220404_JLTV-FoV_RFP_QAs.pdf

ID Subject / RFP Reference Question Government Response

1 VRTECH BIOS password/ PDFOV-X-146 Clarification. Does each fielded VRTEC processor need a unique password? Each VRTECH shall have a unique password prior to Government acceptance.

2 VRTECH shall boot/load/execute/ PDFOV-X-147 Does this mean a secure boot up?

Yes. The Government is not specifying the technical approach, but a method to allow only trusted software to execute including during the boot process.

3 VRTECH RTOS/ PDFOV-X-103 Does this mean starting boot sequence or full boot sequence? As long as the engine is able to run or glow module delay initiated within 10 seconds the requirement has been met.

6 VRTECH VM#1/ PDFOV-X-44 Does this mean only initiate or full boot up in 30 sec? As long as the user is able to interact with the management functions within 30 seconds the requirement has been met.

8 VRTECH VM#2/ PDFOV-X-139

Need to clarify that the wired/wirelessly export and display is not a part of each power-up automatic update sequence. These actions will be operator initiated.

PDFOV-X-36 requires maintainer or administrator authentication prior to data transfer and is therefore not an automatic update sequence.

9 C.2.1.1.1.2.11.1

When referencing the most recent ISO/IEC/IEE 15289 (fourth edition 2019-07), it was found the specification ends with section 10.74. The requirement in C.2.1.1.1.2.11.1 references sections 10.77, 10.75, 10.76, 10.88, 10.77 (a second time), 10.79, 10.80 none of which are in the document. In another example, section 10.42 (software interface description) is not a correct reference, 10.42 is the Project Management plan and software interface document is not in the standard. Can the USG please clarify the version of the standard that should be referenced or clarify the sections of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289 that desired for each deliverable of documentation?

The SOW references the 3rd edition 2017-06 of ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289.

10 CDRL B031 To save time and effort in FEA meshing, can USG provide the original legacy FEA models of JLTV variants? The Government does not have data rights suitable to release the requested legacy information.

11 Attachment 0113 Can USG provide the legacy input data for JLTV? The Government does not have data rights suitable to release the requested legacy information.

12 Attachment 0114 Can USG provide the lagacy data developed for JLTV? The Government does not have data rights suitable to release the requested legacy information.

13 L.2.2.5 Can the USG provide the Link to the correct address for classified submission? Requests shall be submitted to the following email address: usarmy.detroit.acc.mbx.dta-jltvfoc@army.mil

15 B008 Referencing CDRL B008 the CDRL requires submission IAW C.2.1.1.1.4.10. There is no C.2.1.1.1.4.10, is this a typo and should the reference read C.2.1.1.1.2.10 as is indicated in Block 5?

Section C reference should be C.2.1.1.1.2.10. Block 16 of CDRL B008 will be amended.

16 L-28 SoW Section C.3.1.5 (pg. 124) indicates that EVMS is only required for STS work directives; but, Section L-28 (pg. 272) does not indicate this. Would the Government please confirm that the only CLIN for which an EVMS is required is CLIN xx26 – Systems Technical Support?

EVMS applies to cost type efforts IAW DFARS 252.234-7001 and 252.234-7002 . As a result, Section C.3.1.5 was moved to C.1.4.4 and the SOW to CLIN Crosswalk under Attachment 0170 has been updated.

17 L-28 Must the requirements of L-28 be met at proposal submission? If so, would the Government please advise what volume this documentation be associated with?

Section L.4.4 will be amended to clarify L-28.

18 L.4.5 through L.4.8

Proposal Sections L.4.5 - L.4.8 appear to fit as a 3-level sequencing within the Administrative Volume 4 after L.4.4.5.

Would the government consider specifying these as the following sequence: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (L.4.4.6); Facility Clearance (L.4.4.7);

Cost Accounting System (L.4.4.8); Assertion of Restrictions (L.4.4.9)? Alternatively, please provide further instruction on how and where to meet these requirements since they fall outside the defined volume structure and no other alternative has been provided.

The items in L.4.5 through L.4.8 should be submitted as part of the Administrative Volume.

SECTION L – Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors L..2.1 Proposal Content L..2.1.1

L.2.1.2 EXSUM

Questions submitted prior to Release 3 and the Final RFP Release asking for clarification on the page limit indicated a revised, unlimited page count for Volume 4: Administrative. However, the FINAL RFP still requires the 6-page limit.

Will the USG consider making Volume 4: Administrative unlimited in page count?

Section L.2.1.1 will be amended to change page limit of Volume 4: Administrative Volume from 6 pages to Unlimited.

Section L.2.1.2 will be amended to remove reference to the Adminstrative Volume page limit, however, the Proposal Executive Summary page limit of 3 pages will remain.

20 L.4.3.2(c): The USG did not update this information. We believe the Tab is “Contract Cost Price Summary” and the Cell is “N56, please confirm. Tab is “Contract Cost Price Summary” and the Cell is “N56." Gov't will amend L.4.3.2(c) to incorporate this change.

21 C.2.1.2.2.3 B024

By order of precedence can it be assumed that the 120 day requirement for submission of the HSIPP in C.2.1.2.2.3 supercedes the B024 requirement of the HSIPP initial submission of 60 days ACA?

120 calendar days after contract award. CDRL B024 will be amended to change block 16 from 60 days ACA to 120 calendar days ACA.

22 C.2.1.2.2.3 B024

Can the original JLTV HSIPP be provided by the USG so that it only needs to be modified for ECPs? No HSIPP exists under the current JLTV production contract.

23 C.2.1.1.1.2.2.2

CREO Config files question.

Will these CREO files be provided?

Creo ModelCHECK Creo_Configs Materials Symbols

These files are available for release and can be delivered via DoD SAFE. Please submit request with your name, email, company, and Cage Code to: usarmy.detroit.acc.mbx.dta-jltvfoc@army.mil

24 H.5.3.2 Please clarify which attachment "Attachment XXX" refers to.

Attachment 0180 - Specifically Negotiated License Agreement TDP and CSP Purchase Option. Amendment will be issued to update section H.5.3.2.

26 C.2.1.1.1.2.11.2 Please calrify whcih version of CMMC is required, Version 1.0 or Version 2.0.

CMMC is not required at contract award and should not be included in the offerors proposal, however, CMMC is anticipated to be a future requirement and would be incorporated into the contract via modification. C.2.1.1.1.2.11.2 will be amended to clarify this requirement.

27 C.2.1.1.1.2.11.20 B038

Software Assurance Evaluation Report - B038 - Block 4 calls out DI-IPSC-82248A but that item does not exist when searched for. Item DI-IPSC-82249A "Software Assurance Evaluation Report (SAER)" does exist. Please confirm that Block 4 of B038 should call out DI-IPSC-82249A or please provide a copy of DI-IPSC-82248A if that is the correct Authority.

The correct DID is DI-IPSC-82249A. Gov't will amend CDRL B038, Block 4 to make this correction.

29 E.6 The contractor shall provide a separate data submission to support Government Analysis for each specified Analysis requirement IAW Attachment 0101 - JLTV Purchase Description (JLTV PD). (CDRL E006, Analysis Requirements). Will the governement provide an updated Exhibit E that includes CDRL E006 Analysis requirements? Right now it appears that CDRL E005 is duplicated on pages 8 and 9 of Exhibit E.

Exhibit E will be amended to correct this.

30 Attachment 0170 - Pricing Matrix Kit Quanity Summary Tab - Row 27 UTL. Drawing 19207_12602472_G does not identify the MBIK Modular Equipment Enclosure (MEE#2) - Expansion Kit for the UTL variant. However, the Kit Quantity Summary Tab in Attachment 170 shows potential quantities for the UTL variant. Additionally, there is not a kit drawing to support pricing for the UTL variant in the TDP. Will the government provide the correct Kit drawing for the UTL variant?

There is no MBIK for the UTL. There is only an MBIK for the GP and HGC.

33 Attachment 0102 Could you provide the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Program Protection Plan (PPP)? The PPP is referenced in the DRAFT Attachment 0102 - Security Classification Guide (DD 254), in C.1.5 “PROGRAM PROTECTION”, and in C.1.6.3.15 “INHERITED CRITICAL PROGRAM INFORMATION AND CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY (CPI/CT) Identification of CPI and CT.”

The PPP is generated as an internal document and will not be shared with JLTV interested offerors.

34 Attachment 0170 - Pricing Matrix Drawing 19207_12602472_G identifies the Installed Run-Flat Kit as drawing 57K8737, however, it is not in the A2 TDP. We are required to cost it as identified in Attachment 0170 on the Kit Price Input Sheet Tab. Will the Government provide drawing 57K8737?

57K8737 was missed in the TDP since this is only the Installed Kit, we can provide the drawing.

38 Attachment 0170 - Pricing Matrix Drawing 19207_12602472_G identifies the Installed Low Velocity Air Drop (LVAD) Mounts & Rails Kit as drawings 57K00059-001 and 57K00059-002, however, it is not in the A2 TDP. We are required to cost it as identified in Attachment 0170 on the Kit Price Input Sheet Tab. Will the Government provide drawings 57K00059-001 and 57K00059-002?

57K00059-001 and -002 were missed in the TDP since this is only the Installed Kit, we can provide the drawing.

54 TDP Drawing 19207_12593834_H

The latest TDP & CSP release has numerous revised drawings, including a revised JLTV Finish & Specification drawing, 19207_12593834_H, which adds new requirements to the drawing that will drive substantial cost to the end product. For example, the added phrase to Note 3.C requires the cleaning process to be done no more than 4 hours prior to starting the coating process. This will add non-value cost to the parts, as the cleaning process described in Note 3 is part of the fabrication process, therefore the added phrase in Note 3.C will demand the coating process to start no later than 4 hours after fabrication. Similarly, the change to Note 13.B.c to be mass-loss based as opposed to duration based will add cost to the end product due to the substantial increase in labor associated with performing the test. Finally, the addition of Note 16 will add substantial cost to the end product and require the manufacturing process to maintain large facilities necessary to perform grit blast cleaning on large armor fabrications such as the vehicle capsule floor panel. Would the Government consider removing these requirements that add significant cost, or in the alternative, consider adjusting the AUMC ceiling?

Regarding note 3C: The requirement to clean the parts no more than 4 hours prior to pretreatment is not a new requirement. It is an existing requirement specified by MIL-DTL-53072 (which is mandated on 12593834 Note 2C), particularly when an abrasive blasting cleaning method is utilized. The drawing was updated to highlight that requirement for ease of use, but it is not a new requirement.

Per TT-C-490 and MIL-DTL-53072, cleaning must take place before pretreatment and be verified with a successful water-break test.

While the requirement has been reinforced in 12593834 Revision H, it is not an increase in requirement from the previously released revisions of the drawing..

Regarding Note 13.B.c, this note was updated because the previous cyclic corrosion testing notation is obsolete and no longer aligns with the standard. The notation and requirement was updated to align as closely as possible with the previous requirement given the current format of the standard. IAW GMW14872 Table A1, the updated requirement (GMW14872, (UB), ALL, 4SP, METHOD 3, EXPOSURE D) is expected to last 34 +/-4 cycles in order to achieve the specified mass loss, as compared to the 30 cycles previously specified.

Regarding Note 16, the JLTV FoV TDP and CSP is constructed and configured IAW the text of Note 16. Said another way, Note 16 does not change the required finish on any part. When a component or assembly requires a finish, that finish is specified on the corresponding drawing. For example, if a weldment is required to be finished, a finish note would appear on its drawing. However, a down-level part of that weldment may not specify a finish because the presence of a finish would inhibit or interfere with the subsequent welding operations. That down part would not have a finish, and the completed weldment would be finished as an inseparable assembly upon completion of all welding operations. Note 16 simply emphasizes the mechanics of how the TDP is structured; it does not change any technical requirement for the specified finishes.

The Government will not be making any changes in response to this inquiry.

59 TOCNET intercome Does any of the RFP documents define the TOCNET intercom? SCI's TOCNET intercom product was selected by Oshkosh in 2020 to be the preferred intercom for JLTV.

Yes, the JLTV FOV TDP and CSP contains kits with drawings that feature the TOCNET intercom solution.

60 PDFOV-W-15 for Dynamic Fuel Efficiency

(1) Section 3.2.a (9) of TOP 2-2-603A states, "Temperature controlled fan drives locked in same operating mode (on/off) throughout the test." For Government verification testing, will temperature controlled fan drives be locked in the on or off position?

(2) PDFOV-W-15, Annex P, and TOP 2-2-603A do not indicate whether a Gunners Protection Kit (GPK) will be installed for verification testing on the 4- Seat JLTV configurations. Will a GPK be installed for verification testing on the 4-Seat JLTV configurations? If so, please confirm which GPK will be installed?

(3) PDFOV-W-15, Annex P, and TOP 2-2-603A do not indicate whether a Shelter will be installed on the 2-Seat JLTV configuration for verification testing. Will a Shelter be installed on the 2-Seat JLTV configuration for verification testing? If so, please confirm which shelter will be installed?

(1) For Government verification testing and throughout all fuel economy testing the vehicle’s engine cooling fan will be locked on, headlights on, and the Driver’s Smart Display Unit (DSDU) will be on. All other generator-powered accessories not required to keep the vehicle operational, including heating fans, air conditioning systems, and communication equipment are not running during fuel economy testing.

(2) For Government verification testing and throughout all fuel economy testing for the four seat variants a Gunners Protection Kit (GPK) will not be utilized.

(3) For Government verification testing and throughout all fuel economy testing for the two seat variants a shelter will be installed on the vehicle during testing. The contractor shall consider the applicable shelter that offers the worst case front area for planning purposes.

61 L.4.1.4.2

Per L.4.1.4.2 (b), offerors are required to provide redlined Source Controlled drawings, but are not required to provide redlined drawings for other existing components that are modified (interface components) to accommodate the source controlled part changes. Does the Government agree? Are there any limitations to drawing attributes, notes, dimensions, etc. that can be changed on the component drawings via redline IAW Section L.4.1.4.2. (b)? For example, is the offeror allowed to select different materials (steel versus aluminum) for a part provided the component still meets the TDP and CSP drawing performance requirements, but at a heavier weight?

L.4.1.4.2 (e) has been updated to require the submission of redlined drawings for all components which must be changed in order to interface with the new component being proposed.

The proposed changes will be evaluated to determine if they meet or exceed the existing component's requirements, weight included.

IAW M.4.1.3.2.1 (g), proposing a component with increased weight may increase the risk of the offeror's proposal.

Within the recent release of the Attachment 0170 “SOW to CLIN Crosswalk”, the requirements to perform Section C.7.1, titled Next Generation Vehicle Architecture (NGVA), is cross-walked to the firm fixed price (FFP) System Engineering Program Management (SEPM) CLIN.

The Section C.7.1 statement of work requires contractors to execute activities covered in Attachment 0166 (NGVA SOW), even if a contractor does not propose the NGVA as a Technology Enhancement (TE) within their proposal.

The NGVA SOW (Attachment 0166) requires contractors to execute a significant development project (major changes in software and hardware, including all major harnesses, etc.) and deliver a design solution to new vehicle performance requirements that include some requirements that are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be met simultaneously. Throughout the required 30-month development project, the contractor must gain Government approvals or be subject to multiple cycles of rework, redesign, and / or additional testing – potentially an endless systems engineering “do” loop.

The NGVA SOW (Attachment 0166) requires contractors to execute the following (but not limited to) post award activities:

- Perform design development of an NGVA solution to maintain compliance to all existing PD Requirements and additionally gain compliance to PD Annex X requirements.

- Create and execute an internal test plan consisting of a DVP&R with MIL-STD-882E Software Safety Analysis, including component, sub-system, and system level testing.

- Provide Test Support for a multi-month, multi-location NGVA Test Program and a separate Soldier Touch Point event.

- Submit a validated design and representative test hardware in time for the Government to review and approve an NGVA ECP 900 days after contract award. If any issues regarding PD Main Body, Annex X performance or test results are noted, which are all at the Government’s discretion to define, additional ECP updates will be required to correct the Government’s perceived non-compliances or test performance issues.

The significant cost of these activities, along with the risks associated with the potential for never-ending cycles of engineering and reperformance of these activities, will be priced into the contractor’s proposed firm fixed price SEPM CLINs, even if a contractor does not select NGVA as a Technology Enhancement.

Can the Government please confirm that even if the contractor is not proposing the NGVA TE, all cost and risk related to all the above requirements shall be included within the contractor’s proposed firm fixed price within the SEPM CLIN?

Correct, independent of the proposed NGVA timeline, all cost and risk related to development and validation shall be included within the contractor’s proposed firm fixed price within the SEPM CLIN. All production hardware costs shall be included in the base vehicle cost. Please refer to C.7.1 which outlines the contractual requirements tied to NGVA.

64 C.7.1

In addition to the requirements of Section C.7.1, which mandates that the Contractor perform a 30-month development project at a firm fixed price and firm schedule, C.7.1 also states, “[Even] If NGVA is not proposed…This ECP shall be submitted no later than 900 calendar days after contract award and shall be cut into production on all vehicles ordered within Ordering Years 3-5 and Option Years 5 – 10”.

The section includes penalty provisions and retrofit requirements should the contractor fail to execute a proposed IMS, “In the event vehicles ordered within Option Years 3 - 10 are produced and presented for inspection and acceptance prior to the ECPs being installed the Government may conditionally accept the vehicles with up to a 10% withhold until the ECPs are retrofit onto the vehicles at no additional cost to the Government.”

We understand this to mean that a contractor, even if not selecting the NGVA TE, is required to price in its proposal all the possible production material and labor cost adders to the currently undeveloped and untested vehicle modifications that will be required to meet the PD Main Body and Annex X NGVA performance requirements. These NGVA performance requirements currently include some requirements that are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot be met simultaneously. Even if a bidder does not select the NGVA TE, offerors must price this significant cost and the risks associated with the design uncertainty, possible withhold penalties, and retrofit costs within to all firm fixed prices for JLTV FoV vehicles and related products in Order Year 3 – 5 and Option Year 5 – 10 prices.

This requirement will add significant cost to most vehicles planned to be ordered under the contract and will greatly increase AUMC. This fixed approach is also unusual for a developmental requirement.

Can the Government please confirm that even if the contractor is not proposing the NGVA TE, all cost and risk related to all the above requirements shall be included within the contractors proposed firm fixed prices for JLTV Vehicles?

Correct, independent of the proposed NGVA timeline, all cost and risk related to development and validation shall be included within the contractor’s proposed firm fixed price within the SEPM CLIN. All production hardware costs shall be included in the base vehicle cost.

66 Draft Attachment 0176 – Production Process Attribute Rating Criteria, Attribute #9, Weakness Criteria

It appears that some of the weakness features listed in Attachment 0176, Attribute #9 are related to Attribute #7: "- Production traceability is not utilized or is limited." "- Production traceability data are not error proofed or rely upon manual recording/input of data." "- Production traceability processes do not record critical or significant characteristic data." It appears that some of the weakness features listed in Attachment 0176, Attribute #9 are related to Attribute #7. Should these features be moved from Attribute #9 to Attribute #7?

Attachment 0176 in the Final RFP is correct.

67 Draft RFP, Section M.4.1.3.2.1 € Section M.4.1.3.2.1 (e) states "In general, failing to provide all required information as defined in L.4.1.3 may increase risk." Section L.4.1.3 is titled "Sub-Factor 2: Technology Enhancement and Architecture." Should Section M.4.1.3.2.1 (e) reference Section L.4.1.4 "Sub-Factor 3: Source Control Content" instead of Section L.4.1.3? Please confirm.

Section M.4.1.3.2.1 (e) correctly references Section L.4.1.4 in the Final RFP. No updates are necessary.

69 Draft Attachment 0175 Technology Enhancement

In Attachment 0175 (dated Dec 2021), within each of the Technology Enhancement tabs, there is a gray box listing multiple PDFOVs.

We are unable to cross reference any of the listed PDFOVs to the recompete Annexes W or X or the PD Main Body files.

Example: Within the Corrosion Tech Enhancement tab, the following PDFOVs are listed: PDFOV-10963, PDFOV-10971, and PDFOV-10972. These appear to be Main Body requirements, but there are no references to these requirements within the Main Body Requirements document.

In Attachment 0175 (dated Dec 2021), within each of the Technology Enhancement tabs, there is a gray box listing multiple PDFOVs. We are unable to cross reference any of the listed PDFOVs to the recompete Annexes W or X or the PD Main Body files. Please advise where these requirements are located or provide an updated Attachment 0175 with the corrected PDFOV information.

The final RFP release resolved both issues and to refer to the latest version of Attachment 0170.

70 Attachment 0170, "STS" Tab, cells F128:F129

Cells F128:F129 in the STS tab in Attachment 0170 include a lookup error where the reference uses Ordering Year 1 Costs instead of Ordering Year 2 Costs within the STS CLIN. This results in the VATEP summary costs being incorrect within Attachment 0170 due to the error. Cells F128:F129 in the STS tab in Attachment 0170 include a lookup error where the reference uses Ordering Year 1 Costs instead of Ordering Year 2 Costs within the STS CLIN.

Please provide an updated Attachment 0170.

The final RFP release resolved both issues and to refer to the latest version of Attachment 0170.

71 Draft RFP Section L.2.2.1.4 Section L.2.2.1.4 states, "Unless otherwise specified, it is recommended that the proposal be formatted … with a minimum font size of 10 pt.”. Is it permissible to utilize 8 pt. fonts within tables, figures, and graphics?

Previously answered under the draft RFP response to Q403

72 Draft RFP Sections C.1.3.5.3, C.2.1.1.1.2.11.11, E.1.8, E.3.1, E.4, E.5.5, E.10.3.1, E.11, E.12, and E.12.1

The Total Enterprise Management System (TEAMS) Corrective and Preventative Action (CAPA) module is referenced in multiple sections of the RFP (C.1.3.5.3, C.2.1.1.1.2.11.11, E.1.8, E.3.1, E.4, E.5.5, E.10.3.1, E.11, E.12, E.12.1). The Total Enterprise Management System (TEAMS) Corrective and Preventative Action (CAPA) module is referenced in multiple areas sections of the RFP. What is required for an individual to gain access to this system?

Do software licenses need to be purchased and if so, what is the license fee and duration?

How is the data entered into the system (i.e., manually keyed or uploaded files)?

Will the Government provide training to access and use the TEAMS CAPA system?

Accommodating the requirement to support this level of effort could generate excessive costs that may exceed one million dollars; does the Government intend to offset any of these costs by providing hardware, access, licensing, or training.?

The TEAMS CAPA module is a web-based tool developed by the Government for tracking corrective actions (https://teams.tacom.army.mil). A user must have a CAC in order to access the system. No license is required to gain access to or use the system. The system accepts text fields as well as the ability to upload files in support of an 8D-style root cause analysis. The Government does not intend to separately fund contractor usage of this system.

74 E.40 through E.46 The requirements in these paragraphs appear to either conflict with requirements stated in other parts of the RFP, or are redundant. Will the Government either clarify these conflicts or remove these sections?

E.40 through E.46 will be deleted in a future amendment.

Amendment 0002

11/15/2021 Industry Day Slides

Revised proposal due date (block 11 of SF30)

Slide 5 of Industry Day slides. Amendment 0002 changed the proposal submission due date to 7/15/2022.

The November 2021 Industry Day slides indicated approximately a five-and-a-half-month interval between proposal submission date and contract award. Considering the new proposal due date, should offerors assume the same approximate interval between proposal submittal and contract award; i.e., approximately 5.5 months?

The Government is planning for award in December 2022.

Attachment 0175 Attachment 0170 M.3.2.1 Affordability

Affordability Levels. Can the Government please clarify the affordability levels for each year? In attachment 0175 the Target Cost Summary tab indicates the FY23 Affordability Limit AUMC is $317.8K, while in attachment 0175 and 0170 the AUMC Calculator tab for Ordering Year 1 indicates $313,540.28.

The Government has updated Attachment 0175 to be consistent with Attachment 0170. The Target Cost and Affordability Tab in FY23 are $313,540.28 (which represents the KSA inflated to TY23).

Sheet1