FBODaily.com | FedBizOpps: MOD | A | Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Program

FBO DAILY - FEDBIZOPPS ISSUE OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 FBO #6514
MODIFICATION

A -- Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Program

Notice Date: 9/24/2019
Notice Type: Modification/Amendment
NAICS: 336992 — Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing
Contracting Office: Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, ACC - WRN (W56HZV)(DTA), 6501 EAST 11 MILE ROAD, Warren, Michigan, 48397-5000, United States
ZIP Code: 48397-5000
Solicitation Number: W56HZV-18-R-0174_
Archive Date: 4/27/2019
Point of Contact: Michael R. Chaney, Phone: 586-282-5057, James J Giacchina, Phone: 5862824131
E-Mail Address: michael.r.chaney.civ@mail.mil, james.j.giacchina.civ@mail.mil
(michael.r.chaney.civ@mail.mil, james.j.giacchina.civ@mail.mil)
Small Business Set-Aside: N/A
Description: Modified on 6 June 2019 to reorganize the Q&A's The United States Government intends to answer questions in response to the Request for Proposal W56HZV-18-R-0174 in order to provide information to the interested vendors in pursuit of developing the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). Only Distribution A documents that are authorized for public release will be posted to FBO. Distribution D/For Official Use Only documents will be posted through AMRDEC. Please Note: The United States Government requires that all offerors must have a valid facility clearance of SECRET or higher in order to respond to this solicitation. Offerors who have not had prior access to FOUO attachments shall follow the INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING UNCLASSIFIED/FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) INFORMATION posted on FBO. Q1: In reviewing the list of attachments, it appears the following were not on either the AMRDEC or FBO sites for download. Attachment 44- Soldier Assessment Checklist Attachment 91- TOW Performance Attachment 97- Contractor's Purchase Description Attachment 100- Night Vision Integrated Performance Model (NV-IPM) Input Deck Attachment 112- Design Maturity Review Checklist A1: Attachment 0044 - Soldier Assessment Checklist will be released by the United States Government on FBO once complete. Attachments 0091 & 0100 - These attachments are Classified and will not be posted to FBO. Please follow the posted guidance on FBO to received Classified Data. Attachment 0097- Contractor's Purchase Description - IAW Section L.4.5.2.1 This Contractor's Purchase Description "will be created by the government based on the Offeror's proposed levels of performance input into Requirements Compliance Matrix. The Contractor's Purchase Description will be incorporated into the resultant contract as Attachment 0097." This attachment will not be applicable until contract award. Attachment 0112 - Was in advertently included in Section J. It will be permanently removed from the RFP in a future amendment. Please disregard as it is not applicable to this procurement. Q2: The VATEP values do not appear to be listed. A2: The VATEP Adjustment Spreadsheet includes values. Simply enter the information identified in the attachment to show the values. Q3: How do we receive JBC-P Technical Documentation? A3: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ACCESS TO JBC-P TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION In order to be eligible to receive JBC-P Technical Documentation, interested parties must supply proof of International Traffic In Arms Regulation (ITAR) compliance by submitting a copy of their Department of Statement, Defense Trade Controls Compliance (DDTC) registration statement with valid date (vendor may redact vendor registrant code), sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), and sign a Compliance Certification. Return copies of both documents to sandra.l.lindecamp.civ@mail.mil and to usarmy.detroit.peo-gcs.mbx.ngcv-omfv-contracting@mail.mil. Once all of these items are received and verified the documentation will be released to Vendor Point of Contact via AMRDEC SAFE. Attachments: Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and NGCV Access Compliance Certification, are attached. Q4: How do we receive the Northrop Grumman information referenced in PD para 3.3.3.3. A4: POC for Northrop Grumman is Quinn Canole (480) 324-5488 Q5: We request the XM813 Weapon/Ammunition Interface listed an Attachment 0009. A5: In order to receive this information, you must fill out the attached XM813 Ammo-Weapon ICD Special License Agreement Schedule DUA and submit a copy to michael.e.ellis7.civ@mail.mil and to usarmy.detroit.peo-gcs.mbx.ngcv-omfv-contracting@mail.mil. Q6: Is the intent of paragraph B.4.1.4.1 that the requirement for protection levels cited in the referenced tables in section B.4.2 is applicable to occupied areas of the vehicle only? A6: B.4.1.4.1 is the force protection requirement for threats listed in B.4.2 and sub paragraphs. Each sub-paragraph B.4.2.1-13 specially calls out an OMFV (vehicle level) or occupant survivability requirement for each threat. Table 23 & table 28 provide additional guidance for turret protection, depending on type of turret (manned or unmanned). Q7: There are many math errors and MS Excel cell calculations that are incorrect. Can this list be updated? A7: Attachment 0090 - OMFV Soldier Load List has been updated. It will be released via AMRDEC to the approved vendors and will be included in an upcoming RFP Amendment. Q8: With the release of the final solicitation was an amended performance specification made available? A8: Yes. A revised version of Attachment 0007 Government's Purchase Description was released on 29 March 2019 and Attachment 0008 Government's Classified Purchase Description was released immediately following the RFP release. Q9: With respect to the System Security Plan (SSP) requirement proposed in the solicitation, section C.7.5.2, we have concerns regarding the flow down to suppliers. We request the following paragraph be removed from the proposed scope in pertinent part: "The Contractor shall, upon request, provide the government with access to the system security plan(s) (or extracts thereof) and any associated plans of action for each of the Contractors tier one level subcontractor(s), vendor(s), and/or supplier(s), and the subcontractors tier one level subcontractor(s), vendor(s), and/or supplier(s), who process, store, or transmit covered defense information associated with the execution and performance of this contract. The contractor shall report IAW CDRL A148." Offeror Rationale: This scope imposes additional requirements beyond DFARS 252.204-7012, which does not require submission of an SSP at either the prime or subcontractor level. Additionally, the scope is unclear as to what roles the offeror and/or the Government may have in reviewing and approving supplier SSPs or determining compliance. Further, many suppliers consider cybersecurity and SSP information competition sensitive and will not provide directly to the offeror. A9: System Security Plan sections C.7.5.1 and C.7.5.2 will be retained in the NGCV-OMFV RFP since they are required as prescribed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense memo "Guidance for Assessing Compliance and Enhancing Protections Required by DFARS Clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting" dated 06 November 2018 and Assistant Secretary of Defense memo "Strengthening Contract Requirements Language for Cybersecurity in the Defense Industrial Base" dated 17 December 2018 which enhance the requirements provided by DFARS Clause 252.204-7012. Q10: Would the USG consider an offeror's proposal to be unaffordable IAW M.3.2 if costs are deferred from one funding period to the next in order to remain below the incremental funding amounts? A10: Deferring costs as suggested is not acceptable. Such a proposal would be rejected IAW M.2 of the RFP since it would be in violation of DFARS 252.232-7007 Limitation of Government's Obligation which states in relevant part "...the Contractor agrees to perform up to the point at which the total amount payable by the Government, including reimbursement in the event of termination of those item(s) for the Government's convenience, approximates the total amount currently allotted to the contract. The Contractor is not authorized to continue work on those item(s) beyond that point." Q11: Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.4.1 states that... "The Contractor shall host and conduct PMRs every six months, beginning six months after DMR." Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.4.2 states that... "The final PMR shall be conducted... no sooner than 34 months after contract award." Section B Item No. 0001 states that performance of the CLIN will be complete 1337 days (44 months) after award. Based on this, there will be no PMR during the last 8-10 months of contract performance. Please confirm this interpretation. Section B Item No. 0001 states that performance of the CLIN will be complete 1337 days (44 months) after award (November 28, 2023 based on April 1, 2020 Award). Attachment 0021 reflects conclusion of all Test and Logistics scope by February 2023, with LRIP award shortly thereafter. It is unclear what MTA-RP scope is expected to continue between March and November 2023. Please clarify or update dates to reflect expected period of performance as aligned with scope. A11: Section B001 will be revised to reflect a period of performance of 39 months after contract award (not 44 months). (1,337 days" would be changed to "1,186 days) PMRS shall be every 6 months after DMR and will continue to completion. Q12: Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.4.2 states that... "The final PMR shall be conducted in conjunction with the MMR and no sooner than 34 months after contract award." Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.6 states that... "The Contractor shall host a MMR at their facility NLT 26 months after contract award." These paragraphs are contradictory; either the Final PMR should not be aligned with the MMR, or the MMR timing needs to change. Please provide the intended relationship and clarify in a future revision of the solicitation. A12: Yes. The RFP was inadvertently not aligned with the program schedule. Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.4.2 will be revised from "The final PMR shall be conducted in conjunction with the MMR and no later than 34 months after contract award. In addition..." to "The final PMR shall be conducted no later than 34 months after contract award. In addition..." Q13: The dates reflected in the Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan (Attachment 0004) are out of alignment with the Solicitation. Further, the timing described on the 'C1 - DD Form 2794, Pg 2' and the 'C2 - DD Form 2794, Pg 2' tabs are inconsistent. Proper timing is needed in order to anticipate delivery timing for CDRLs A009 through A014. It appears that the intent of the timing is: a. Initial delivery at Contract Award b. Annually in the beginning of March c. Final delivery at Contract Completion Please confirm that this is the correct assumption or clarify if it is incorrect. A13: The CSDR submission event dates listed in the CSDR Plan (Attachment 0004) Blocks 14.e (AS OF DATE) and 14.f (DUE DATE) are not consistent with requirements identified elsewhere in the solicitation. However, interested offerors are reminded to read the Block 15 (REMARKS) within the CSDR Plan for further guidance on CSDR requirements. Of note, the ""REPORTING FREQUENCY DIRECTIONS"" on worksheet ""C1 - DD Form 2794, Pg 2"" from the CSDR Plan states: All submission dates identified in Block 14 of this CSDR plan are for planning purposes only. All submission events for this contract plan are event driven. -The Event 1, 2, and 3 submissions shall have an As of Date on the last day of the contractor's accounting month in which the contract was awarded. - The Event 4, 5, and 6 submissions shall have an As of Date which is one year after Event 1's As of Date. - The Event 7, 8, and 9 submissions shall have an As of Date which is one year after Event 4s As of Date. - The Event 10, 11, and 12 submissions shall have an As of Date which is one year after Event 7's As of Date. - The Event 13, 14 and, 15 submissions shall have an As of Date on the last day of the contractor's accounting month in which at least 95% of the estimated cost at complete associated with this CSDR contract plan have been incurred by the contractor. A similar set of event triggers is provided on ""C2 - DD Form 2794, Pg 2"" in order to identify when submission events associated with that CSDR Contract Plan are required. The dates listed on worksheets ""C1 - DD Form 2794, Pg 2"" and ""C2 - DD Form 2794, Pg 2"" also do not match. The submission events associated with the C1 plan are not expected to exactly match the event dates associated with the C2 plan. Interested offerors are once again reminded to review Block 15 (REMARKS) within the CSDR Plan, in particular section ""CSDR PLANNING APPROACH"" states: The NGCV-OMFV CSDR Plan is comprised of two CSDR contract plans: (C1) the "Design & Engineering" plan and (C2) the "Manufacturing" plan. These CSDR contract plans - when combined - shall include reporting of any and all costs incurred by the contractor in order to perform the scopes of work associated with the NGCV-OMFV EMD contract.... The contract plans are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. The dates will be finalized and provided to the offeror prior to contract award. Q14: The Tier 2 requirements in the Purchase Description contain both Threshold (T) and Objective (O) requirements (e.g. PD paragraph 3.3.9.5 Cross Platform Pointing Laser and Receiver (CPPLR) [Tier 2]). Can it be assumed that the entire paragraph labeled with Tier 2 is considered "tradeable" and if not incorporated into the offeror's baseline, then the (T) requirements for the Tier 2 item would not require Self-Certification? Similarly, would the Annex B requirements related to the same Capability (i.e. CPPLR in this example) also be considered Tier 2? The Annex B does not contain the Tiering nomenclature. If an Offeror does include a Tier 2 element into its design, would the performance of that element need to meet the performance (T) at a minimum and Self Certify that element? A14: In order to achieve VATEP credit on Tier 2 requirements, the Threshold, at a minimum, must be proposed, including any Thresholds specified in classified PD Annex B. Attachment 0045 Tab 5 is revised to include "Proposed Below Threshold" and "Not proposed" for the Tier 2 requirements. If a Tier 2 requirement is "Proposed Below Threshold" then the offer must self-certify to the proposed level of performance, including any below Threshold performance in the corresponding classified PD Annex B. Any Below Threshold performance for classified PD Annex B should be included in Attachment 0111. Do NOT include any Below Threshold performance for classified PD Annex B in Attachment 0045. If a Tier 2 requirement is "Not proposed", then an offer does not need to self-certify. Q15: Attachment 0040, VATEP Adjustment Spreadsheet shows Tradable Tier 2 requirements can be traded below threshold or be non‐compliant. Attachment 0045, requirements compliance matrix, tab 5 Tradeable Tier 2 requirements, does not have an option in the mandatory yellow field to trade the Tier 2, and the instructions require all fields to be filled. Please adjust Attachment 0045 to be consistent with Attachment 0040 and add 'below threshold or non-compliant' as an option, so tradable Tier 2 requirements can be traded. A15: Attachment 0045 Tab 5 is revised to include "Proposed Below Threshold" and "Not proposed" for the Tier 2 requirements Q16: Section M identifies funding amounts for each Calendar Year. Section B provides the funding amount for the first year only. Should Section B funding information be the same as Section M? A16: No. M.3.2.1 identifies the amount of funding available for each funding period. M.3.2 specifies the conditions which will render proposals unaffordable. Offerors may propose less than the total affordability amount of $617.4M, but must continue to meet the other conditions of M.3.2 to be affordable for award. To avoid confusion, the first year amount will be removed from Section B. Q17 : DFARS 252.215-7010 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA AND DATA OTHER THAN JAN/2018 CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA (JAN2018)--ALTERNATE I (JAN 2018)), is included in Section L. Recommend DFARS 252.215-7010 be deleted from the solicitation Offerors Rationale: Since this effort is subject to competitive acquisition procedures, the exception to Certified Cost or Pricing Data per FAR 15.403-1 (b)(1) applies and thereby eliminates the requirement for the Offeror to provide Cost or Pricing Data. A17: The following will be added to paragraph L.4.3.1 "In accordance with FAR 15.403-5(a)(1), certified cost or pricing data is not required for initial proposal submission. In accordance with Alternate 1 of DFARS 252.215-7010(d)(3), for its initial proposal submission, the offeror shall provide the data other than certified cost or pricing data outlined below." Q18: Section B Item No. 0001 states that... "All work under this CLIN shall be performed in accordance with Section C, Statement of Work." Based on Section C, it appears that only paragraphs C.1, C.6, and C.7 (including their sub-paragraphs) apply to CLIN 0001. Paragraph C.2 (and its sub-paragraphs) clearly apply only to CLIN 0005. Please confirm this interpretation and clarify in a future revision of the solicitation. A18: Yes. CLIN 0001 does not apply to Paragraph C.2 and associated subparagraphs. CLIN 0005 applies to Paragraph C.2 and associated subparagraphs. CLIN 0001 applies to all of Section C (excluding Paragraph C.2). The Government acknowledges that there is no scope currently associated with Paragraph C.3, C.4, and C.5; however, in the event scope is added cost will be covered under CLIN 0001. Clarification will be provided in upcoming amendment. Q19: Can the Government provide the Entrance and Exit criteria for both the Initial Bid Sample TRR and the Final Bid Sample TRR, approximately sixty (60) and thirty (30) days prior to Bid Sample delivery? A19: See Attachment 46 - Test Readiness Review Checklist. Q20: In preparing a response to the RFP I realized that in accordance with the SCG our Survivability Datasheet would need to be classified at the Secret level. Unfortunately my organization does not possess an FCL at the Secret level and in reviewing the Solicitation comments posted on FBO you noted a requirement for an FCL at the Secret level. Would the government authorize a clearance sponsorship in pursuit of this requirement or is this requirement limited to participants with a previous FCL? A20: Please see RFP Sections: L.4.5.4 Facility Clearance M.1.1.3.1 To be eligible for award M.1.2 Export Controlled Information M1.3 Requirement for Facility Clearance (FCL)(SECRET) M.2 Rejection of Offers M.3.4 Determination of Responsibility As a reminder, any potential offeror is responsible for understanding the solicitation in its entirety, not just the specific items identified above. Q21: I am looking for the Milestone Schedule that accompanies the OMFV's RFP. I have an older document for this but I want to get the latest version to confirm the communicated timeline. Particularly, I am interested in the months for EMD award and MS C LRIP contract award. A21: See Updated Attachment 0021. Q22: Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.5 required participation in "... Government-led TRRs for Armor Coupon Testing, BH&T testing and Pre-Production Prove-out Testing (PPT), and for the Limited User Test (LUT). Attachment 0021 shows five Test Readiness Reviews (TRRs)... DT-TRR1, DT-TRR2, OTRR1, OTRR2 and OTRR3. Please identify which of the events on Attachment 0021 align with the TRRs referenced in paragraph C.1.1.3.3.5. A22: Developmental Test -Test Readiness Review 1 & 2 will cover Armor Coupon testing, BH&T testing and Pre-Production Prove-out testing and require contractor attendance and participation. Operational Test Readiness Review 1, 2, & 3 will cover Limited User Testing (LUT) and require contractor attendance and participation. The OTTR's will occur 30, 60, & 90 days and will align with the corresponding OTTR prior to the (LUT). Q23: Based on the delivery timing stated in Section B of the solicitation, the timing of most of the vehicles shown in Attachment 0021 would result in an anticipated Contract Award date of 1-April-2020. However, Attachment 0021 reflects an award date in mid-February-2020. Please confirm if 1-April-2020 is the proper date to assume regarding the MTA-RP Contract Award. A23: The target award is 2nd quarter Fiscal Year 2020. Attachment 0021 will be revised accordingly and match Section B of the solicitation. Q24: Some of the Pre-Production Vehicle locations and timing in Attachment 0021 are inconsistent with the shipping locations and timing listed in Section B of the solicitation. Please clarify for planning and estimating purposes A24: The target award is 2nd quarter Fiscal Year 2020. Attachment 0021 will be revised accordingly and match Section B of the solicitation. Q25: Section B Item No. 0001 states that performance of the CLIN will be complete 1337 days (44 months) after award (November 28, 2023 based on April 1, 2020 Award). Attachment 021 reflects conclusion of all Test and Logistics scope by February 2023, with LRIP award shortly thereafter. It is unclear what MTA-RP scope is expected to continue between March and November 2023. Please clarify or update dates to reflect expected period of performance as aligned with scope. A25: The number of days for Item No. 0001 was inadvertently set to 1,337 days (44 months). The number of days for performance of Item No. 0001 will be corrected by an Amendment to reflect 1,186 days (39 months). Q26: Is the MK52 COAX gun considered part of the US DoD inventory and qualify as a viable COAX weapon according to the Purchase Description requirements? A26: No. The MK52 COAX weapon is not a part of the US DoD Inventory. Q27: If one (1) armor recipe serves as the greatest surface area coverage for multiple major surface areas of an Offeror's OMFV Bid Sample, then there is an opportunity for bid sample armor coupon quantities to be reduced while still providing Government with all coupons needed for bid sample evaluation testing. Request that Government revise section L.2.1.1.3.1 to read: "L.2.1.1.3.1 The Offeror shall deliver five (5) Armor Coupons per major surface area (reference L.2.1.1.1), per threat (reference Appendix B to the Government's Purchase Description (CLASSIFIED) (Attachment 0008)). Only one recipe that represents the greatest surface area per major surface area shall be submitted. If one (1) recipe represents two (2) or more major surface areas, then only one (1) set of five (5) Armor Coupons, per unique threat over all said major surface areas, needs to be provided for said 2 or more major surface areas." Offeror Rationale: Sending multiple identical bid sample sets of "5 Armor Coupons" increases Gov't testing costs without delivering any increase in benefit to the Government. A27: "The identified surface areas in L.2.1.1.1 (eg. different upper and lower frontal glacis, flank, rear, and roof armor) have different threat requirements per Government's Purchase Description (CLASSIFIED) (attachment 0008). The Government requires samples IAW L.2.1.1.3 as part of armor testing for source selection." Q28: Attachment does not address the ability of non-US persons to be Field Support Representative Subject Matter Experts. If permitted please revise Attachment 0043 to state as such A28: Offeror is responsible for obtaining all authorizations required for non-US personnel. FSR(s) are not limited to US citizens only. FSR(s) can be non-US personnel. The paperwork will go from countries Embassy to the US Embassy and then to the Test Site before access to the base is authorized. However, Request Visitation Authorization (RVA) paper work should start immediately. VISIT REQUEST FOR ABERDEEN TEST CENTER Visit request should adhere to the following information. The memo MUST be on the requestor's company letterhead and signed by the Facility Security Officer or an authorized official. The following information must appear on the visit request memo/letter. The request memo/letter may follow the same format as below. 1. Name of Visitor(s) 2. Security Clearance (Level of clearance, type of investigation completed, date clearance granted) 3. Company/Organization and position with company (Organization's address and telephone number) 4. Company/Organization Foreign Owned? (Specify YES or NO) 5. Citizenship 6. Date and Place of Birth (City, State, Country) 7. Identification Number (Social Security Number (US citizens only) or Passport Number with Issuing Country) 8. Area to be visited (building number/test areas) 9. Date(s) desired (not to exceed 6 months) 10. DoD Contract Number / ATC Contract Number visitor will support 11. Detailed Purpose of Visit 12. ATC Sponsor Name and Phone Number The request should be sent using the information below. Emailing is the preferred method. Hand carrying request is prohibited. Email to richard.p.beeghley2.civ@mail.mil. FAX: (410) 278-3298 Call: (410) 278-8576 to confirm receipt of fax For mailing ship to: Commander US Army Aberdeen Test Center ATTN: CSTE-DTC-AT-CSI (Security and Intelligence Division) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5059 Q29: Excel 2007 is called out for use on Page 192, and Excel 2013 is called out for use on Pages 195 and 202. For continuity throughout the RFP, recommend any Excel 2007 reference be changed to Excel 2013. A29: DFARS 252.215-7010(d)(3) will be updated by an Amendment to reflect Microsoft 2013 and Excel 2013 in lieu of Microsoft 2007 and Excel 2007. Q30: a) Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBC-P), consisting of a Mounted Family of Computer Systems (MFoCS) Block II, Blue Force Tracking 2 (BFT 2) Transceiver with KGV-27, and JBC-P software Is KGV-27 correct in the sentence, or should it be KGV-72? A30: Section C.1.2.15.1(a) will be revised by an Amendment. Section C.1.2.15.1(a) should read: Joint Battle Command-Platform (JBC-P), consisting of a Mounted Family of Computer Systems (MFoCS) Block II, Blue Force Tracking 2 (BFT 2) Transceiver with KGV-72, and JBC-P software. Q31: Section I, item I - 110, inserts "DFARS 252.225-7001 BUY AMERICAN AND BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PROGRAM -- BASIC" DFARS 225.1101(2)(i) and (2)(ii) is the citation that prescribes use of the DFARS clause. It states: "Use the basic or the alternate of the clause at 252.225-7001, Buy American and Balance of Payments Program, instead of the clause at FAR 52.225-1, Buy American - Supplies, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items,..." Since the NGCV - OMFV is not a commercial item, this clause should be deleted from the RFP. A31: DFARS 252.225-7001 will not be deleted. DFARS 252.225-7001 is required to be included in solicitations and contracts, notwithstanding an item's commerciality. Refer to DFARS 225.1101(2)(i), "Use the basic or the alternate of the clause at 252.225-7001, Buy American and Balance of Payments Program, instead of the clause at FAR 52.225-1, Buy American-Supplies, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items,... Q32: In reference to Paragraph K-20 252.225-7000 Buy American Statute - Balance of Payments Program Certificate - Basic NOV/2014 (b) Evaluation. The Government will evaluate offers of qualifying end products without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American Statute of the Balance of Payments Program (252.225-7001). We understand this provision may remove the requirement for 51% US content in the cost of the end item, is there a requirement for US content for the balance of the contract work? Based upon M.3.2 Availability of Funding and Affordability, the Proposed Contract Price is not to exceed $617.4 million USD. A32: Refer to DFARS 252.225-7001 Buy American and Balance of Payments Program (a) for definitions of terms used in DFARS 252.225-7000, as they have the same meaning. Q33: We plan to supply 5 armor coupons per major area for the worst case threat(s) the coupon is designed for; e.g. if the area has 3 threats but one is dominant, we would supply 5 coupons. If the area sees 3 threats and 2 are dominant, we would supply 10 armor coupons. Please verify this approach is acceptable. Offeror Rationale: Testing threats that are significantly overmatched by an armor coupon designed for a much more severe threat would not add technical value A33: No, the proposed approach does not meet the intent. Only Government testing shall determine which is the worst case or dominant threat. Therefore, 5 coupons per threat shall be provided. Q34: Recommend the Government include the criteria which ATEC will use to assess the safety of the Bid Sample. Required to ensure Bidder can self-assess safety of Bid Sample to the same criteria as ATEC. A34: ATEC safety test for bid sample shall include but not be limited to: Grounds and Bonds Limited Source/Victim (Intrasystem EMC) Automotive Noise Levels Human System Integration (HSI) Ingress/Egress, Sharp/Trip/Choke Hazards, Hot Surfaces, Force Measurements, Workspaces, Fields of View Automotive Toxic Fumes Weapon Proofing, Firing Toxic Fumes/Noise/Blast Over Pressure (BOP) Software Safety Q35: We were recently told by two potential vehicle OEM's that the optionally manned requirement has been reduced or eliminated from the solicitation. I have reviewed the updates and cannot find any reference that supports this belief. Can you please confirm that the optionally manned requirement still is valid and advise if there are any near term plans to modify or delete this requirement from the solicitation? A35: Please see attachment 0007 for requirements. There have been no changes since the 29 March 2019 solicitation release. Q36: On Attachment 0055, the Instructions Tab, Item 13 is entitled "Proposed Rights Category". However, there is no column on the "Assertions of Restrictions" Tab with such title. If such a category is intended for the "Assertions of Restrictions" tab, please add this column. Item 9, "Asserted Rights Category", already identifies the rights the Offeror asserts. Is the "Proposed Rights Category" used to identify the rights the Offeror proposes for one of the eleven Options? If so, how does the Offeror identify which Option it aligns with? If not, please clarify use of this category. A36: On Attachment 0055, "Instructions" tab, the instruction "13. Proposed Rights Category" will be removed. Q37: Paragraph H.4.1.1 states that specific patent and application numbers are required for any U.S. or foreign Background Patent. Attachment 0055, "Assertions of Restrictions" Tab, Column K, is titled "Associated Background U.S. Patents." Should the Offeror assume Foreign Background Patents are to be listed here also? A37: The assumption is correct. Both should be included in Column K. The heading of Attachment 0055, "Assertions of Restrictions" tab, Column K is changed to "Associated Background Patents (U.S. and Foreign)". Q38: Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.4.1 states: "The final PMR shall be conducted in conjunction with the MMR and no sooner than 34 months after contract award." Paragraph C.1.1.3.3.6.1: "The Contractor shall host a MMR at their facility NLT 26 months after contract award." Paragraph F.6.6: Manufacturing Maturity Review (MMR). The Contractor shall host and conduct a MMR within 27 months of contract award IAW C.1.1.3.3.6." Please clarify the scheduling of the MMR. A38: The RFP will be revised by an amendment for MMR scheduling clarification. Paragraph F.6.6 will be revised from "The Contractor shall host and conduct a MMR within 27 months of contract award IAW C.1.1.3.3.6" to "The Contractor shall host and conduct a MMR IAW C.1.1.3.3.6." Paragraphs C.1.1.3.3.4.1 and C.1.1.3.3.6.1 remain unchanged. Q39: Cited paragraph requires Offeror to execute a Non-Disclosure / Proprietary Information Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Please provide a Jacobs Engineering Group Point of Contact for establishing this agreement. A39: Jacobs POC is Michael Scanlon michael.t.scanlon8.ctr@mail.mil Desk Phone: 410-278-5134 Q40: The Field Level Maintenance Ratio (MR) MMH/OH is 2-3 times lower than actual MRs realized on existing fielded vehicles. Propose changing field level MR requirement. Offeror Rationale: The Field Level Maintenance Ratio (MR) is to low when compared to other vehicles which have demonstrated data. A40: The Field Level Maintenance Ratio requirement will not be updated. The requirement in attachment 0007 is valid. Q41: Attachment 0045, Column D, rows 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54. The drop down cell options are not working. A41: Attachment 0045 was revised by Amendment 0001 to correct the drop downs. Q42: This Rapid Prototyping phase allows the USG's desire to "... alleviate a 2 to 3 year Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase". Additionally the USG "... generally prefers proposed performance greater than threshold with risk no greater than moderate over low risk, threshold-level performance. (Section M 1.1)". The desire to bear additional risk to bring new technology rapidly to the program combined with the HALT and QUAL test requirements in the RFP are extremely difficult to meet together. The requirement to conduct Qualification "...testing on all LRUs, LRMs, and components" and the requirement that "Qualification testing must be completed prior to entry into PPT" is a large effort and very costly prior to the delivery of 14 prototypes. This is especially true given the affordability limitations in the first year of execution when HW would need to be purchased for these tests. Recommend reducing the rigid HALT/QUAL requirements to accommodate the technology risk on the program. Offeror Rationale: Request that the USG allow the offeror to recommend a HALT and Qual Test Plan to start prior to the 14 prototype deliveries on more mature technologies AND continue HALT and Qual after initial prototype vehicle testing has occurred for very immature technologies where HW change is expected and necessary to improve those LRUs. This HALT and Qual testing could still be complete prior to the integration and build of LRIP vehicles. A42: The Government will not accept delayed QUAL/HALT testing. The requirement will remain the same. However, see L.4.5.14. Q43: The reference paragraphs states: "The Contractor shall produce 9 representative specimens for validation testing of each paint process. Six shall be cleaned, pretreated, and primed. Six shall be cleaned, pretreated, primed, and top coated. " Please clarify the number of specimens to be treated. The first sentence states there are nine specimens; however, the following two sentences reference a total of 12 specimens. A43: C.1.6.6.3.1 should read;" The Contractor shall produce 12 representative specimens for validation testing of each paint process. Six shall be cleaned, pretreated, and primed. Six shall be cleaned, pretreated, primed, and top coated." The solicitation will be revised in an upcoming amendment. Q44: This line item references Title 29 CFR 571 in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. However, MIL-STD-1179E cites Title 49 CFR 571. A44: This is an error. Attachment 0007 will be updated to change "29 CFR 571" to "49 CFR 571". The solicitation will be revised in an upcoming amendment. Q45: The MMBSA (and similar EFF) requirements to be realized during the MTA-RP contract are 3 times greater than actual MMBSAs realized on existing fielded, similar complexity, and mature vehicles. Propose changing MMBSA to which is an aggressive requirement to apply to a new and immature platform with many new technologies and hardware/software solutions. A45: The requirement will not be changed. Q46: CBRNE Decontamination MIL-STD-3056 not available. Is this similar to ATP 3-11.32? A46: MIL-STD-3056 will be provided as GFI and listed in a future update of Attachment 0009, GFP List. Offerors requiring a copy must submit a current DD2345 and provide a statement of need to know to the OMFV Mailbox. Q47: Requirements are stated in terms of EFC values. Recommend using Phit values instead of EFC. The design solution platform cannot fully effect the EFC values through demonstration or test. EFC would include effectiveness of the round. A design solution is usually assessed against Phit. A47: The requirements will not be changed. Q48: There is a disconnect in the ranges stated between the ELRF and Table 2. A48: There is no disconnect. The requirements will not be changed. Q49: Attachment 0021, Government's Detailed Test Schedule (12MAR2019), shows the "Ammo Delivery" date as on or around 01 July 2019, which is approximately 5.5 months prior to the "Lethality" testing event, shown starting on or around the last week in December 2019. Given the year-end activities, does the Government envision testing to begin at that time? Or might it start at the beginning of 2020? Attachment 0043, Bid Sample Evaluation Plan, in Section 1.2.4, Ammunition, states that the ammunition..."shall be delivered to the designated test site no later than 90 days before testing." Please verify the anticipated beginning of the lethality testing and the required delivery date for the ammunition. Offeror Rationale: Clarification required for planning purposes. A49: Attachment 0021 was revised by Amendment 0001 to remove the Bid Sample Test Schedule. The Bid Sample Test Schedule is subject to change. Offerors should be prepared to ship the ammunition immediately following TRR #1 where final instructions will be provided. Attachment 0043 was revised in Amendment 0001 to reflect ammunition shall be delivered to the test site no later than 19 Sept 2019. Q50: Section L-20 d (3) indicates "Electronic spreadsheet files (Workbooks) shall be Microsoft Excel 2007 compatible". Section L.2.2 indicates "All spreadsheets must be in Microsoft Excel 2013 compatible format............" Please clarify if worksheets should be Microsoft Excel 2007 or 2013 compatible. A50: L-20 (d)(3) will be amended to read "The Offeror shall provide information described as follows; See RFP Section L.4.3.1 for the data other than certified cost or pricing data that offerors shall provide. Q51: Section L-20 d (3) indicates "The electronic cost model shall include build-up by year of cost in total and by CLIN/subCLIN.....". Section L.4.3.1.4 indicates "....The Offeror shall provide a top-level spreadsheet, time-phased by month and organized by cost element........" Please clarify if the top-level spreadsheet should be time-phased by month or by year consistent with the cost model instructions in L-20 d (3) A51: L-20 (d)(3) will be amended to read "The Offeror shall provide information described as follows; See RFP Section L.4.3.1 for the data other than certified cost or pricing data that offerors shall provide." Q52: Cell A8 of the VATEP Summary worksheet is titled "Evaluated Contract Price" and reflects the total of the CLIN 0001 Price plus the CLIN 0005xx Option Pricing. Other than the Option Prices providing potential VATEP Credit against CLIN 0001, how else will the Government evaluate the CLIN 0005xx Option Prices? Will the Government add together the Offeror's Option Prices and the CLIN 0001 Price for evaluation purposes? If the CLIN 0005xx Option Pricing will not be evaluated as part of Total Price, recommend cell A8 in the VATEP Summary Worksheet be retitled to "Total Proposed Price (CLIN 0001 + CLIN 0005)" or a similar title. Offeror Rationale: The title of cell A8, "Evaluated Contract Price", implies the total CLIN 0005xx Option Prices are included in the Government's bottom line price evaluation. A52: Offeror should read entire Tab including Row 11. No change to solicitation. Q53: Section C.1.1.3.3 identifies the following meetings as Major Program Reviews: SOWM, PMRs, DMR, MMR, and TRRs. Section F.6 lists Major Program Reviews and includes IPRs (see F.6.2). IPRs are not identified as a Major Program Review in Section C.1.1.3.3. Please clarify. A53: Integrated Program Reviews (IPRs) are Major Program Reviews. Major Program Reviews are provided as subparagraphs under C.1.1.3.3. IPR requirements are included in C.1.1.3.3.2. Paragraph C.1.1.3.3 will be revised from "Major program reviews are defined as follows: SOWM; Program Management Reviews (PMRs); Design Maturity Review (DMR); Manufacturing Maturity Review (MMR); and Test Readiness Reviews (TRRs)." to "Major program reviews are defined as follows: SOWM; Integrated Program Reviews (IPR); Program Management Reviews (PMRs); Design Maturity Review (DMR); Manufacturing Maturity Review (MMR); and Test Readiness Reviews (TRRs)." Q54: Recommend revising the amended paragraph L.3.2.1.1.3.2 as follows: From: however the Offeror shall provide mounting provisions and backing plate quantities IAW Armor Coupons (Attachment 0050). To: however the Offeror shall provide mounting provisions and backing plate quantities IAW GFE ERA tile quantitates (3) to be tested in support of proposal evaluation. Offeror Rationale: Amendment 0001 specifies that backing plate quantities for ERA tiles in support of proposal evaluation need to be provided in accordance with the updated attachment 0050. The updated Attachment 0050 specifies quantities needed for test under contract, not during proposal evaluation. For Side ERA that quantity is 28. This is in conflict with the requirement to provide 3 ERA tiles for test in support of proposal evaluation. Our assumption is that 3 Side backing plates are to be delivered in support of GFE ERA Side for proposal evaluation. A54: Concur. "The Offeror shall provide mounting provisions and backing plate quantities IAW GFE ERA tile quantitates (3) to be tested in support of proposal evaluation." This will reflected in an upcoming amendment. Q55: How far in advance of the 1 October 2019 required due date will the Government make space available to the Offeror at the Bid Sample test facility? Offeror recommends Government make ATEC facility available for operator training, placement of Spares and Support equipment, etc. no later than 15 August 2019. Offeror Rationale: Required to ensure unit is in place, teams are trained, and spares and support equipment is at the ready in advance of 1 October 2019. A55: The US Government facility will be prepared for Bid Samples occupation as early as 23 September 2019. However, the operator training for the Bid Samples will not occur until October after bid sample delivery with a more refined date to be given at the TRR. Q56: Amendment 0001, SF30, Block 11 states that Offeror must acknowledge receipt of the amendment by one of three methods, one of which is: "By completing items 8 and 15, and returning 2 signed copies of the amendments" The Offeror would like to confirm that the Government desires two hard copies of each amendment in addition to the three identical sets of DVDs for Volume 5: Proposal Terms and Conditions as prescribed by Section L.2.1. A56: Amendment 0001, SF30, Block 11 also has method (b) "By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted." The proposal and all amendments will be submitted in accordance with the RFP Sections L2.1 and L2.2 which state in part, "The Offeror's proposal shall be submitted electronically..." Hard copies are not required. Q57: 1.2.2 The Offeror shall submit a Safety Assessment Report (SAR), a Health Hazard Assessment Report (HHAR), and an information paper as detailed in the subparagraphs below to support the evaluation of the Bid Sample. The Offeror shall submit in accordance with paragraph L.4.1.1.1, the SAR, HHAR, and information paper at least ten (10) days before the initial Test Readiness Review. Is the delivery address of the SAR, HHAR and Information paper due at least 10 days in advance of TRR1 the same address as is identified in RFP Amendment 0001, Section L.2.5? Is the address for the conduct of TRR1 the same as is identified in RFP Amendment 0001, Section L2.5.2? Will the Government advise offerors of the date and physical address for TRR1 at least 2 weeks (14 days) in advance of said TRR1 date? Offeror Rationale: Government has not explicitly identified address for SAR, HHAR and Information Paper delivery that shall occur at least 10 days in advance of TRR1, nor the Physical address for the conduct of TRR1. We are requesting to learn of the TRR1 date and location with sufficient lead time to allow for economic travel arrangements. A57: The time, date and attendance details will be provided to the offerors who respond to RFP Section A, Para. 2) g. Q58: In the response to question 12, the original RFP language for Final PMR was misstated as: "no later than 34 months after contract award. ". The original RFP language is: "no sooner than 34 months after contract award." Is it the Government's intent that the Final PMR be "no sooner" or "no later" than 34 months? A58: C.1.1.3.3.4.2 will be amended to read "no sooner than 34 months after contract award." Q59: The Government's Bid Sample Evaluation to be conducted at the ATEC requires Offeror personnel be present to provide support IAW Section 1.2.6 of the reference Bid Sample Evaluation Plan. Section 1.2.6 also states that "Offerors are responsible for coordinating clearances onto test site and ranges". The ATEC Security Office has been contacted and has advised that the Security Office will approve an ATEC site clearance for contractor personnel once provided with the name and phone number of an ATEC sponsor. Accordingly, we respectfully request the Government identify an ATEC sponsor so that the team can make access clearance arrangements and obtain visitor certifications. A59: Information for attendance to include an ATEC sponsor for the Bid Sample TRR has been directly provided to those offerors who responded to RFP Section A, Para. 2) g. Q60: In Attachment 0040, Tab titled "Technical Adj T1", Row A20 refers to 3.3.10.2, Slew to Cue. We believe it should refer to 3.3.10.2.1, Slew to Cue Sources. Please clarify. Offeror Rationale: In column E, titled "Objective", E20 states "Dismount, UGV, UAS" which are requirements of Product Description 3.3.10.2.1 A60: The USG will modify Attachment 0040. Q61: The first and last sentences of Paragraph E.10 state: "The Government reserves the right to be present at any LRU or LRM first article or first piece inspections and tests conducted by the contractor or its subcontractors." "Costs of any first article testing or retesting, if any, are the responsibility of the contractor." CDRL A109, Block 9 / Block 16 states: "Delivery of the first Data Plate samples covering a predetermined representative sample of all NSNs requiring IUID and being delivered as the first articles is contractually required to occur prior to delivery of the first article." Offeror could not find work scope in the RFP's Section C for any First Article Testing. Please clarify and/or revise the RFP to remove references to First Article Testing. A61: Paragraph E.10 will be removed in an upcoming amendment. CDRL A109 will be updated in an upcoming amendment to reflect the data plate sample instead of a first article. Q62: Paragraphs L.4.1.2.1 and M.4.1.2.2 state that Offerors that do not meet all Mandatory (Tier 1) requirements will be ineligible for award. Paragraph M.2 states "Circumstances which may lead to the rejection of a proposal include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) The Offeror proposes to be non-compliant to, ar fails to propose, equal to or greater than threshold level performance for any of the Mandatory (Tier 1) requirements in the Government's Purchase Description (Attachment 0007)." L.4.1.2.1 and M.4.1.2.2 appear to contradict M.2 and M.2(i) in that L.4.1.2.1 and M.4.1.2.2 indicate Offerors not meeting all Mandatory (Tier 1) requirements will be ineligible for award while M.2 and M.2(i) indicate a proposal may be rejected if the Offeror is non-compliant to Mandatory (Tier 1) requirements. Please clarify. A62: M.2 (i) will be deleted in an upcoming amendment. Q63: The first sentence in Block 16 states: "This contract requires the contractor to deliver only an IMS (Format 6 of the IPMR)." The Solicitation does NOT contain DFARS 252.234-7002, Earned Value Management System. However, Block 16 provides descriptions of Formats 1, 2, and 3 which relate to Earned Value. Therefore recommend the EV-related requirements related to Formats 1, 2, and 3 be deleted from Block 16 of CDRL A008. Block 4 references Data Item Description DI-MGMT-81861A. Request that references to Formats 5 and 6 in Block 12 align with the requirements of the DID. Recommended text for Block 16 is provided in the attached CDRL A008. Offeror Rationale: No Earned Value Management reporting is required since DFARS 252.234-7002. Accordingly, EV related Formats 1, 2, and 3 should not be included in the CDRL. Also Block 4 of the CDRL identified Data Item Description DI-MGMT-81861A as the authority. The descriptions for Formats 5 and 6 should align with the DID. A63: Agree EVMS is not required. CDRL A008 and relevant Section C paragraphs will be changed in an upcoming Amendment to remove EVMS and clarify IMS requirements. Q64: The RFP has three conflicting callouts for the Quality Management System (QMS): - C.1.6.2 Quality Management System (QMS): IATF 16949) - C.1.7.10.9: IUID Marking Quality Assurance: ISO 9001:2000; and - E- Inspection and Acceptance: ISO 9001-2008/2015. Recommend that since this is an MTA-RP acquisition, ISO 9001:2015 be identified as the QMS. Offeror Rationale: To remove conflicting requirements for the Quality Management System (QMS). A64: IATF 16949 is the correct quality standard. Paragraph C.1.7.10.9 will be revised to reflect IATF 16949 in lieu of ISO 9001:2000 and FAR Clause 52.246-11(a) will be revised to reflect IATF 16949 in lieu of ISO 9001-2008/2015. Q65: The last paragraph in Section 3.14.2 states "OMFV proposals shall include the Cybersecurity Test Plan and Report to include measurable and testable data to show how the CSA's are successfully implemented (T=O)." The Offeror recommends the Cybersecurity Test Plan and Report be removed as a submittal requirement at time of proposal delivery. Offeror Rationale: To ensure a robust test, the Cybersecurity Plan, Test, and Report should be completed during Program execution when the system design is complete. A65: Concur, not required in proposal. The PD will be updated in an upcoming amendment. Q66: Paragraph L.4.5.4 Facility Clearance states that "Offerors shall have an approved FCL (SECRET) prior to proposal submission and are required to submit documentation substantiating possession of an (FCL) (SECRET)." Given the Facility Clearance process has a relatively unpredictable timeline which is often impacted by circumstances outside of the offerors control, a completed Facility Clearance approval may still be in process at time of proposal submittal. Recommend the first sentence of the paragraph be revised to read "Offerors shall have an approved FCL (SECRET) prior to contract award. Offerors are required to submit documentation substantiating possession of an (FCL) (SECRET) or provide current status of its FCL (SECRET) submission to DSS." A66: L.4.5.4 and M.1.3 will be revised as follows in an upcoming amendment: L.4.5.4 Facility Clearance (FCL) "Offerors shall have an approved FCL (SECRET) prior to proposal submission and are required to submit documentation substantiating possession of a minimum of FCL (SECRET). Additionally, Offerors are required to submit documentation substantiating possession at a minimum of FCL (SECRET) for any other entity participating in the Offeror's proposal requiring the handling of classified information, at time of proposal submission and up to contract award.” M.1.3 Requirement for Facility Clearance (FCL) (SECRET) "Portions of the information on this program are classified as SECRET//NOFORN. To be considered for award, Offerors must have a SECRET FCL. FCL information will be verified through the Defense Security Service for all Offerors and its subcontractors that will require access to SECRET//NOFORN materials." Q67: The classified requirements 4.2.5 & 4.2.10 specify OMFV system level performance in the header. The tables (23&28) of the paragraph and face to face meeting at the Detroit Arsenal indicated that the requirements 4.2.5 & 4.2.10 were to be occupant only. Are the requirements 4.2.5 & 4.2.10 intended to be occupant only? We are assuming the intent is occupant only. We will submit a classified recommendation of specific wording for the classified PD. Offeror Rationale: The tables and face to face discussion indicated that 4.2.5 & 4.2.10 were going to be occupant only. Requirement 4.2.13 does indicate occupant only and it is relying on the same armor solution as 4.2.5 & 4.2.10. A67: No, the requirements in Paragraphs 4.2.5 and 4.2.10 are not intended to be occupant only, they are occupant and system. Exceptions to system-level performance for these requirements are depicted on Tables 23 and 28, and stated in Paragraph 4.2.12. Q68: Please provide the acquisition cost for the GFP serially managed and non-serially managed items. Offeor Rationale: Information required for pricing purposes. A68: Attachment 0009 will be updated in a future amendment to include acquistion unit cost for serially managed and non-serially managed items. Q69: There is an inconsistency in the AiTR threshold requirement between the classified PD and the unclassified PD. Offeror Rationale: The threshold requirement for the classified PD is detect, recognize, and identify vs the unclassified PD threshold requirement which is detect and recognize. A69: No inconsistency exist. The unclassified PD (Attachment 0007) lists the thresholds and objectives for AITR performance. The Classified PD (Attachment 0008) list the specific performance. Q70: If using optional reactive tiles from Attachment 0009, how many vehicle sets need to be requested? Offeror Rationale: Tiles would be provided as kits; is the intent to deliver a kit for each vehicle and BH&T? A70: If offeror is using Government provided tiles then Government will provide live tile and/or inert tile quantities based on the contractor vehcile design and TEMP requirement. Q71: The Offeror respectfully requests the following 19 documents referenced in Attachment 0008 be made available: - ITOP 6-3-041 Field Measurement of DRI Ranges for Thermal Imaging Systems - STANAG 4686 AEP-62 Volume 2 & 3 - TOP 2-2-616 Night Performance of Combat Vehicles - TOP 6-2-035 Combat Surveillance Systems - ITOP 2-2-617 Vulnerability Testing of Combat Vehicles and their components/subsystems - ARL-TR-6121 Occupant injury criteria - ITOP 2-2-713 Ballistic Testing of Armor - ITOP 3-2-836 Combat Vehicle Fire Control System Target Tracking - ITOP 4-2-508 Vehicle Vulnerability tests using mines - ITOP 4-2-812 Penetration tests of heat warheads - ITOP 4-2-822 Electronic Measurements of Air - ITOP 4-2-840 Vehicle vulnerability tests against roadside IEDs - TOP 02-2-812A Infrared measurements of wheel and tracked vehicles - TOP 1-2-608A Sound Level Measurements - TOP 2-2-710 Ballistic test of armor materials - TOP 4-2-828 Ballistic Shock Testing - TOP 4-2-831 Blast Test device during auditory blast overpressure - TOP 6-2-052A Counter measure equipment nominal communication system - TOP 6-2-615A Security from detection A71: The requested documents can be obtained through ATEC except for STANAG 4686, AEP-62 Volume 2 & 3 which is NATO classified, able to be obtained from local defense ministry. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ACCESS TO NON-DISTRIBUTION A TOPs AND ITOPS DOCUMENTATION: In order to be eligible to receive TOPs and ITOPS Technical Documentation, interested parties must complete the Standardization Document Request form and return document to usarmy.APG.atec.mbx.atec-standards@mail.mil and to usarmy.detroit.peo-gcs.mbx.ngcv-omfv-contracting@mail.mil. Once this item is received and verified the requested documentation will be released to Vendor Point of Contact via DoD SAFE. Attachments: Standardization Document Request, is attached. Q72: To determine compliance to the classified lethality requirements (Pk, EFC) we will need the following information: 1) Complete data on target vehicles (armor, major component locations, complete CAD (show where hoses, cables, etc. are located), fault tree analysis, etc. 2) Round information (ballistics, kinematics - how it flies and penetration - how will it cut through armor) 3) Fire control specifics (USG fire control system - how will it put rounds on target?) 4) Analytical tools to process the information above (FBAR, ORCA, CASRED, ICEM, etc. ) Offeror Rationale: Information required to calculate Pk and EFC A72: The Government will not provide the requested information for the proposal. The Government will determine compliance to the classified lethality requirements. Offerors are required to provide substantiating data in support of their proposed performance. Q73: There are two paragraph C.1.7.1.1.2.1 The first instance - hosting Quarterly Provisioning Conferences is correct. The second reference - Provisioning Line Item Sequence Numbers - should be C.1.7.1.1.2.2 A73: Agree. The second occurrence of "C.1.7.1.1.2.1" will be updated by an Amendment to reflect "C.1.7.1.1.2.2". Q74: C.1.7.6.7.1 Validation Process. The first 3 sub paragraph are incorrectly numbered. Paragraph C.1.7.6.1.1 should be C.1.7.6.7.1 Paragraph C.1.7.6.1.2 should be C.1.7.6.7.2 Paragraph C.1.7.6.1.3 should be C.1.7.6.7.3 When these are corrected, it will create duplicates with the next 2 sub paragraphs, they will need to be updated Current paragraph C.1.7.6.7.2 Validation Plan will need to be updated to C.1.7.6.7.4 Current paragraph C.1.7.6.7.3 Validation Report will need to be updated to C.1.7.6.7.5 A74: The subparagraphs within C.1.7.6.7.1 will be renumbered in an upcoming amendment to reflect the following: (i) C.1.7.6.7.1.1 in lieu of C.1.7.6.1.1 (ii) C.1.7.6.7.1.2 in lieu of C.1.7.6.1.2 (iiI) C.1.7.6.7.1.3 in lieu of C.1.7.6.1.3 This correction above does not create a duplicate within the next 2 subparagraphs.
Web Link: FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/notices/7cc44f6fea6e6a56852d9e2f8b398c8c)
Place of Performance: Address: 6501 EAST 11 MILE ROAD, Warren, Michigan, 48397, United States; Zip Code: 48397
Record: SN05456505-W 20190926/190924231212-7cc44f6fea6e6a56852d9e2f8b398c8c (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 |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

A -- Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Program