MODIFICATION
13 -- Improved Increment Protector for the 120mm mortar ammunition
- Notice Date
- 12/11/2007
- 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-0308
- Response Due
- 12/17/2007
- Archive Date
- 1/16/2008
- Point of Contact
- Michael Samra, Contract Specialist, (973)724-3965
- E-Mail Address
-
Email your questions to Michael Samra
(michael.samra@us.army.mil)
- Description
- The purpose of this amendment, for clarification purposes, is to respond to the following questions which prospective offerors have posed regarding the solicitation for the Improved Increment Protector: 1. What is the current increment protector in use? Can we view the previous award, design? Answer: The old/current design is not necessary to respond to the RFP. 2. What is the current increment protector being used for the 120mm mortar ammunition? Answer: The current increment protector is used to avoid damage to 120mm Propelling charges (aka: increments). 3. Are there design and technical specification on that protector available for evaluation when designing the Improved Increment Protector? Answer: If necessary, and assuming concurrence of the Project Manager (PM) and Integrated Project Team (IPT), the current design and technical specifications may be furnished after contract award. However, this is not necessary for response to the RFP. 4. Are the use of recycled/reclaimed materials allowable as long as they still meet performance specifications? Answer: Addressed in PRF-XXX06 attached in RFP. (see pg11 of PRF XXX06) 5. Can we have the exact dimensions of the 120mm mortar ammunition and the attached increment propelling charges? Answer: The exact dimensions are not required to respond to the RFP. 6. How much engineering freedom do we have with regards to the design? Can we modify to include a latching mechanism as long as it still fits in the PA174 MONOPAQ. ? Answer: Detailed drawings are already in the proposal. There is no latching mechanism on the government supplied drawings. We are open to suggestions but the Government will have final decision on design IAW PKGDIV1001 and all other related requirements. Also, latching mechanism in addition to the overall packaging system would have to meet all other requirements cited in the RFP. If proposer submits a latch system, it would be at the proposer's own risk. 7. The foam insert and liner is described in the drawings. With it is listed an approved distributor. Is this to say that the foam insert has been designed and needs only to be ordered and installed into our design of the IIP? And is it then established that the specified foam with polyethylene backing meets all the applicable standards, such as those described in 3.4.3, 3.6.3 and 3.6.5 of the performance specifications? Answer: The PKGDIV1001 Protector assembly must perform as a system to protect the propelling charges. Depending on what material is selected/proposed for the Protector itself may affect how the foam performs when used in conjunction such a material. It is up to submitter to ensure the resin selected matches up appropriately with the foam to meet the overall requirements. 8. The prints are not so clear in detail to show how the two halves are to be held together. a. Or are we to design the snap feature? (Which we are very capable of doing) Answer: Two identical halves are applied to the propelling charges and fin assembly of a 120mm mortar cartridge. Corresponding surfaces of the parts come together. The two halves are then held together with tape. We are not asking for any kind of joining feature to be designed. 9. Is a CAD file available? This would clear up a host of smaller questions and actually get everyone a very accurate quote as opposed to using just drawings. Answer: A CAD file is not available at this time. 10. One of the deliverables is specifically called out as mold drawings but in another section, the requirements are such that we furnish sufficient information so that any one who is familiar with injection molding can reproduce the item. Will a CAD model of the mold and the part fulfill the requirements of the contract? Answer: A CAD model of both the part and the mold is sufficient to meet this requirement. 11. I could not find anything specific to packaging so I assume the prototypes would be shipped to ?? via standard commercial packaging, correct? Answer: Commercial packaging is acceptable. The parts will be shipped to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. All of the terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged.
- Web Link
-
US ARMY TACOM-Picatinny Procurement Network
(http://procnet.pica.army.mil/dbi/Download/GoGetSolicitation.cfm?SolNum=W15QKN-07-R-0308)
- Record
- SN01467760-W 20071213/071211224112 (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 |