|
Question #1: The AWA Pre-solicitation Notice posted on FedBizOpps includes a statement that participation is limited to US-owned companies only.
Does this preclude participation by US-based companies that are owned by a foreign subsidiary?
Answer: The Automated Weapons Assembly Pre-Solicitation Notice synopsis released 22 May 2007
included the statement “Due to the restrictive nature of weapons assembly information, participation is limited to U.S.-owned companies only.” That statement applies
only to the submission of proposals in response to the solicitation and will be modified in the final solicitation to expand eligibility to all U.S.-based sources
including Industry, Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), Non-Profit Organizations, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government
Laboratories. Amendment No.1 to AWA-001 reflecting this modification has been posted to FedBizOpps. Participation in the Industry Day itself is unrestricted.
Question #2: Why is it critical that the component-based assembly cell be able to disassemble a weapon and
what percentage of ordnance is disassembled? Is there a time requirement associated with the disassembly?
Answer: Developing a conceptual design that levels the workload and thereby optimizes weapons
department manpower requirements is an objective of this project. While the actual percentage of ordnance disassembled is very small; disassembly is required because
manpower, equipment and space may not be otherwise available to accomplish this task. There is no time requirement associated with the disassembly of a weapon.
Reasonableness is expected.
Question #3: Does the “Assembly Cell” include the sailors operating the cell?
Answer: For the purposes of this solicitation, the assembly cell includes the core technology or suite
of complimentary technologies which, when combined with other mechanical/electronic features, automates weapons assembly processes. The amount of automation will
provide the proper man-to-machine balance necessary to produce the desired ready service weapons output; while taking into consideration the necessary safety, ship
integration, system reliability, and cost concerns. If sailors are required to produce the required ready service weapons output, then they shall be considered
part of the assembly cell.
Question #4: For weapons assembly rates, is the requirement to assemble a weapon every “X” minutes, or
average a weapon every “X” minutes? (i.e. assemble 1 weapon every 3 minutes or 2 weapons in 6 minutes)
Answer: The final solicitation will be modified to reflect the weapons assembly rate specification as “X” weapons per hour from the AWA system within
each assembly magazine.
Back to Top
Question #5: The Statement of Work for Phase 1 requires an estimated production acquisition cost for an AWA assembly cell and AUR
sub-system based on the preliminary concept design. Is acquisition cost based on an acquisition of a single system or multiple systems?
Answer: For the purpose of this task, it is assumed that based on the level of development that the level of fidelity in the cost will be very low.
Any cost estimate will require a discussion of the basis for the estimate. Should the cost estimate be refined to the level that quantity will affect the
estimate, an assumption may be made to base the estimate.
Question #6: Can exceptions be made to the prohibited materials list if alternative materials are not
available for critical components?
Answer: As stated in the solicitation, proposers are invited to address with recommendations, where challenging established specifications (MILSTD,
MILSPEC, etc.) would save weight, power, improve performance, enhance affordability, or provide added warfighter capability without sacrificing safety.
Justification for the exception must be provided.
Question #7: Is it possible to reduce workload by improving throughput while keeping the same number of people?
Answer: For the purpose of this solicitation, workload equates to human requirements. The automation focus is on substantially reducing human
requirements, reducing weapons production times, minimizing process footprint, and enhancing safety.
Question #8: For loads due to ship motion, must the system operate through Storm Conditions?
Answer: The final solicitation will be modified to reflect that the system must operate with the specified rated-load and at specified throughput rates
when subjected to the moderate sea conditions and loading factors specified. The final solicitation will also reflect that stowed equipment shall withstand
dynamic forces produced by motion of the ship in a seaway. The equipment shall maintain a static position, and no part of the equipment shall come adrift,
when subjected to the storm sea conditions and loading factors specified.
Back to Top
Question #9: Does the system have to be operable after shock and if so, how long after shock does it need to be operable?
Answer: The requirement of Grade A shock is the system will function after shock without failure. Specified operational requirements remain.
Question #10: Can ATI provide a phone number or email address for the Weapons Assembly Manual point of contact?
Answer: If a contractor needs access to NAVAIR pubs they can send an
and enclose a copy of their DD form 2345. They will then get instructions on how to gain access to the publications desired.
Question #11: What are the starting point and the stopping point for the throughput rates?
Answer: The final solicitation will be modified to reflect the assembly rate times as starting when the bomb body is lifted from the presented pallet
and stopping when the ready service weapon is placed on the skid/ transporter. The final solicitation will also reflect the AUR breakout rate times as
starting when the individual undamaged sealed container is positioned for system access and stopping when all weapons within the container are positioned on
the skid/ transporter and the container lid is properly reinstalled.
Question #12: Are all the AWA System performance Specification and Requirements required of the system demonstrator discussed in the
Statement of Work follow-on objectives?
Answer: The performance specifications and requirements are for the final AWA system to be acquisitioned for shipboard use; however, the concept design,
concept of operations and demonstrator must be developed and tested with these final shipboard requirements in mind. How each of these specifications and
requirements are addressed shall be part of any Phase 1 proposal.
Back to Top
Question #13: Is the 12 ft. by 8 ft. stowed footprint and the 20 ft. by 20 ft. operating footprint a hard-fast dimension requirement or is it
a total square footage requirement?
Answer: The footprint of the system must fit within the constraints of a magazine; however, the footprint requirement was established to be comparable
to the footprint of the current assembly method; thus minimizing the impact on ordnance storage within the magazine. The final solicitation will be modified
to reflect that the AWA assembly system within a magazine shall not exceed a total footprint of 96 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 8 ft. in a stowed configuration
and a total footprint of 400 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 8 ft. in an operational configuration.
Question #14: Is it possible to get a video showing an example of weapons assembly?
Answer: A DVD containing the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) computer based training video is available. Requests for the DVD should be made to Taryn Connell.
Distribution is limited to one copy per organization.
Question # 15: Will minimization of acquisition and total ownership cost be a critical evaluation factor?
Answer: Yes, the degree to which the technology concept minimizes acquisition and total ownership cost shall be discussed within the proposal and
will be considered during the proposal evaluation. The technology concept must be developed through the S&T phase with the goal of developing a system
that will be affordable for the Navy to procure. Any proposal that does not discuss efforts to improve affordability by minimizing acquisition and total
ownership cost will not be considered.
Question # 16: What variant of the GBU-32(V) 2/B (JDAM) should we concentrate our development efforts on for automating?
During technical discussions we learned that the GBU-32(V) 2/B (JDAM) has 4 variants, several of which are substantially different than the other.
Answer: The Phase 1 Concept of Operations/Concept Design for the specific technology(ies) is for a full-scale system (Section 6.1.1)
adaptable to a full range of weapons and weapon components (Section 7.1.1.1). A complete listing of weapons is listed in Section 9.
The full-scale proof-of-concept AWA system demonstrator fabricated and tested in follow-on phases includes an assembly cell demonstrator capable
of assembling all configurations of a 1000 lbs. JDAM or GBU-32 (Section 6.1.2.1).
Back to Top
Question # 17: After the All-Up-Round lid is reinstalled at completion, must all dunnage be inside the container?
Answer: Dunnage shall be replaced inside the container as directed by NAVAIR 11-140-6.2 Section 17-13.
Question # 18: Will the initial assembly cell demonstration be a shore-based demonstration or an at-sea demonstration?
Answer: Follow-on objectives listed in Section 6.1.2 of the solicitation include a static land-based demonstration (Section 6.1.2.4) and
a dynamic motion environment demonstration (Section 6.1.2.5). The method for the dynamic motion environment demonstration will be identified
prior to the commencement of follow-on phases.
Question # 19: Section 7.1.1.1 of the solicitation states that the final AWA system must be adaptable to a full range of
weapons and weapon components. Is there a priority order within the weapons?
Answer: No.
Question # 20: Section 7.1.1.8 of the solicitation states that the final AWA system shall provide local and remote monitoring capability.
Where will it be remotely monitored?
Answer: The monitoring location is not specifically identified; however, it will be within the confines of the ship.
Question # 21: The current scenario discussed in Section 4 of the solicitation states that a single build crew requires
about thirty minutes to assemble four GBU-32s. The threshold build rates listed in Section 7.1.3.1 have been mentioned as being near the current
build rates, yet the GBU-32 threshold build rate is 18 weapons per hour. Can you explain the apparent difference in the four weapons in about
thirty minutes and the 18 weapons per hour?
Answer: The current build process for GBU-32s is an assembly line process with multiple weapons on the table at a given time.
From pallet to skid it may take 12 to 16 minutes to build the first weapon, but another weapon will be completed in 4 to 5 minutes and every
4 to 5 minutes thereafter. This correlates to about thirty minutes to build the first four weapons, but over a period of an hour it could add
up to as many as 24 weapons.
Back to Top
Question # 22: Does the $40.2 million over 5 years include multiple awards or a single award for follow-on phases?
Answer: The current plan is to down-select from multiple Phase 1 efforts to a single award for follow-on phases. This is subject to change based on program needs.
Question # 23: What is the maximum allowable envelope of the AUR sub-system that will allow movement of the sub-system
through passageways and on/off elevators?
Answer: This was not defined by the solicitation.
Question # 24: Are shipping caps removed from the bomb body when presented on a pallet to the assembly cell?
Answer: The primary scope of the assembly cell effort is the automation of the actual assembly steps within the listed procedure
of the weapon with component unpackaging and inspection being outside the primary scope. The removal of shipping caps from bomb bodies
is a step listed in the component unpackaging/inspection procedures and can be assumed to be completed prior to presentation of the pallet to the cell.
It should also be mentioned that steps outside the primary scope of assembly cell automation may be considered for automation by a proposer.
Question # 25: Can the Proposers’ Conference attendee list be distributed?
Answer: It would be inappropriate to further disseminate attendee information without explicit authorization. If you are interested
in networking with other potential proposers, please visit the Potential Teaming Opportunities page
on the SUSD website.
Back to Top
Question # 26: The answer to FAQ # 24 indicated that unpackaging/ inspection of a pallet of bomb bodies will be completed
prior to presenting the pallet to the cell. Will the unpackaging and inspection occur within the footprint of the assembly cell or prior to
placing the pallet within the footprint?
Answer: As stated in the answer to FAQ #24, it can be assumed that component unpackaging/inspection procedures
will be completed prior to presentation of those components to the assembly cell. However, in the case of a pallet of
bomb bodies, an unsecured pallet of bomb bodies will not be moved by fork lift and allowances must be made for the
unpackaging/ inspection of a pallet of bomb bodies to occur within the footprint of the assembly cell or for the unsecured
pallet of bomb bodies to be moved into the assembly cell footprint in a secured method. Again, steps outside the primary
scope of assembly cell automation may be considered for automation by a proposer.
Question # 27: Current methods of bomb assembly show that hoists are attached to the overhead.
Is this type of attachment to the overhead still an option?
Answer: Yes, attachment of mechanical systems to the magazine overhead structure is an option. However, concepts
incorporating such features must limit load stresses imposed on the structure to the design limits of the existing system
in any given magazine unless supported by specific engineering analysis.
Question # 28: You have indicated the basic steps required for assembly of AUR and component based weapons in the RFP.
Is there an associated time for each of the steps that you have indicated?
Answer: Process mapping times for each step of the weapons assembly process are not available.
Question # 29: Does the 400 sq. ft. include the space for the skid to come in and out of the assembly area?
Answer: A loaded weapons skid or transporter must be able to be easily moved out of the assembly cell and an empty skip or
transporter must be easily positioned into the cell for accepting weapons. The assembly cell design must account for this and allow
space within the cell as required.
Back to Top
Question # 30: Does the 400 sq. ft. include the area for component breakout? If that is the case, how much area does that take?
Answer: The specific breakout and preparation processes for weapon components is outside the scope of this project however the
assembly cell must include appropriate subsystems designed to present individual serviceable components for induction into the assembly process.
These subsystems must include appropriate temporary storage and be capable of being replenished by human interface while in operation.
As these subsystems are part of the assembly cell, they must fit within the restricted footprint.
Question # 31: Does the dunnage have to fit in the 400 sq. ft. or is there a dedicated area outside of this?
Answer: Packaging material used to simplify delivery of weapon components, common hardware (screws, clips, fasteners, etc.), and bulk
consumables (arming wire, lanyards, tape, etc.) to the assembly cell (i.e. bomb pallets, wire spools, stripping clips, etc.) must inherently
be accommodated within the restricted footprint.
Question # 32: Can a team leader supervise multiple assembly cells (all in the same 400 sq. ft)?
Answer: The span of control for supervision within a given magazine is a matter of Navy policy/procedure and is outside
the scope of this project. Project teams should focus workload reduction/elimination efforts on those processes involving direct
human interface in the assembly and final preparation of ready service weapons.
Question # 33: With respect to the footprint requirement in section 7.2.4.4, do the All Up Round breakout
system and Component Based Weapons assembly system have to coexist within the same 400 sq. ft. footprint, or is each
sub-system allowed to utilize its own 400 sq. ft. footprint?
Answer: The design requirement in Section 7.2.4.4 pertains only to the Component Based Weapons assembly system.
A footprint requirement was not established for the All Up Round breakout system. The All Up Round system must meet the performance
specification stated in Section 7.1.1.5. It should be noted that the specific evaluation factors in Section 8.4.1.1.1 state the degree
to which the technology concept minimizes volume and footprint will be considered in the proposal evaluation process.
Back to Top
Question # 34: Discuss the down-select process following the completion of Phase 1, including the down-select criteria.
Answer: Currently planned for the first full week of October (6-10), ATI will assemble a Technical Review Team comprised of stakeholder organization representatives and other subject matter experts. Stakeholder participation in the down-select process may include representatives from PMS 377, PMS 378, NAVAIR and COMNAVAIRFORCE; depending upon their availability. The team will evaluate each project’s Phase l results/deliverables received in response to the tasking set forth in the Task Order No. 01 Statement of Work and on the likelihood of the technology concept to meet the design requirements set forth in the Task Order. Evaluation criteria will include technical merit, the technology’s potential for transition/implementation into Navy Programs, and the overall approach to further develop the technology and mitigate risk in Phase II.
Question # 35: Does the proposed follow-on statement of work, test plan, demonstration plan, schedule and cost estimate get included in the final report or will that be submitted in a separate document?
Answer: All Phase I objectives addressed in Paragraphs 1.1 through 1.5 of Task Order 1 Statement of Work shall be addressed in detail in the final report including the proposed follow-on statement of work, test plan, demonstration plan, schedule and cost estimate.
Question # 36: When accounting for the footprint of the input pallet of bomb bodies and the skid for removal of the ready service weapon, should the size of the various bomb bodies and ready service weapons also be considered?
Answer: As noted in Question 26, the footprint of the assembly cell must accommodate a pallet of bomb bodies. As noted in Question 30, a loaded weapons skid or transporter must be able to be easily moved out of the assembly cell and an empty skid or transporter must be easily positioned into the cell for accepting weapons. The assembly cell design must account for this and allow space within the cell as required. For the purpose of calculating footprint, assume a full pallet of BLU-109 series or BLU-116 series bombs on a MHU-212 series pallet (99.125 inches by 38 inches) and an empty MHU-191/M skid (130 inches by 26 inches).
Back to Top
Question # 37: Section 1.5 of the Task Order Statement of Work requires the team to propose a follow-on statement of work, test plan, demonstration plan, schedule and cost estimate. Traceability of component level requirements and technology requirements back to system level requirements shall be maintained in follow-on S&T phases. Key technology(ies) shall be matured under follow-on S&T phases to ensure a Technology Readiness Level 6 for an AWA system demonstrator. Can additional guidance be provided to bracket this tasking?
Answer: The task is specifically looking to fully develop a detailed design of the system(s), fabricate a proof-of-principle demonstrator(s) and test the demonstrator(s) in a land-based environment (to include a half-day demonstration of the technology(ies) for key stakeholder personnel). Installation and testing of the systems(s) in a relative environment to validate the technology(ies) to a Technology Readiness Level 6 will be conducted in a follow-on phase and should not be included in this task. The level of effort for this task is estimated to require 36-months with a potential funding amount of $21 Million contingent upon the availability of Government funding.
Question # 38: Section 1.5 of the Task Order Statement of Work requires the team to propose a follow-on statement of work, test plan, demonstration plan, schedule and cost estimate. Traceability of component level requirements and technology requirements back to system level requirements shall be maintained in follow-on S&T phases. Key technology(ies) shall be matured under follow-on S&T phases to ensure a Technology Readiness Level 6 for an AWA system demonstrator. How much detail is required for the cost estimate and where does the cost estimate fall within the evaluation criteria for the down-select following Phase 1?
Answer: The cost estimate is a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate and requires no cost proposal submittal. During the down-select evaluation following Phase I, the cost estimate will be compared to the available funding to determine whether the proposed technology development plan can be fully funded. It is not intended to be the basis for a best-value comparison among performers. See FAQs 34 and 37 for further details on evaluation criteria and technology development plan tasking.
Back to Top
Last Update 07/29/08 |
