MODIFICATION
A -- This modification to the combined synopsis/solicitation notice W911W6-07-R-0003 is added to provide clarification to all prospective offerors.
- Notice Date
- 9/18/2007
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 541710
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
- Contracting Office
- Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5577
- ZIP Code
- 23604-5577
- Solicitation Number
- W911W6-07-R-0003
- Response Due
- 9/29/2009
- Archive Date
- 11/28/2009
- Point of Contact
- kenneth hood, 757 878 2062
- E-Mail Address
-
Aviation Applied Technology Directorate
(kenneth.m.hood@us.army.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Question 1: The specified threat round is stated very vaguely and without regard to real world specifics, there being at least 4 different varieties of military grade 7.62 FMJ ball ammunition that all fall into the '7.62 mm ball' category and numero us varieties of armor penetrators available. Specifically, are you soliciting a solution for 7.62 x 39, 7.62 x 51 NATO standard, 7.62 x 53R, 7.62 x 63 (.30-06 obsolete military) ammunition or other 7.62 mm type military rounds such as (obsolete) British . 303 caliber? The same question applies to the solicitation part regarding 7.62 mm AP, since all four categories exist in AP, but further, what KIND of armor penetrator are you soliciting. Is this mild steel, hardened carbide steel such as the APM2 NIJ st andard round, a tungsten carbide penetrator such as is found in the M-993 and Bofors AP ammunitions, or any others that should have been specified? The same penetrator specification is requested with regard to the 12.7 mm AP solicitation and with the 14.5 mm AP solicitation with further clarification for 14.5 mm whether this requirement extends to DU (depleted uranium) core penetrators? What is the number of survivable hits required for each of the above threats for successful completion of the solicitati on requirements, and what are the target dimensions required for the tests? Finally, please specify the term 'service velocity' in feet or meters per second as required for the solicitation. Answer 1: The solicitation requests that proposed technologies provide protection from 'conventional ballistic threats'. It is explained that in this context 'conventional ballistic threats' are defined as small arms rounds in the 7.62 ball to 12.7 AP mm range, with 14.5 AP as an objective for the future. An 'exact' round has intentionally not been identified because we are not interested is developing protection against a single projectile. Rather, it is our desire to develop technologies that are effec tive against these classes of threats. As youre aware, there are several varieties of military grade 7.62mm ball and armor piercing ammunitions. Although, due to varying projectile mass and its associated velocity, the specific or muzzle energy associated with each projectile varies from roun d to round, the real concern between ball round impact and that of an armor piercing class projectile stems from the failure mechanism by which it defeats armor. As such, the solicitation is principally interested in systems or materials that offer AP clas s protection. The term muzzle velocity is defined by MIL-STD 662 as 'The velocity of the projectile with respect to the muzzle at the instant the projectile leaves the weapon. This velocity is a function of the projectile weight, firing charge of the projectile, barrel characteristics, etc.' To provide a specific velocity in feet or meters per second would again defeat the intent of the solicitation by tying the request for proposal to a specific threat. In regards to target dimensions and number of survivable hits, again these values are relevant to the proposed solution. The response of any ballistic material is influenced by boundary conditions. Accordingly, it is anticipated that demonstration article s will be of sufficient size to adequately demonstrate the proposed ballistic solution. Additionally, multi hit capability is typically considered favorable. However, it is not discussed in the solicitation and consequently is not a requirement. However, the offerors proposed solution will be evaluated against its merit as advancement over existing ballistic capability. Ultimately, it is at the offeror's discretion to select what threat level their technology is effective against. Question 2: Is the abstract deadline Oct. 22nd? Answer 2: - In the General Information and Evaluation /Award Cycle Dates section: 'To be considered for the March 2008 award, the abstract cut-off date is October 22, 2007...'. Q uestion 3: In Reference to Topic 01-2008: As confirmation, are transparent solutions of interest to the BAA? Answer 3: Yes, AATD is interested in the development of transparent ballistic protection technologies. Question 4: The threats specified - Will these be evaluated at muzzle velocity or will they be reduced by a distance requirement? Answer 4: As stated in the solicitation, 'the proposed solution system(s) should provide protection from small caliber threats&.all at service velocity&'. However, we will consider stand-off velocities versus ballistic threat, assuming the solution offers advancement over existing ballistic capability. Question 5: Are the evaluations single or multi-hit? Answer 5: Multi hit capability is typically considered favorable. However, it is not discussed in the solicitation and consequently is not a requirement. However, the offerors proposed solution will be evaluated against its merit as advancement over exis ting ballistic capability. Question 6: Can you give us the baseline areal density from which you would like to see at least the 33% weight reduction? In other words, what do you consider the current state of art areal density? We have experience building transparent solutions for a variety of programs but each has a different areal density and in most cases they do not meet these higher threat levels. Answer 6: The baseline areal density is dependent upon the threat selected. An 'exact' round has intentionally not been identified because we are not interested is developing protection against a single projectile. Rather, it is our desire to develop t echnologies that are effective against a class of threats (i.e. small arms rounds in the 7.62 ball to 12.7 AP mm range with 14.5mm as an objective). Question 7: Are there specific areas or systems of a rotorcraft that are being targeted by this topic? Is the envisioned armor system to be protected by an outer skin of material or will it be exposed to the elements? Answer 7: No specific areas of coverage are identified in the solicitation. No specific areas of application are identified in the solicitation. Potential offerors should address their concepts and potential applications thereof. Question 8: To reach your 33% weight savings threshold, are you primarily looking for a structural armor system, as opposed to a parasitic armor system? If so can you disclose the rough mechanical properties required for structural support today, or name the material system that is providing structural support currently? Answer 8: The solicitation does not specifically address parasitic/non-parasitic approaches intentionally. Potential offerors should address their concepts and potential applications thereof. Primary and secondary structure vary somewhat from aircraft to aircraft, and from aircraft generation to generation. In general terms, aircraft structures are expected to migrate from current metals, with limited composite application, to mostly/all composite material systems over time. Having said that, the requ irement solicited is intended to address both current and future aircraft applications, hence the solicitation identifies no specific parasitic or non-parasitic applications. Question 9: The proposal mentions a state-of-the-art armor system as the benchmark for measured performance; can you disclose what you consider the state-of-the-art-system to be? Are you able to provide the baseline cost, areal weight and system thicknes s of this system? Answer 9: Current state-of-the-art systems tend to be ceramic-based (B4C, SiC, etc.) with a fiber or polymeric backing system (such as Kevlar, Spectra, Dyneema, other polymeric materials, etc.). Protective systems intended for ball ammunition protection only may omit the ceramic strike face element typical in other systems. Protective system areal density will vary with the specific threat(s) selected and will further vary from manufac turer to manufacturer based on their specific design approach. As discussed above, cost, areal weight, and thickness vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, and are in large part driven by the specific threat and design approach selected. Question 10: You mention 4 projectile threats that you would like protection from; 7.62mm ball, 7.62mm AP, 12.7mm AP and 14.5mm AP. Are you able to provide V50 velocities for each of these projectiles that would define 'protection at service velocity'? MIL-STD MIL-A-46103E 'Lightweight Composite Armor' defines protection as 2850, 2850 or 4000, 2850 and 3250 ft/sec respectively for these projectiles. Answer 10: The solicitation requests that proposed technologies provide protection from 'conventional ballistic threats'. It is explained that in this context 'conventional ballistic threats' are defined as small arms rounds in the 7.62 ball to 12.7 AP mm range, with 14.5 AP as an objective for the future. An 'exact' round has intentionally not been identified because we are not interested is developing protection against a single projectile. Rather, it is our desire to develop technologies that are effe ctive against these classes of threats. There are several varieties of military grade 7.62mm ball and armor piercing ammunitions (and 12.7mm and 14.5mm also). Although, due to varying projectile mass and its associated velocity, the specific or muzzle energy associated with each projectile vari es from round to round, the real concern between ball round impact and that of an armor piercing class projectile stems from the failure mechanism by which it defeats armor. As such, the solicitation is principally interested in systems or materials that o ffer AP class protection. The term muzzle velocity is defined by MIL-STD 662 as 'The velocity of the projectile with respect to the muzzle at the instant the projectile leaves the weapon. This velocity is a function of the projectile weight, firing charge of the projectile, barrel characteristics, etc.' To provide a specific velocity in feet or meters per second would defeat the intent of the solicitation by tying the solicitation to a specific threat at a specific range. Question 11: Does the intended application require the use of curved panels or shapes or have any requirements to this nature, are flat plates sufficient for this program? Answer 11: Potential applications for both transparent and opaque ballistic protective systems may include both flat and complex curved elements. Having said that, proof of concept efforts could conceivably utilize flat panels only, and substantiation fo r your capability to move from flat demonstrator panels to requisite complex curved pieces. Ultimately, it is at your discretion to select your approach. Question 12: Does the intended application have any requirements for fire/flame resistance and/or static build up resistance? Answer 12: Eventual specific aircraft applications could conceivably have requirements in those areas, but the solicitation identifies no specific requirements. Your proposal would be evaluated against its merit as advancement over current state-of-the-a rt. Question 13: Does the intended application have any multi hit or repair requirements? Answer 13: Multi hit and repair requirements are not included in the solicitation. Your proposal would be evaluated against its merit as advancement over current state-of-the-art. Question 14: Does the requirement have any other MIL-STD requirements that need to be addressed other than ballistics? Answer 14: There are no other stated requirements at this time. NOTE: THIS NOTICE WAS NOT POSTED TO FEDBIZOPPS ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ITSELF (18-SEP-2007); HOWEVER, IT DID APPEAR IN THE FEDBIZOPPS FTP FEED ON THIS DATE. PLEASE CONTACT fbo.support@gsa.gov REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
- Web Link
-
Link to FedBizOpps document.
(http://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/USAMC/DAAH10/W911W6-07-R-0003/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Aviation Applied Technology Directorate ATTN: AMSRD-AMR-AA-C, Building 401, Lee Boulevard Fort Eustis VA
- Zip Code: 23604-5577
- Country: US
- Zip Code: 23604-5577
- Record
- SN01411219-F 20070920/070919144940 (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 |