AILS Govt Response to Industry Comments Questions 16 June 2025.pdf

Abrams Integrated Logistics Services Government Response to Industry Comments & Questions - 22 May 2025

Updated 12 June 2025

*Shaded gray Q&A were previously posted on 13 May 2025 & 22 May 2025, of which no changes have been made. Questions in red have been revised or are new.

1. QUESTION 1: Suggest a multiple award IDIQ broken out into small business pools to cover areas of need. This methodology we have seen work on our multiple award IDIQ’s that are over $1B. For example, breaking out CONUS personnel as a pool for small business and then allowing for those same businesses to propose on OCONUS personnel in an unrestricted pool.

ANSWER 1: A multiple award IDIQ is not viable because it would require an enormous amount of Government administrative oversight to manage various inter-connected efforts with simultaneous support between different contractors at multiple locations to ensure contractors are collaborating and not duplicating efforts. With multiple vendors performing similar mission, there is the potential for massive inefficiencies, duplication of work, and unacceptable delays. A single IDIQ award will effectively eliminate these pitfalls because a single contractor will be able to be held accountable for all performance and shift personnel as the Government mission dictates.

2. QUESTION 2: Suggest allowing for a set number of awards unrestricted and designating a set number of small business awards. For example, on one of our IDIQ’s there were 9 total awards over 3 pools (MFG, Labor, CSE), 6 total won in all 3 pools. Competition was significant at the task order level and the lead prime in the unrestricted pool is a small business based on fair competition.

ANSWER 2: See above Answer 1.

3. QUESTION 3: Draft seeks a single award with a small business plan. This can pose a hindrance with large business primes navigating loopholes and ground methods to squeeze small business partners based on known labor rates and internal methodologies for strong company ecosystems.

ANSWER 3: The solicitation and award will require Other Than Small Business (OTSB) offerors to submit and adhere to a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) IAW FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003.

4. QUESTION 4: Is the Government open to take away this task from the OEM? In the past, it seems this task keep going back to the OEM. Based on the pre solicitation, it comes out as Full and Open. Just want to see our possibilities and our options.

ANSWER 4: This requirement is subject to Full and Open Competition. A single contract award is anticipated to the source which represents a best value acquisition using a source selection process.

5. QUESTION 5: What is due on 16 APR? Outside of the admin info is it written feedback on this paragraph?

ANSWER 5: The Government is seeking industry written feedback, comments, or suggestions on the DRAFT RFP and accompanying DRAFT attachments posted.

6. QUESTION 6: The link at https://sam.gov/opp/0fcede73f3674028b7b5ab873bb44924/view that references the items below doesn’t have these topics unless I am missing it?

ANSWER 6: Posted history on this requirement is listed in the History section of this DRAFT RFP posting. This list is not all inclusive of the postings made in relation to this effort, but the link can be utilized to navigate to other previous postings not captured in this specific History listing.

7. QUESTION 7: The consideration criteria in section L.4.1.4 is extremely exclusionary. If the RFP is released with those four considerations, in my opinion, only the OEM can qualify against all four. For example, consideration # 1, Performance of Total Package Fielding (TPF) and De-processing activities for two or more fielding missions, at different locations simultaneously, for military ground combat or tactical vehicles across a consecutive 12-month period at to ensure vehicle is fully operational IAW the Army Maintenance Standard as per AR 750. There are very few companies that have this level of experience. Would it be better to ask for experience in this area and rate each company on their response?

ANSWER 7: The DRAFT Government criteria details simultaneous activities within a specific period and on specific quantities, in an effort to display the magnitude of our requirement. Any proposals received as a result of the solicitation will be evaluated on a best value basis, rather than on a “qualification” basis. The Government appreciates the feedback and will continue to review and refine as industry input is provided.

8. QUESTION 8: The consideration criteria in section L.4.1.4 is extremely exclusionary. If the against all four. Consideration #2: Performance of New Equipment Training (NET) conducted on military ground combat or tactical vehicles at two or more locations, concurrently, on at least a combined 100 vehicles, or at least a combined 300 users trained, in a consecutive 12-month period. No other company is training that many soldiers. NET is NET. The number of soldiers and vehicles should not matter. If a company needs to train 300 soldiers, they simply hire, train and certify the appropriate number of NET instructors.

ANSWER 8: See above Answer 7.

9. QUESTION 9: The consideration criteria in section L.4.1.4 is extremely exclusionary. If the against all four. Consideration #3. General Maintenance (both Scheduled and Unscheduled) that involved the knowledge and use of technical manuals or IETMS, of at least a combined total of 350 military ground combat or tactical vehicles, performed at four or more locations concurrently, both within the United States and internationally across a consecutive 12-month period, ensuring vehicles are maintained to the Army Maintenance standard as per AR 750-1 and maintenance records maintained as per DA

PAM 750-8.

I understand why maintenance experience is necessary, but I find it difficult to understand why the number of vehicles or the location is necessary. There are many companies who have maintenance experience, but very few can say they have performed it on this scale. Maintenance is maintenance. If I need more mechanics, I hire, train and certify more mechanics. Again, why not just ask for experience in this area and rate companies on their response?

ANSWER 9: See above Answer 7.

10. QUESTION 10: The consideration criteria in section L.4.1.4 is extremely exclusionary. If the RFP is released with those four considerations, in my opinion, only the OEM can qualify against all four. Consideration #4: Performance of MWO installation processes IAW AR 750-10 on at least 100 military ground combat or tactical vehicles, in a consecutive 12-month period that involve an installation time of a minimum of 80 man-hours per vehicle.

Again, the number of vehicles should not matter. Performing MWOs is normally not a difficult task. In most cases, it is harder to coordinate with the unit for access to the vehicles than it is to actually perform the MWO. I don’t understand why this is a consideration.

ANSWER 10: See above Answer 7.

11. QUESTION 11: As I reviewed Section L and M, the only evaluation is a company’s experience performing the aforementioned tasks. With the size and complexity Abram’s [sic] ILS needs, I would have expected to see a Technical/Mission Capability Volume discussing the following:

o Discuss recruiting and retaining a workforce possessing and maintaining the critical skills needed for the successful performance of the requirements of the scope of requirements and services o Detail and describe its program management and execution approach to include its organizational and management structure, to include Joint Venture (JV) relationships, major subcontractors, and/or teaming partner relationships, key personnel qualifications, financial management, quality control process and procedures, cost management system, and continuous process improvement methods, and the interdependencies among all aspects to lead to successful execution of the PWS requirements.

o Describe its approach, and risk identification and mitigation strategies, for a successful contract phase in and transition. The Offeror should describe its approach, and risk identification and mitigation strategies for a successful contract phase out.

o Describe its deployment process, detail your OCONUS onboarding process, and explain how the offeror continuously trains and upskills the workforce. Identify potential risks related to personnel deployment and provide a clear mitigation plan to address these challenges.

ANSWER 11: The Government appreciates the feedback and is continuing to review and refine as industry input is provided.

12. QUESTION 12: will this be a full and open solicitation or are you open to using another contract vehicle such as ERS or an AAS vehicle? The January 24 Abrams RFI was on ERS.

ANSWER 12: This requirement will be Full and Open Competition. All RFIs have been posted W56HZV-24-R-0035 (-1)(-2).

13. QUESTION 13: Additionally, is this the same RFI from ERS last year?

ANSWER 13: Everything associated with DRAFT RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 (-1)(-2) has been and will continue to be posted to SAM.GOV.

14. QUESTION 14: Can you provide more detailed information on the scope of work and the primary objectives of this project at a high level?

ANSWER 14: The primary objectives for this service acquisition is to provide sustainment system technical support for Field Service Representatives (FSR), Vehicle Maintenance, Modification Work Orders (MWO), Fielding and De-processing, New Equipment Training (NET), and Program Management, in support of the Abrams Family of Vehicles (FoV). The effort will support various Program and Project Manager organizations and Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The services will be provided simultaneously, both Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) at multiple field locations. Please review the DRAFT RFP Section C, scope for more detailed information on scope.

15. QUESTION 15: Is there a technical data package (and or blue prints) for items we will be working on?

ANSWER 15: The Government will not require logistics development work on this contract. All technical information required to perform the scope of work will be provided by the Government to include associated Technical Manuals (TMs) and MWO documents. These are currently slotted as Attachments 0007, 0008, and 0009 of the DRAFT RFP. They have not yet been shared with industry.

16. QUESTION 16: Can you elaborate on the past performance and experience criteria that will be considered essential for this contract?

ANSWER 16: Offerors should review Section L & M when the final RFP is released. Note that at this time past performance will not be evaluated.

17. QUESTION 17: Are there specific projects or case studies that you would like to see demonstrated in our proposal?

ANSWER 17: Offerors should review section L.4.1.2.1 of DRAFT RFP for specific requirements of what shall be submitted as part of their proposals, including written instruments that could demonstrate actual performance may include a single task or delivery order, a single work directive/technical instruction, or a single definite quantity contract provided it demonstrates a distinct effort was actually performed. The Government will only consider recent experience in the evaluation. Recent experience is defined as tasks completed on a recent Contract (as defined by L.4.1.2.1 above). Recent Contract(s) are those performed within five years of the date of issuance of this RFP.

18. QUESTION 18: We understand the evaluation criteria as the below. Can you confirm?

A. Experience Factor

a. This is the most important factor.

B. Cost/Price Factor

a. This is significantly more important than the Small Business Participation Factor but less important than the Experience Factor.

C. Small Business Participation Factor

a. This is the least important factor.

ANSWER 18: Currently the interpretation detailed above is correct based on our DRAFT RFP. The Government plans to evaluate the criteria IAW Section M.4.

19. QUESTION 19: Can you provide an estimated timeline for the release of the RFP, proposal submission deadlines, and anticipated award date?

ANSWER 19: The Government is currently tracking the following dates. These dates are not final and are subject to change without notice. This notice does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever:

TENTATIVE RFP Release: Summer 2025 TENTATIVE Proposal Submission Deadlines: Fall 2025 TENTATIVE Award: Spring 2026

20. QUESTION 20: Are there any specific submission formats or requirements that vendors should be aware of?

ANSWER 20: Submission instructions are located in Section L.2 of the DRAFT RFP in posting W56HZV-24-R-0035-2.

21. QUESTION 21: Can you provide an estimated budget or funding range for this project?

ANSWER 21: Refer to Attachment 0015, Abrams ILS GFPM, which details estimated hours by year.

22. QUESTION 22: Are there any specific funding constraints or limitations that vendors should consider when preparing their proposals?

ANSWER 22: The pricing information available for release has been included in Sections B & H of the DRAFT RFP and Attachment 0015 in posting W56HZV-24-R-0035-2.

23. QUESTION 23: What are the potential risks that the Army foresees with this project, and how does the Army expect vendors to address them?

ANSWER 23: The Government understands that there are schedule and technical risks associated with this effort, as there are with other efforts of this size and complexity. The successful contractor will be able to determine for itself what risks it expects to encounter and will navigate these risks to mitigate disruption in schedule of services.

24. QUESTION 24: Is there a risk management plan or framework that the Army prefers vendors to adopt?

ANSWER 24: The Government currently has not defined a preference to a specific risk management plan framework. Traditionally vendors/suppliers have a framework that they already utilize internally. The fact that they have one and utilize it is what matters.

25. QUESTION 25: What are the reporting requirements and communication protocols that the Army expects vendors to follow throughout the project?

ANSWER 25: Performance reporting requirements are outlined in the DRAFT SOW and data supporting performance during the effort will be submitted via CDRLs, please see Section J-1.

26. QUESTION 26: Will there be regular progress meetings or status reports required?

ANSWER 26: The DRAFT RFP includes requirements for status reports and reviews within Section C.2. The DRAFT RFP also outlines required CDRL deliverables that will capture progress and status.

27. QUESTION 27: Is there a requirement for vendor-provided training and support for Army personnel? If so, what are the specific expectations?

ANSWER 27: Majority of the training is detailed in the scope Section C.11, New Equipment Training. If more clarification is required on vendor-provided training, please advise.

28. QUESTION 28: Are there any specific certifications or training programs that the Army would prefer vendors to have?

ANSWER 28: Majority of the training and certification requirements are detailed in the scope; Section C.9 Modification Work Orders and Section C.11, New Equipment Training.

If more clarification is required on vendor-provided training, please advise.

29. QUESTION 29: Any environmental/sustainability requirements to be are of?

ANSWER 29: The draft RFP will include the necessary environmental and sustainability provisions and clauses.

30. QUESTION 30: We recommend a full or partial small business set-aside for this acquisition, as there are capable and qualified small businesses able to meet the requirements, which would promote competition, drive innovation, and support the government's small business utilization goals while potentially reducing overall costs.

ANSWER 30: Please see Answer 1.

31. QUESTION 31: We recommend including a technical volume in the proposal requirements, as the current solicitation lacks guidance on technical approach. Adding this section would allow offerors to present innovative, mission-focused solutions and demonstrate their understanding of the work, ultimately enabling the government to better evaluate technical merit and overall value.

ANSWER 31: The Government appreciates the feedback and will continue to review and

32. QUESTION 32: The evaluation criteria’s heavy emphasis on past experience may disproportionately favor the incumbent and limit opportunities for other qualified offerors. To ensure a fair and competitive evaluation, we recommend balancing the evaluation factors to include consideration of technical approach, innovation, and capabilities, which would better reflect the potential value new entrants can bring to the mission.

ANSWER 32: The Government appreciates the feedback and will continue to review and

33. QUESTION 33: We recommend that the Government allow offerors to provide a brief narrative or justification for each past performance example listed in the Volume 1 experience spreadsheet, as the current format does not offer an opportunity to explain the relevance of the work. Including this option would enable offerors to clearly demonstrate how their experience aligns with the requirements and would support a more informed and fair evaluation.

ANSWER 33: The Government appreciates the feedback and will continue to review and

ANSWER 33 REVISED RESPONSE: The Draft RFP does request an offeror explain the comparability of its proposed experience as a stand alone narrative, but not part of the Experience Matrix (Attachment 0019). Refer to Section L.4.1.5.2 (d)

34. QUESTION 34: RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 / L.4.1.3 - As the OCONUS war efforts have significantly declined over the last 5 years, might the government consider sub-contractor experience. Please extend the recency requirement to 10 years as many have the experience and expertise to serve, albeit via dated experience due to recent requirements.

ANSWER 34: The Government appreciates the feedback and will continue to review and

35. QUESTION 35: RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 / SECTION A - Is this procurement considered to be a personal service contract under FAR 37.104?

ANSWER 35: This procurement is not a personal service contract.

36. QUESTION 36: P9 C.1.4.2 1-12 - Will the Government provide the Attachments referenced prior to the RFP release?

ANSWER 36: Attachments will be provided no later than with the formal RFP release.

37. QUESTION 37: P45 L.5.10 - Will the Government provide access to the Export Controlled information Attachment prior to the RFP release?

ANSWER 37: If export controlled information is contained in the RFP, the Government will provide access. Please note this RFP is DRAFT.

38. QUESTION 38: P35 L.4.1.2.2.3 - It is recommended the Government consider Past

Performance reference from the Offeror as a subcontractor.

ANSWER 38: The Government does not plan to consider past performance as an evaluation factor at this time.

ANSWER 38 REVISED RESPONSE: The Government does not plan to consider past performance as an evaluation factor at this time. The Government plans to evaluate Experience, and the current draft RFP criteria language allows offerors to propose experience on Contracts for which it performed as prime contractor, which is defined as the party that executes an agreement with another party to perform work. Pursuant to L.4.1.2.2.3 “The prime contractor of the proposed submission is NOT required to be a U.S. Government contract holder. Private industry Contract(s) (e.g., an agreement between U.S. Government contract holder and its subcontractor) may be considered as the proposed experience.” In this sense, if an offeror performed as subcontractor to an entity performing as a USG prime contractor, the offeror can propose its’ industry contract with the USG prime contractor in its proposal, as it is the “prime contractor” for the industry contract.

39. QUESTION 39: Section L.2.3 - pg 33 of 50 - The instructions for submitting proposals via the PIEE Solicitation Module are detailed, but there is no mention of an alternative submission method if the module is offline, which is mentioned later in L.2.3.3.

ANSWER 39: As stated in L.2.3.3, the offeror must obtain Contracting Officer approval to use an alternate submission method prior to the solicitation due date/time. It is recommended that requests for approval of an alternate submission method be made a minimum of 2 hours before the closing time on the closing date of the RFP.

40. QUESTION 40: Section L5.7.7 - pg 45 of 50 - Mentions a statutory goal for small, disadvantaged businesses but does not specify the percentage, which is later clarified in M.4.3.2.

ANSWER 40: The requirements are still being revised by the AMC Office of Small Business Programs and the firm requirements will be included in the final RFP release.

41. QUESTION 41: Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Since none of the Small Business goals are statutory except for the SDVOSB goal of 5%, we would suggest that the total SB projected revenue be evaluated instead of a specific revenue goal for each socioeconomic category. Additionally, we recommend that no small business subcontracting plan be required for small business prime contractors.

ANSWER 41: The requirements are still being revised by the AMC Office of Small Business Programs and the firm goals will be included in the final RFP release. The solicitation will require Other Than Small Business (OTSB) offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) IAW FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003.

42. QUESTION 42: Are there specific performance metrics or KPIs that the Army will use to evaluate the success of this project?

ANSWER 42: Proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria in Sections L and M.

During contract performance, the Government will use Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) to evaluate and document contractor success in cost, schedule and performance of the contract. Submission of CDRLs during performance of the contract will provide short-term performance status checks.

43. QUESTION 43: What are the key technical requirements and specifications that the Army is looking for in this project?

ANSWER 43: All technical information required to perform the scope of work will be provided by the Government to include associated Technical Manuals (TMs) and MWO documents. These are currently slotted as Attachments 0007, 0008, and 0009 of the DRAFT RFP. They have not yet been shared with industry.

44. QUESTION 44: Are there preferred technologies or platforms that the Army would like vendors to utilize?

ANSWER 44: The successful contractor will perform IAW the SOW requirements so any technologies or platforms it proposes to use must be compatible with the SOW requirements.

45. QUESTION 45: RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 / C.1.2.8 Deploying Personnel - The current administration's future Tariffs may pose a significant challenge for vendors; how does the government propose to accommodate the impacts for different countries along with the associated impacts to SOFA and country-specific personnel requirements?

ANSWER 45: The Government will continue to monitor official guidance regarding tariffs and the impacts they may have on current and future acquisitions. If guidance or requirement changes are released due to tariff impacts during the RFP and/or life of the contract, they will be evaluated. If deemed relevant, guidance will be reviewed for applicability to the scope of work and requirements.

46. QUESTION 46: RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 / C.1.2.8 Deploying Personnel - Has the government identified any administrative challenges for personnel deployment requirements from the previous QA submission? What challenges can vendors expect to face with trade agreements and deployment actions?

ANSWER 46: It is the successful contractor’s responsibility to monitor entry requirements. Entry and working requirements vary by country, but previous efforts indicate that these tend to remain static and so contractors have been able to research and plan for these requirements. At this time, the Government has not been notified of any changes to these requirements in the countries in which the AILS effort is anticipated.

47. QUESTION 47: RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 / M.1.1.4 Cost/Price - What impacts might the new administration tariff requirements have on this acquisition and the draft pricing instructions provided; i.e. the ability to provide appropriate cost of living costs for contract personnel?

ANSWER 47: Please see Answer 45.

48. QUESTION 48: RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 / L.4.1.4 Consideration #3 General Maintenance What considerations from the previous to the current administration has the government considered to perform at four or more locations concurrently, both within the United States and internationally across a consecutive 12-month period? In order to avoid barriers to contracting, under what conditions might the government consider to allow a longer past performance requirement to maximize competition?

ANSWER 48: Please see Answer 7 and Answer 38.

49. QUESTION 49: RFP W56HZV-24-R-0035 / C.15.1.5.2 Storing/Handling - How will the new CMMC 2.0 requirements impact this procurement; in both the short and long term?

ANSWER 49: At this time, the Government has not identified the impacts CMMC 2.0 may have on the procurement. However, storing and Handling requirements are in NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3., pg 5, Para 3., The Security Requirements.

50. QUESTION 50: P6 C.1.8 - Are there specific locations where deployed resources live on base vs on the local economy?

ANSWER 50: Determining where deployed resources live is the contractor’s responsibility. The Government does not anticipate any contingency requirements with this contract.

51. QUESTION 51: P48 M.4.1.1.2 - It is requested the Government provide clarification to the evaluation scale for assessed risk.

ANSWER 51: Continue to watch Section L & M. This will be solidified with the release of the final RFP.

ANSWER 51 REVISED RESPONSE: The Technical Factor will result in a single Technical Adjectival rating that will consider the offerors approach and understanding of requirements, and risk associated with the offer successfully performing the required effort. The Government intends to utilize the risk descriptions set for in Table 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures (see DFARS 215.300) in the evaluation.

52. QUESTION 52: P48 M.4.1.1.2.1 -M.4.1.1.2.3 - It is requested the Government provide clarification to the evaluation scale for strength / significant strength.

ANSWER 52: Please see Answer 51.

ANSWER 52 REVISED RESPONSE: There is not an evaluation scale for strengths/significant strengths. The definitions of a strength and significant strength are set forth in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, see DFARS 215.300.

53. QUESTION 53: P50 M.4.3.2 - It is requested the Government provide clarification to the evaluation scale for credibly.

ANSWER 53: Please see Answer 51.

ANSWER 53 REVISED RESPONSE: The evaluation of the Small Business Participation Factor will result in an Adjectival rating and intends to use the adjectival rating in Table 6 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures for this Factor. There is not a separate evaluation scale for credibility for this Factor. Pursuant to Section M.4.3.1, the Government will evaluate the extent of the Offerors approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the SBP Factor goals identified in this solicitation. In addition to the data provided by the offeror, the evaluation may take into account data found in Government systems referenced in the criteria as well as consistency within the offerors proposal when determining credibility of its proposed goals.

54. QUESTION 54: Section L.4.1.2.2.1 - pg 35 of 50 - Limits the offeror to two submissions per criteria consideration, but L.4.1.6.4.1 also limits key subcontractor submissions, which may cause confusion.

ANSWER 54: Please see Answer 11.

ANSWER 54 REVISED RESPONSE: The submission limits in L.4.1.2.2.1 apply to all offerors regardless of whether they opt to propose experience of Key subcontractors.

However, offerors who opt to propose experience of key subcontractors almost must also adhere to the additional submission limits outlined in L.4.1.6.4.1, which are submission limits specific to submissions that were performed by a proposed key subcontractor.

55. QUESTION 55: Experience Section. The additional strength language in Section M for

Consideration #1, Consideration #2, and Consideration #3 is very specific and seems to drive to the experience of certain offerors. Please consider not in specific in Section M on the criteria for evaluating additional/significant strengths and let offerors describe potential strengths that address each specific Consideration. Allow the offerors narrative write up and proof point drive the strength evaluation, not specifically addressing work on certain AORs or numbers of vehicles maintained. It limits scoring innovation.

ANSWER 55: Please see Answer 11.

56. QUESTION 56: Section C.11 – New Equipment Training (NET) - Will the Government consider blended or asynchronous approaches for delivering New Equipment Training (NET), particularly for OCONUS or remote environments, to ensure consistent access and training outcomes?

ANSWER 56: Please see Answer 11.

ANSWER 56 REVISED RESPONSE: NET schedule is dictated by the Fielding and FMS schedule(s).

57. QUESTION 57: Section C.1.1 – Scope (Training Across Abrams, JAB, and ABV) - Given that the scope includes support for Abrams, JAB, and ABV platforms, does the Government intend for training materials and delivery methods to be modular or interoperable across these variants?

ANSWER 57: Training materials will be provided specific per platform.

58. QUESTION 58: Attachments 0010, 0011, 0012 – Crew Training & Gunnery Testing - Are there plans to digitize or modernize existing training content and qualification processes (e.g., TC 3-20.31, DIDEA, and Gunnery Skills Test), or should proposals assume continuation of existing formats?

ANSWER 58: Proposals should assume existing formats to maintain standardization.

59. QUESTION 59: Section M.4 – Evaluation Criteria (Experience Factor) - Will the evaluation consider training delivery innovations—such as data-driven learner assessments or adaptive content delivery—when assessing offeror experience and approach?

ANSWER 59: Please see Answer 11.

ANSWER 59 REVISED RESPONSE: The Government will consider recent experience and evaluate for comparability to the considerations set forth in the evaluation criteria considerations set forth in L.4.1.4. Criteria will be centered around military ground combat or tactical vehicles, which follow Army regulations/standards.

60. QUESTION 60: Section L.2.1 – Proposal Instructions (Technical Approach) - To what extent should the offeror describe technical features of proposed training delivery platforms, such as user accessibility, content authoring tools, or compatibility with IL2/IL4/IL6 environments?

ANSWER 60: Please review Sections L&M with the final RFP and adhere to the criteria therein.

ANSWER 60 REVISED RESPONSE: Section L.2.1 of the RFP relates to Propoosal Instructions for Content, Format, and method of Submission, and is not a Technical Approach Factor. The Government is unclear of what part of the draft RFP the remainder of the question pertains to.

61. QUESTION 61: General – Training Delivery & System Integration - Is the Government considering a specific LMS or training management system to host courseware and track learner progression, or is the offeror expected to propose a full solution?

ANSWER 61: The Government will outline the certification process for NET trainers in Attachment 0006, which will be provided NLT with the release of the final RFP.

62. QUESTION 62: how does the Government intend to deal with Restrictive Data (e.g.

proprietary data)?

ANSWER 62: Please see Answer 43. Any relevant data rights clauses will be included in the RFP.

63. QUESTION 63: Will the slides be sent out?

ANSWER 63: Slides will be posted to SAM.gov

64. QUESTION 64: Is the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) based on the proposed rates or the ceiling rates plus the ODC/Travel costs?

ANSWER 64: The TEP is calculated IAW Section M.4.2.3 of the Draft solicitation. In general, the TEP is based on the proposed rates, not the ceiling rates, plus the ODC/Travel costs as detailed by equations within the GFPM and IAW Section M.4.2.3 of the Draft solicitation.

65. QUESTION 65: When is the revised draft expected? Date?

ANSWER 65: The Government is targeting early Summer.

66. QUESTION 66: Is the TDP available so that offerors can see the drawings to understand what type of parts and available sources for said parts we may need to procure during contract performance?

ANSWER 66: There will be no recurring procurement on this effort. Parts are ordered by Government either by contract or through the Federal Supply System. If the contractor is required to purchase something it would be some type of hardware (screw, nut, bolt, washer) or expendables. Purchasing is extremely limited, per C.13.