submit a request to the Technical point of contact of this scope of work." What level is the "appropriate security clearance"? - Government Secret 13. Is the award date established? - No 14. Request confirmation that non-electronic submission via CD is acceptable and that no hard copies are required or desired. Please clarify the number of copies of the CD required/desired. It would also be helpful to know the version of Microsoft Office you use so we can be assured of compatibility. - Electronic and non-electronic submissions are acceptable. We will require 4 copies of the proposal: 2 with pricing information and 2 without any pricing information. Microsoft Office Version 2002 is currently being used.
- Web Link
-
US ARMY TACOM-Picatinny Procurement Network
(http://procnet.pica.army.mil/dbi/Download/GoGetSolicitation.cfm?SolNum=W15QKN-07-R-0500)
- Record
- SN01340809-W 20070714/070712221503 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |