20200214 Response to Draft SOW Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- ACC-ORL-18-GUNNERY-RFI
About this file
This document is a Request for Information issued by the U.S. Army's Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation regarding a potential future business strategy and contracting approach for gunnery training systems. The RFI seeks industry input on contracting vehicles such as ID/IQ contracts or stand-alone cost-plus contracts, with an approximate funding range of $100-$500 million over seven years. Responses are requested to provide recommendations on acquisition strategy, including contract type and structure, small business participation, and delivery schedule. Additionally, responses should identify potential program risks and cost drivers. The 15-day response window closes on April 30, 2020, and submissions shall be sent to the listed Army contracting points of contact. Programs considered under the strategy include Abrams AGTS, Bradley COFT, MPF, NGCV, Stryker, and USMC training systems.
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Doc Reference | Section Reference | Reference Text (if applicable) | Question | Government Response | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3 | [New GTS Variants] Tech Refresh shall conform to the GTS architecture with the goal of establishing a single GTS SW and HW baseline | Can the Government clarify or provide an example of what Tech Refresh will be completed on New GTS Variants as stated in the last sentence of the 'New GTS Variants' paragraph? | This sentence is intended to cover the situation where a Tech Refresh is required on a new variant prior to the end of the contract. If the new variants are awarded early enough, the five year Tech Refresh cycle will be within the scope of the contract. The statement is intended to ensure that any Tech Refreshes performed on the new variants will conform to the GTS baseline that will be established with the production of the first new variant. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.6.2 | [Site Preparation] Prior to the arrival of the system at each site, the Contractor shall perform all installation preparatory work; including advising and assisting on-site personnel in any modifications they may be performing. | Can the Government provide additional clarification on what specific installation preparatory work will be required? For example: pouring a concrete pad, installing a fence, etc. | Site Prep requirements will be dependent upon the results of specific site surveys. The Site Prep will be performed under a T&M or cost reimbursement CLIN. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.7 | [System Technical Support] The Contractor shall document the description of each task, the man-hours spent, cost of materials and services and the results of each service(s). | Is it the Government's intent to exercise section 3.7 on a time and material (T&M) CLIN? | T&M or cost reimbursement CLINs will be utilized if the situation warrants it. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.3.1 and 3.9.3.2 | Production Systems | With the Optional Production of 18 M1A2 SEP V2 trailers, are there any needs for additional Pre-Brief/After Action Review (PAAR) systems? | There is no current requirement for PAAR systems for the new SEP V2 production systems. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.5.5 thru 3.1.5.8 | Configuration Verification and Audit | The following audit sections are not typical for non-development/design SOWs. Recommend removing sections 3.1.5.5 – 3.1.5.8 on current DO specific SOWs (Abrams, Bradley and Stryker) | The Government is going to retain these paragraphs | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.1.2 | Preliminary Design Phase | Recommend removing Section 3.2.1.2 Preliminary Design Phase (also referred to as Initial Production Configuration Phase in lower level SOWs) for non-development/design DO Specific SOWs (Abrams, Bradley and Stryker). Preliminary Design Phase / Initial Production Configuration Phase is usually reserved for new development and/or designs. | The Government is going to retain these paragraphs | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.1.3 | Detailed Design Phase | Recommend removing Section 3.2.1.3 Detailed Design Phase (also referred to as Final Production Configuration Phase in lower level SOWs) for non-development/design DO Specific SOWs (Abrams, Bradley and Stryker). Detailed Design Phase / Final Production Configuration Phase is usually reserved for new development and/or designs. | The Government is going to retain these paragraphs | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | |||||
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.2.7 | [Design Reviews] As specified by individual DO, the Contractor shall conduct reviews, with Government participation, to include design reviews (system, subsystem, component, life cycle processes, test readiness, production approval) and audits (functional and physical configuration), for the purpose of assessing technical progress | For Abrams DO Specific SOW: |
Recommend adding “for concurrency upgrades” at the end of the first sentence (“…and audits (functional and physical configuration), for the purpose of assessing technical progress for concurrency upgrades”)
For Bradley and Stryker DO Specific SOW:
| Recommend removing this section (3.2.7) since the Bradley and Stryker SOWs have no development/design requirements | The Government is going to retain these paragraphs | |||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.7.1 | System Requirements Review | For Abrams DO Specific SOW: |
Recommend adding “for concurrency upgrades” to the first sentence as follows: “The Contractor shall conduct an SRR for concurrency upgrades with the Government to assess…”
For Bradley and Stryker DO Specific SOWs:
| Recommend removing this section (3.2.7) since Bradley and Stryker SOWs have no development/design requirements. | A systems requirements review is required for new hardware configurations | |||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.7.2 | Preliminary Design Review | For all DO Specific SOWs (Abrams, Bradley and Stryker): |
With the limited complexity associated with technical refreshes and/or concurrency upgrades, recommend removing section 3.2.7.2 (Initial Integration and Production Review (IIPR)) from all non-development DO specific SOWs.
| The Government is going to retain these paragraphs | |||||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.7.3 | Critical Design Review | For all DO Specific SOWs (Abrams, Bradley and Stryker): | ||
| With the limited complexity associated with technical refreshes and/or concurrency upgrades, recommend removing section 3.2.7.3 (Final Integration and Production Review (FIPR)) from all non-development DO specific SOWs. | The Government is going to retain these paragraphs | ||||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.8 | [Product Definition Data] "...and then subsequently approved by the Government CCB " | With the maturity of products and baseline of Abrams, Bradley and Stryker, is approval by the Government CCB necessary? Recommend removing highlighted words within each DO Specific SOW (Abrams, Bradley and Stryker). | Approval by the government is necessary for any changes to the baseline | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.8 | [Product Definition Data] | |||
| (DI-ADMN-80925A) Revisions to Existing Government Documents | Can the Government clarify what existing Government Documents are to be revised? | These documents are defined in the DD1423s. | |||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.5.1 | [Test Readiness Review] | |||
| "• Required documentation" | Can the Government provide additional clarification to what required documentation is being referenced? | The documentation required for the TRR is identified in the individual DD1423s. | |||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.5.5 | Production Qualification Test | Recommend removing 3.5.5 Production Qualification Test (PQT) as it seems to be covered in 3.5.2 In-Plant Acceptance Test (IPAT) and change any references below to PQT to IPAT on the Overarching and all DO Specific SOWs (Abrams, Bradley and Stryker). | The PQT is a functional test of production systems, which is a separate event from the IPAT of new upgrades or systems. The PQT has been removed from the Bradley SOW since there are no production systems as part of that effort. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.6.2 | Site Preparation | Can the Government provide additional clarification on what specific installation preparatory work will be required? For example: pouring a concrete pad, installing a fence, etc. | Site Prep requirements will be dependent upon the results of specific site surveys. The Site Prep will be performed under a T&M or cost reimbursement CLIN. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.3.1 and 3.9.3.2 | Production Systems | Section 3.9.3.1 and 3.9.3.2 Production Systems – With the Optional Production of 18 M1A2 SEP V2 trailers, are there any needs for additional Pre-Brief/After Action Review (PAAR) systems? | There is no current requirement for PAAR systems for the new SEP V2 production systems. | |
| US Army M1A2 SEP PIDS Rev N 17Dec_Bellona.pdf | Overall PIDS | Will the successful contractor have access to Prior Acceptance Test results to establish a baseline after contract award? | No, the baseline is already established. | ||
| US Army M1A2 SEP PIDS Rev N 17Dec_Bellona.pdf | 3.3.9 | Optics | There are several elements in this section which describe subjective rather than measurable tests, examples include "no chromatic aberration shall be discernible", another example is "No spurious images, light leaks, mirror imperfections" is another. Will the Government correct these anomalies or add CCB process details on how to jointly resolve any disagreements on product suitability? | Any changes to the Government baseline will follow the process stated in SOW paragraph 3.1.5. | |
| US Army M1A2 SEP PIDS Rev N 17Dec_Bellona.pdf | 3.3.10.3 | SOFTWARE CAPABILITIES | |||
| "The following minimum functional capabilities of the trainer system software shall be provided" | Does the software provide all of the capabilities set forth in 3.3,10.3. Is the software available as GFE and is it complete? Are there any special files (include files, compilers, .dll files for example) that are not supplied? | ||||
| Is the development environment going to be provided as GFE? | The current software baselines meet all of the requirements set forth in the specifications. The source code and executables will be provided as GFI after contract award. No development environment will be provided as GFI. | ||||
| US Army M1A2 SEP PIDS Rev N 17Dec_Bellona.pdf | 3.7.2 | IMAGE GENERATION AND DISPLAY SYSTEM | The specification assumes the used of the Lockheed Martin SAGE Image Generator. Is the Government going to provide this Image Generator and all associated software as GFE? Is the Government going to provide information regarding the SAGE software in its current state and whether it currently meets the requirements set forth in this section? | The SOWs require the use of the SAGE IG. The awardee will be required to procure new and renew existing SAGE licenses for the systems. The current version of SAGE software meets all of the requirements set forth in the specifications. | |
| US Army M1A2 SEP PIDS Rev N 17Dec_Bellona.pdf | 3.7.2.6.2.1 | Deliverable Database | Are the databases going to be delivered as GFE? Do they meet the requirements set forth in this specification? | The databases will be provided as GFI. They meet all of the requirements set forth in the specifications. | |
| US Army M1A2 SEP PIDS Rev N 17Dec_Bellona.pdf | 3.7.2.6.2.2 | Database Source Data | If there is any Government Owned source data, will this be provided as GFE? | Database source data will not be provided. | |
| US Army M1A2 SEP PIDS Rev N 17Dec_Bellona.pdf | 3.7.2.7 | GENERAL USE MODELS | Will all available models be provided to the winning contractor as GFE? Do the Models meet the requirements of this specification? | All models will be provided as GFI. They meet all of the requirements set forth in the specifications. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.2.2.3 | Commonly Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) Handle Upgrade | a) Can actual CROWS handle and associated switches be made available as GFP for use on this DO? |
b) If not, please provide part/assembly number and vendor contact information.
c) Or, can a CROWS handle be loaned from which to model a replica?
d) Or, can engineering specifications and drawings for the CROWS handle be made available as GFI?
| This data will be obtained during the Data Collection trip, as stated in the SOW. | |||
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.2.2.4 | Manual Traverse Mechanism (MTM) Upgrade | a) Can actual CROWS handle and associated switches be made available as GFP for use on this DO? |
b) If not, please provide part/assembly number and vendor contact information.
c) Or, can a CROWS handle be loaned from which to model a replica?
d) Or, can engineering specifications and drawings for the CROWS handle be made available as GFI?
| This data will be obtained during the Data Collection trip, as stated in the SOW. | |||||
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.3 | Production Systems | Is the technical data package (design/fabrication drawings, lists, etc.) for the M1A2 AGTS complete, accurate, and owned by the Government, to support production of additional devices? | The Government does not own the full manufacturing technical data package and will not certify that it is complete and accurate. | |
| Draft - Bradley COFT SOW | 3.9.1 | [Tech Refresh] "…existing Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) Trainer Usage Data functionality" | Is this an upgrade of AGTS Data functionality already in the Bradley COFT, or a new capability introduction for commonality with other GTS devices? | This functionality already exists on AGTS devices and will be integrated with the Bradley COFT system as part of this effort. | |
| Draft - Stryker MGS SOW | 3.9.2 | Stryker MGS Tabletop AGTS (TAGTS) New Production | Is the technical data package (design/fabrication drawings, lists, etc.) for the Stryker MGS Tabletop AGTS complete, accurate, and owned by the Government, to support production of additional devices? | There is no technical data package for the Stryker MGS TAGTS. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.1 | [Introduction] "c. Utilize the latest version of the existing Scalable Advanced Graphics Engine (SAGE) Real Time Software (RTS) interface in order to avoid cost related to modifications of the existing training environment and exercises " | IS the SAGE software being provided as GFE? Does the latest version still contain all of the required capabilities that were delivered? Is the Government going to provide the SAGE ICD with the final solicitation? | The awardee will be required to procure new and renew existing SAGE licenses for the systems. The current version of SAGE software meets all of the requirements set forth in the specifications. The AGTS and Bradley COFT systems use CIGI (an open source format) to interface with SAGE. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.2 | [Goals and Objectives] "The following foundational architecture principles should be key considerations :" | How will the Government evaluate responses when some of the listed “considerations” may be in conflict with the goals listed in 1.1? | The architecture considerations section of paragraph 1.2 has been removed. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 2 | APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS | Many of the applicable documents in the SPECs are company proprietary. How is the Government going to provide access to these documents for interested vendors? Will the Government substitute these documents with publicly available documents prior to final release? | No documents referenced in the specifications are proprietary. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3 | [REQUIREMENTS] | |||
| Concurrency Upgrades: | Is there any data available on the extent, frequency and content of prior upgrades that the Government can provide to help interested contractors with their responses? | No data will be provided. Concurrency upgrade requirements are in the specific DOs. | |||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.13 | Government Furnished Information (GFI) | Is it possible for the Government to provide a list of currently available data? While it is possible to secure needed data when not available, the language leaves the Contractor with a unbounded requirement which cannot be reliably priced. Also, the phrase” The Government will provide agreed upon technical data necessary to accomplish the objectives of the contract” is ambiguous. Is this a joint agreement between the Government and the Contractor? Also, would it be possible to provide Contractor access for an assessment of the available data? (preferably when the solicitation is released.) | The list of GFI was provided in the Industry Day slides. The SOW has been updated to remove the reference to technical data agreement. Program reference documents will be provided as part of the draft RFP. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.2.1 | Hardware Requirements and Review | Is the Government going to provide access to the product drawing packages for inspection by interested bidders? | The maintenance drawing package will be provided as part of the draft RFP. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.6.2 | Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) Engineering | Since these devices have been around for a while, Does the Government have any data of parts obsolescence, hardware and software issues? It would be useful to know the top “mission degraders” for these systems at the beginning of the program. | No obsolescence data will be provided. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.6.11 | Integration of Third Party Products | Can the Government provide any indication as to what types of third party products are to be integrated into the systems? | Third party products include the Common Software Libraries (ACSL, BCSL, SCSL), the SAGE IG, and Blue Force Tracker Systems (FBCB2, JBC-P). | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.3.2 | Technical Manuals | What is the required quantity and preferred format (paper-based or electronic) of technical manuals? What proportion of the work will consist of revision of existing manuals vs. the development of new materials? | Quantity and format of manuals are provided as part of the DD1423s. The level of effort of revisions to existing manuals is dependent upon the specific design. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.3.5 | Training | What are the specific quantities (hours) of training, preferred formats (instructor-led or self-paced), and preferred development tools (e.g., Adobe Captivate or MS PowerPoint)? What percentage of the work will consist revisions to existing material vs. the development of new materials? | For the initial DOs, the only effort required is to update existing training materials that will be provided as GFI. Future training course details will be provided in the new DO SOWs when appropriate after contract award. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.3.5.1 | [New Equipment Training] | |||
| "The Contractor shall conduct the system training courses ..." | Will the contractor need to provide training facilitators? | Yes | |||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.4.4 | Transition Planning | Is there a mechanism in place for the incoming contractor to address insufficient transition support? | Paragraph 3.4.4 describes the method for the awardee to transition system support to the Government's life-cycle contractor. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.5.2 | In-Plant Acceptance Test | Will the Government provide past IPAT results to aid in the formulation of a working baseline at the beginning of the program? | No | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.5.5 | Production Qualification Test | See comment in 3.5.2 | ||
| "Will the Government provide past IPAT results to aid in the formulation of a working baseline at the beginning of the program?" | No | ||||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.5.7 | On-Site Acceptance Test | See comment in 3.5.2 | ||
| "Will the Government provide past IPAT results to aid in the formulation of a working baseline at the beginning of the program?" | No | ||||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.9.1 | Dispute Resolution | Risk Management, Quality and test sections address the processes to identify and correct deficiencies. Suggest the Government add language outlining informal and formal dispute resolution. Hopefully it will never be needed, but it is better to address it now rather than later. | Contract disputes will be handled in accordance with FAR Part 33 and the associated clauses which will be included in the solicitation and resulting contract. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.2.3.1 | The Government's current requirements stipulate that any new software solutions must be compliant with the PIDS. The PIDS documents were developed in tandem with the AGTS. As such, they are hyper-specific to proprietary incumbent architecture, processes and designs. Will the Government entertain offers for new software solutions that meet or exceed all of the training capabilities outlined in the PIDS, rather than a line-for-line compliance with these documents? | The Government has invested a significant amount of resources in developing and validating the software for the existing systems, which will be provided as GFI. The Government desires to reuse as much of this software as possible. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.3.3 | GFI Software - The Government has asked industry to evaluate compliance of the existing software baseline with the requirements of this program. Is there an existing Requirements Traceability and Verification Matrix (RTVM) detailing compliance of the existing software with current fielded AGTS capabilities? If so, can this information be provided to industry prior to proposal submission? | The Government has not asked industry to evaluate compliance of the existing software baseline with the requirements of this program. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.13 | Does the Government plan to release a list of available GFI/Technical Data Package in time to incorporate it into technical concepts, or will this data not be released until the RFP phase? | The list of GFI was provided in the Industry Day slides. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.13 | Can the Government provide detail on what existing data or IP is proprietary to incumbents? | The runtime software for the Lockheed Martin SAGE IG is the only proprietary software on the AGTS and Bradley COFT systems. All software on the AAV-TT system is KMW proprietary. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.1(b) | Will the Government make available source data for any virtual assets that we are encouraged to re-use (e.g., Terrains, Moving models, Special effects/animations, SAGE Real Time Software (Lockheed engine), Aural cues & communications, Exercises, etc.) | Source data will not be provided. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.1(b) | Can the Government clarify whether their request for a common software baseline includes integrating AGTS assets (SAGE IG, etc.) on non-AGTS products (e.g., B-COFT, AAV-TT)? | The SAGE IG (with AGTS models, databases, and special effects) is already integrated into the Bradley COFT. The AGTS Trainer Usage Data software is required to be integrated into the Bradley COFT as part of this effort. The draft AAV-TT SOW will outline the extent of its common software baseline with AGTS. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.5.15 | Government has requested a record of all proposed variances. Will the Government provide a database of existing variances for the currently fielded systems prior to proposal submission? | There are no variances for the currently fielded systems. They meet the requirements of the specifications. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.1(c) | If SAGE IG remains an absolute requirement, is the real-time interface to SAGE publicly available, or will it be furnished upon contract award? | The AGTS and Bradley COFT systems use CIGI (an open source format) to interface with SAGE. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.1.2 | Will the Government provide an example scenario design and source file for each platform so industry members can investigate formatting and composition to better estimate efforts to integrate new software components with existing GFI? | For existing training systems, the Government desires to maximize reuse of previously-developed software. Clarification is requested on the specific needs for scenario source files. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.2 | Will the Government elaborate on the stated goal of "reducing lifecycle support costs"? Can the Government provide existing lifecycle support cost data, and/or the threshold reduction goal if one exists? | The Government is looking for unique solutions to reduce the overall maintenance costs of the fielded systems. There are no specific reduction goals established. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.13 | Can proposing companies assume that all training devices will be 100% operational upon contract award? If any repairs are needed, how will the Government handle troubleshooting and repairs? | No, see paragraph 3.5.6. The Life Cycle Contract Support Contractor is responsible for repairing issues identified during the baseline test. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 2.1 | When will all the "Applicable Documents" listed in Section 2.1 of each SOW be made available? Some are not publicly accessible. | Program reference documents will be provided as part of the draft RFP. | ||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.1(b) | What access to the Common Software Libraries will be provided prior to RFP or contract award? | The CSLs will be provided as GFI to the awardee after contract award. The CSL ICD's will be provided as part of the draft RFP. | ||
| The Government specified a 7-year ordering period with 2 option years. How much of the estimated 7-year PoP is targeted for development versus production? | The Government specified a seven year ordering period with a two year delivery period. No new work can be awarded during the two delivery years. This is an IDIQ contract, so the development and production periods of the effort will depend upon future Delivery Order requirements and timing. | ||||
| Is the schedule proposed at the Ft. Benning Industry Day still valid? | Yes, as of the writing of this response. | ||||
| During Industry Days, the Government expressed the need for appended training on future vehicle platforms. This presents a technical issue, since vehicle platforms will likely use a single unified computer to handle all on-board computation. One on-board computer will not be powerful enough to power a simulation engine with multi-channel visuals. Can the Government provide any guidance on how to resolve this? | No appended training was stated as required for this contract effort. | ||||
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 2 | APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS | The M1A2 SEP v2 AGTS and M1A1 C-AGTS documents are required to support contractor proposal development and should be provided as part of the RFP tech data package or sooner – when will they be available? | Program reference documents will be provided as part of the draft RFP. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.1.9 | Visitor Support | How much prior notice will be provided? | The SOW has been updated to specify that the Government will provide no less than 24 hours advance notice for VIP visits. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.1.11 | Obsolescence Management | Does the current CLS contractor provide data on obsolete parts to the Government? Will that data be provided as part of the pre-proposal tech data package? | No obsolescence data will be provided. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.2.4 | Hardware and Software Integration, first sentence | Will the government provide the expected Criteria / process for accreditation? | This statement is referring to RMF Cybersecurity certification. It has been updated in the SOW for clarification. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.1 | Tech Refresh, last sentence | Will the government identify all the existing known parts that are obsolete now? | Paragraph 3.9.1 of each Tech Refresh DO defines a list of the minimum amount of parts to be replaced. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.1.1 | Visual System Integration, last sentence | Will the government be providing any documentation for the proprietary SAGE Image Generator other than the System Spec (e.g. ICD etc.)? | The Government will not be providing any SAGE documentation. SAGE licenses must be purchased/renewed from Lockheed Martin and have documentation included. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.1.2 | Tech Refresh First Article (Year One), last sentence of last para | Request that the government location be specified as that impacts contractor price. | The storage location for the GFE trailers is unknown at the current time, but it will be a CONUS location. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.2.2.1 | Abrams Common Software Library (ACSL) Update | Will the government provide version 4.7 of the ACSL software as GFE/GFI? | Yes, the necessary CSLs will be delivered to the awardee as GFI after contract award. | |
| Draft - Abrams SOW | 3.9.3.1 | Option for 17th ABCT Production Systems | Does this include contractor procurement of the trailers? | Yes | |
| Cyber Extract From: | 3.2.5 | Third Para. Third sentence | Limiting acquisition to products with NIAP-Approved Protection profiles (Security Control SA-4 (7) is normally a control for a system with Confidentiality = Moderate, however two paragraphs down the SOW calls out Confidentiality is “Low.” Request clarification on the confidentiality rating? | This requirement has been removed from the SOWs. | |
| Cyber Extract From: | 3.2.5 | Third Para. Fourth Sentence | Similar to the previous comment. Limiting acquisition to products that compose an NSA-approved solution (Security Control SA-4(6) is normally a security control for a classified system (classified overlay). Request clarification on the classification of the system? | This requirement has been removed from the SOWs. | |
| Cyber Extract From: | 3.2.5.2 | CS Control Review/RMF Package | Is the program using the DoD’s eMASS tool for RMF Implementation? - If so, will the eMASS record for this program be on the unclassified instance (NIPRNet) version of eMASS or the classified instance (SIPRNet) version of eMASS? | Yes, the unclassified eMASS tool will be used. | |
| Cyber Extract From: | 3.2.5.3 | b. Corrective actions taken and a …………. | Using the POA&M function in eMASS? | This is referring to the Deviation Report (DR) that is deliverable as part of the DOD RMF Package CDRL. The SOWs will be updated to clarify this item. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1 Scope | Support embedded training,………….. | Which systems are expected to require embedded training capability under this contract? | Future requirements may include SEP v4, MPF, and OMFV. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.1, b | Linking subsystems | Can the government expand or clarify what is intended by this item? | "Linking subsystem" is the Lockheed Martin term for the system connecting multiple AGTS devices together to form a platoon. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.2, | Bullet stmt: Support integration/interface with other stakeholder architectures….. | Can the government clarify what other stakeholder architectures are intended by this? Which architectures? STE? | This statement has been removed from the SOW. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3 | Embedded Training: | Can the government expand on the intent and expected scope for supporting embedded training requirements? Will the contractor be supporting other vendors or vehicle OEM leading the effort or be tasked to lead design, develop and integration of embedded training solutions as a DO? | The awardee will only be expected to provide support to a vehicle OEM in aligning embedded and virtual training systems. An example would be exercise and crew record cross-compatibility. The awardee will not be expected to lead the development of an embedded training system. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.9 | Visitor Support | Will the government consider specifying expected lead time to be provided for such support? | The SOW has been updated to specify that the Government will provide no less than 24 hours advance notice for VIP visits. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.11 | Obsolescence Mgmt, first sentence | For each DO, will the Government provide a list of obsolete parts currently identified by the CLS contractor, user, etc. as part of the DO RFP? | No obsolescence data will be provided. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.15.8 | CS/IT Certification; Supporting CS/IT functions……. | How is supporting CS/IT different from “working CS/IT” as specified in the previous para? Please clarify the different functions. | These paragraphs have been consolidated in the SOWs. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.4 | Hardware & Software Integration, first sentence at the word: accreditable…….. | How will accreditation be defined? What are the criteria? Is there a formal process to be followed? | This statement is referring to RMF Cybersecurity certification. It has been updated in the SOW for clarification. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.2.7.3.1 | U. M&S V&V Plan completed | IAW what specification or standard? No other reference to V&V in this or other draft SOW docs? | Reference to this M&S V&V Plan has been removed from the SOWs. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.3 | Logistics Product Data (LPD) 2nd sentence | Is this intended to be conducted as part of the DO proposal prior to DO contract award or after? | Trade Studies can be performed as part of the proposal process and/or during contract execution. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.6.2 | Site Preparation | What activities can the contractor expect the on-site personnel to perform? This will impact cost estimation of site preparation activities by the contractor. | Site Prep requirements will be dependent upon the results of specific site surveys. The Site Prep will be performed under a T&M or cost reimbursement CLIN. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 1.1 | last bullet stmt | Please clarify if the following USMC systems are still valid for this Tech refresh: |
- USMC/Light Armored Vehicle-25 (LAV-25) AGTS (Tech Refresh/Upgrade/Production)
- USMC LAV-25 PAAR
- USMC M1A1 Firepower Enhancement Program (FEP) AGTS (Tech Refresh/Upgrade/Production)
| - USMC M1A1 FEP PAAR | As of the writing of this response, the USMC systems covered by the effort are limited to the LAV-25 AGTS, LAV-25 PAAR, and the AAV-TT. | ||||
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.8 | 2nd Para, first sentence; (e.g., systems engineering…… | The number and frequency of IPT meetings can become a significant cost driver – recommend that the government consider specifying the expected frequency of these meetings. | Section 3.1.8 is a header paragraph. The specific meetings and reviews, along with their frequencies, are identified in the subparagraphs of 3.1.8. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.9 | Visitor Support | Should the government specify lead time to be provided…? | The SOW has been updated to specify that the Government will provide no less than 24 hours advance notice for VIP visits. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.9 | Visitor Support, last word: required…….. | On the Abrams program they provide a letter to the PM and contracts department requesting a date and time for the visit. | The Government will send an email requesting a date and time. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.11 | first sentence | Will the Government provide a list of obsolete parts currently identified by the CLS contractor? | No obsolescence data will be provided. | |
| Draft - Overarching SOW | 3.1.11 | last word……Government. | Agreed we need a list of obsolete parts for each device prior to starting any type of work. | Paragraph 3.9.1 of each Tech Refresh DO defines a list of the minimum amount of parts to be replaced. |
_x000D__x000D_
_x000D__x000D_
_x000D__x000D_
_x000D__x000D_
_x000D__x000D_
_x000D__x000D_
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .