(Blank)_CRM_for_OMFV_PSPEC_Rev003.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) W56HZV-22-R-0026
- Solicitation number
- W56HZV-22-R-0026
About this file
This document provides instructions for industry feedback on a draft request for proposal for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program. The U.S. Army is seeking comments on the Performance Specification and Common Infrastructure Architecture documents, as well as the draft RFP, to be submitted by May 2nd, 2022 using the provided comment resolution matrix templates. Instructions are provided for requesting unclassified controlled information and classified documents related to the draft RFP. For CUI, requestors must provide their CAGE code and DD2345 agreement, as well as whether they intend to bid as prime contractor or subcontractor. Classified requests require verification of facility clearance and national interest determination if a foreign-owned company. The Army contact information is provided for any questions.
View the file
Other files
Show all 49
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
Instructions
| **INSTRUCTIONS & GENERAL RULES** |
| 1) CLASS column-- enter “U” for Unclassified, “C” for Confidential, or “S” for Secret to show the classification of each review comment. If any comments are Confidential or Secret, your response must be submitted via SIPRNET or mail. |
2) LEVEL column--for Critical comments enter A for Administrative, S for Substantive and C for Critical.
| Use the following guidelines for rating comments: |
| (1) Critical: Critical comments apply to issues, which are considered potential “show stoppers” until resolved. Critical issues identify problems of such severity that, if not resolved, will have a significant impact on the cost, performance, or schedule of the program or related programs. Critical issues can arise from several causes. |
| (2) Substantive: Substantive comments document problems within the program worthy of correction, but not of such severity as to require program redirection. These comments must be accompanied by a recommendation for correction of the document with supporting rationale. |
| (3) Administrative: Administrative comments provide feedback to the program office concerning structure of the document, spelling, punctuation, grammar, paragraph marking inconsistencies, and other items related to the document’s form and readability rather than its content. |
3) Comments/Rationale column: provide clear concise comment or recommended change to specific document reference (page, para, line). Rationale should clearly articulate purpose for comment/change.
NOTE: Comments without rationale clearly explaining proposed recommendations or without citing any governing references are not useful. In general, format comments will not be categorized higher than Administrative unless there is a clear rationale how performance, interoperability, supportability, or other factors that may impact the potential success of the program .
Comments
| Document Name: CRM for OMFV P-Spec Rev003 | |||
| Control Number | Vendor Name & Phone # | PSPEC Section | |
| (e.g. Section 3, Section 4, etc) | PSPEC Unique ID Number | PSPEC Header Number & Name | CLASSIFICATION |
| (U/C/F) | COMMENT LEVEL (C/S/A) | COMMENT | RATIONALE |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .