Total Small Business Set Aside-Naval Security Forces Tactical Vest (NTV): Type I and II Variants

The Special Mission Systems Division (S20) within Naval Surface Warfare Centers Panama City Division has a requirement for manufacturing of the Naval Security Forces Tactical Vest - Type I and Type II variants. The NTV is a critical safety item. The NTV is a modular unisex body armor system providing multiple levels of ballistic protection depending on the system configuration. This Performance Work Statement (PWS) specifies the requirements for the Contractor to produce and deliver the NTV. Qualification and eligibility for any production task orders under this contract is contingent upon the contractors successful completion of First

Article Test (FAT) in accordance with the purchase description (PD) NQ/PD 23-01.

NOTE: This is a 100% small business set-aside.

Please read the attached solicitation in its entirety, which includes the SOW, provisions, and clauses. In addition, please see the attached CDRLS, purchase description, QALI, pattern files, and ordering procedures. June 16th is the Deadline for requesting locked attachments.

**The purpose of this third amendment is to extend the solicitation due date from the 3rd of July, 2025, to the 10th of July, 2025**

**The purpose of this amendment is to add and address the questions posed by industry**

Question: Does this DFAR clause only apply to the Prime or does this clause get flowed down through the Prime’s supply chain (ex. supplier can’t charge the prime duties or surcharges based on the current Executive Order)?

Answer: Yes, the clause gets flowed down. The prime is responsible for ensuring its suppliers don’t charge for duties on eligible items and suppliers must comply with the requirements to avoid duties where possible.

Question: If one of the Prime’s material suppliers requires components to be imported into the U.S. how can that supplier obtain a customs duty-free certificate?

Answer: That depends on the country. Is the country an approved source?

Follow-Up Question/Answer: Yes, components come from the EU.

Follow-Up Answer: There is no single certificate, but rather a process of proving eligibility at import through documentation. The supplier must determine eligibility, obtain the necessary documentation (including a certificate of origin, if required), and claim duty-free entry on the CBP entry form. Working with a customs broker is highly recommended.

Question: What happens if the supplier can’t separate duty-free vs. non duty-free raw material components easily (ex. raw material is imported in a tote and they can’t easily separate duty-free vs. non duty-free)? An example of this would be resin.

Answer: Ideally, materials should be segregated. If that's not possible, accurate tracking and allocation are necessary, but often difficult. A conservative approach of not claiming duty-free benefits may be the most practical solution. Transparency with the prime and thorough documentation are essential; when materials are commingled it becomes very difficult to claim duty-free benefits.

Question: If the contract contains a duty-free clause but the imported items are comingled and not necessarily separated than as you state, it becomes hard to claim duty-free. What happens if the supplier passes on the duty surcharge? Does the prime just have to eat the cost since they can’t pass it on the Government?

Answer: The prime is responsible for making a good faith effort to obtain duty-free entry. If the supplier passes on the duty surcharge, it is the primes responsibility to negotiate with the supplier, document everything, and explore alternative sourcing. REA’s may be considered but not guaranteed. Ultimately the prime may have to absorb the cost. The outcome depends on the specific facts and circumstances.

Question: Would your office be amenable to granting a 30-day extension to the submission deadline? This additional time would allow us to ensure thorough preparation and compliance with all technical and administrative requirements.

Answer: At this time the Government does not intend on extending the subject solicitation. Please continue to monitor SAM.gov for any updates.

Question: Is a NIJ 0101.07 Type HG2 certified package considered acceptable in lieu of a NIJ 0101.06 Type IIIA certified package? We seek clarification on whether the newer standard (HG2 under NIJ 0101.07) meets or exceeds the ballistic performance criteria specified under the previous 0101.06 Type IIIA standard for the purposes of this solicitation.

Answer: Yes, it is considered acceptable. NIJ IIIA = NIJ HG2

Question: If a material required for the PDM samples is not readily available, may a substitution material be used and documented on a deviation letter submitted with the PDMs? Some materials have long lead times and without an extension to the current due date, sourcing these required materials may take some additional time.

Answer: Yes, materials may be substituted with other similar materials and a deviation letter.

Question: Factor 1 states that PDMs are due per Block 8 of the SF33; however, Block 8 does not specify a due date. Can you please confirm whether the intended due date for PDM submission is July 3, 2025, at 4:00 PM CST, as listed in Block 9 and consistent with the overall proposal submission deadline?

Answer: Yes, Factor 1 should have stated “Block 9 of the SF33” and will be corrected in SAM.gov to be consistent with the overall proposal submission deadline.

Question: Section 3.2.1.3 of the RFP states that the Government will pay for FAT test articles and the conduct of the initial FAT, which we interpret to mean the actual testing costs associated with testing of the FAT samples. Can you please confirm if this interpretation is correct? Additionally, can you clarify who is responsible for the cost of LAT testing?

Answer: The government will pay for the FAT samples and the testing for INITIAL FAT, any subsequent testing if a re-FAT is needed is at the cost of the vendor. The government will also pay for LAT testing.

Question: Section B notes a maximum quantity of 55,187 units under the contract. Can you please confirm whether this quantity is the maximum per awardee under the IDIQ, or the total maximum across all MAC contract awardees?

Answer: The maximum quantity of 55,187 units is the total maximum across all MAC contract awardees, not per awardee.

Question: Can you please confirm the order of precedence among the pattern files, purchase description, and figures? We interpret the documents to mean that pattern files take precedence over the purchase description, and the purchase description takes precedence over the figures — is that correct?

Answer: Yes, patterns supersede the PD and the PD supersedes the figures. The figures are provided for reference only.