QandA_20260519.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Soldier Virtual Training (SVT), Weapons Skills Development (WSD) and Joint Fires Trainer (JFT)
- Solicitation number
- CPE-ST3-SVT_26_01
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers document providing clarification on the Soldier Virtual Training (SVT) Weapons Skills Development (WSD) and Joint Fires Trainer (JFT) Call for Solutions solicitation. The Q&A addresses 30 substantive inquiries from industry regarding technical requirements, system specifications, and submission procedures for both Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) marketplace entries and Other Transaction Authority (OTA) development proposals.
Key technical clarifications include: WSD-T05 system footprint requirements match the EST2 program of record at 20 feet wide by 40 feet long by 8-foot height; the space must accommodate moving and shooting anywhere within it for Urban Rifle Marksmanship training; networked configurations can link up to 3 systems totaling 15 lanes; and systems must be transportable in vehicles no larger than 1.25-ton trucks and operational within 30 minutes. The system is not required to connect to external networks for COTS submissions but will require connection to the STE for the OTA portion. WSD-T13 weapon system support must include M4, M17, M250, with M7 drop-in kits or surrogates acceptable at entry; M7 and M8 platforms will both remain in use with compatible bolt systems. For marketplace pricing, vendors must allow units to purchase kits for pistols, rifles, or both separately. COTS Executive Summaries are limited to five pages excluding diagrams, screenshots, and validation reports. The Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) cost response should reflect five-year total lifecycle costs per 5-lane system including surrogates, drop-in kits, parts replacement, software and hardware support, and licenses. For ballistic validation, vendors must engage third-party organizations for verification while the Military College of Education (MCoE) will conduct final validation. Cybersecurity requirements apply only to OTA solutions and require individual Authority to Operate (ATO) coordination; COTS items are not intended for government network integration. JFT submissions can satisfy classroom training for 10-30 students using multiple interconnected systems rather than a single system. Vendors may update marketplace catalog items when hardware, software, capabilities, or technology refreshes become available, with updated catalogs submitted immediately upon publication.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
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
Q&A
| # | Question | Answer |
| 1 | Please clarify WSD‑T‑05. Is there an intended direction to fire, along the 20' or 40' or does it not matter? | The space required is for moving and shooting anywhere inside the space towards the projected targets. This allows for Urban Rifle Marksmanship training which includes walk and shoot. |
| 2 | Please define WSD-T-01, mounted un-stabilized training. Does this mean vehicle mounted? | Yes, the ability to use mock up mounted platforms or pintle mounts to simulate vehicle mounted weapons engagements. |
| 3 | WSD T 12, is the system intended to be connected to an external network, i.e. NIPR ? | No, the system is not required to be connected to an external network. Not for the marketplace. The SVT program will have that as an objective requirement to connect to STE. |
| 4 | WSD T 13, In reference to Table 1 requirements, is this for crew served only, or for all weapons? There is a completely different definition of Table 1 and 2 for crew served vs. small arms. | Would need to see what requirements they are talking about in regard to the Tables. See tables Tab |
| 5 | For the JFT COTS Price Catalog, are pictures accepted to better describe hardware and capabilities? | Yes they are preferred actually. |
| 6 | Can the referenced "WSD MVP memo" source be supplied to industry? | Posted 5/18. Please check sam.gov for the most updated posting. |
| 7 | Please clarify if the government requires 5 lanes on one screen. | The USG does not require 5 lanes on one screen, however it is preferred to reduce the systems footprint. |
| 8 | Is there a published course of fire and scorecard yet for the M7 and M250? If yes, how can they be obtained? (WSD T 13) | The M7 and M250 course of fire and scorecard is still in a draft form but will be relatively the same as the M4. |
| 9 | WSD T 17 states, support M7 as drop-in or surrogate, yet WSD T 17 states provide roadmap for NGSW support. These are contradictory statements. Is it a must for a finished M7 or does a developmental roadmap qualify as well? | Since the NGSW is not yet readily available to industry at this time a roadmap to meeting the requirement is acceptable. However, the Tiers Spreadsheet contains most of the same information. |
| 10 | Marketplace Updates: Can items already accepted into the Marketplace be updated when new: |
• hardware/software updates,
• capabilities,
• revisions,
| • or technology refreshes become available? | Yes. Items for sale in the marketplace should be the current model available for purchase. Should the update require an update to the catalog, the Company is responsible for submitting their updated catalog as soon as it is published. | |
| 11 | WSD System Configuration Clarification: Can the Government clarify what constitutes a “full system” for purposes of WSD evaluation and procurement? |
For example:
• five handguns,
• five rifles,
| • or a mixed combination of weapon types. | The intent is for five Soldiers to train at the same time. Units may choose to purchase a kit for pistols, a kit for rifles, or both. Pricing must allow for this. | |
| 12 | WSD T02 / T03 – Transportability Requirement Clarification: For WSD T02 and WSD T03, please clarify the transportability requirement relationship between the individual training system and the networked configuration. |
Specifically:
• Does the WSD T03 requirement (“Transportable in =1¼ ton truck”) apply to:
o a single standalone 5-lane WSD system, o or the fully networked configuration described in WSD T02 (“Network up
| to 3 systems”)? | A 5-lane system is designed for maximum portability, packaged to be transportable in a vehicle no larger than a 1 1/4 ton truck. The system can be set up and made ready for training by the operators within 30 minutes. | |
| 13 | WSD T05 – System Footprint Clarification: For WSD T05 (“System footprint =20’ × 40’ × 8’”), please provide additional clarification regarding how dimensional compliance will be assessed. |
Specifically:
• Which dimension corresponds to:
o width, o length, o and height?
• Is the footprint requirement measured based on:
o total occupied floor space, o usable training area, o or minimum facility room dimensions?
• Should vendors assume the dimensions represent:
o the total enclosed operational area, o or only the core simulator hardware footprint?
• Will dimensional compliance be verified through:
o engineering drawings, o physical inspection,
| o or operational demonstration? | Physical space required for system setup and operation must be equal to or less than the current Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) II program of record system which is 20 feet wide x 40 feet long and 8-foot height utilizing no more than two dedicated 110V or 220V; 50Hz/60Hz power source plugs. | |
| 14 | Cybersecurity Requirements Clarification: The solicitation references an attached Cyber SOW; however, no Cyber SOW attachment was included within the released package. |
Will the Government provide:
• the Cybersecurity Statement of Work,
• cybersecurity requirements,
• and any associated compliance or accreditation requirements
| applicable to Marketplace/COTS submissions? | Posted 5/18. Please check sam.gov for the most updated posting. | |
| 15 | WSD T13 – Weapon System Support Clarification: For WSD T13, please clarify which weapon systems must be supported at: |
• initial delivery,
• versus roadmap maturity.
Additionally:
We previously requested and received approval to obtain an M7 weapon for recoil system testing and evaluation; however, delivery remains pending.
Can the Government clarify whether the current WSD requirement remains aligned to the M7 platform, or if the program is transitioning toward the M8 platform as the primary NGSW-related requirement?
Additionally, should vendors continue development and validation efforts against the M7,
| or should future roadmap/support planning prioritize the M8? | The M7s that have been fielded will not be replaced with the M8. Therefore, there will still be a requirement for both. The bolt is still the same, so a drop-in kit for the M7 will work in the M8. However, surrogate M7 and M8s will need to be designed to meet the specific form/fit/function, for example, the difference in barrel length. | |
| 16 | WSD T20 / T21 – Ballistic Validation Clarification: For WSD T20/T21 ballistic validation requirements, please clarify: |
• what third-party validation organizations are acceptable,
• and what validation methodology will be used.
Additionally:
• Does the Government maintain a validated or approved list of third-party accreditation/validation vendors?
| • If so, will that list be published to industry? | The government does not have a list of third-party organizations to conduct verification. It is on the vendor to locate a qualified third-party organization to conduct their ballistics verification. MCoE will be the only organization that will validate the ballistics once they have been verified by a third party. This requirement will be updated to ensure "verification" and "validation" are not interchangeable but two distinct processes. | |
| 17 | WSD T22 – User-Generated Content Clarification: For WSD T22 user-generated content, what level of authoring capability is expected? |
Examples include:
• target scripting,
• terrain creation,
• scenario editing,
• mission authoring,
| • and AAR customization. | Operator level. | |
| 18 | JFT Emulation Fidelity Clarification: For JFT emulation requirements (M22, PF-D, Lensatic Compass), what fidelity level is expected regarding: |
• user interaction,
• visual modeling,
• operational workflow,
• and performance behavior? The emulation requirement must visually represent the piece of equipment and the operator needs to be able to determine the azimuth to the target with an appropriate degree of accuracy.
| 19 | Proposal Formatting Clarification: Are architectural diagrams, screenshots, validation reports, and traceability matrices excluded from page count limitations? | The COTS solution Submission Requirements are limited to fives pages in the Executive Summary. This summary page count excludes diagrams, screenshots, validation reports, and traceability matrices. The OTA solution paper page count is already described with items that are excluded from the page count. The Solution Paper will also exclude diagrams, screenshots, and validation reports. |
| 20 | Section 1.3 Proposed Milestones has a reference to "phases". Are phases synonymous with tiers? If this is for a COTs solution that are ready for sale within the marketplace, at Tier 1, then our assumption is the milestones would be for the follow-on tiers. Is this correct? | Phases are not necessarily synonymous with the tiers, but one could certainly build the timeline, milestones, sprint along the tiers. You would need to look at your developmental processes and present that. |
The end result is the government needs to understand the developmental work the company is doing, the deliverables the company will provide and when, and how much that is going to cost the government.
| 21 | Ref: “Call-for-Solutions_SVT_WSD_JFT_20260511.docx” and “ST3 SVT COTS Tier levels_01_MAY_26.xlsx”. These documents have a FYDP Cost reference, is the responder expected to provide a response to that and if so, is it just a price roll-up for 5 lanes? | Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). Think of this as total lifcycle costs for fives lanes for five years. Per 5 lane system with surrogates and/or drop-in kits, parts replacement, SW and HW support, licenses. | |
| 22 | 3. | Ref: “Call-for-Solutions_SVT_WSD_JFT_20260511.docx” and “ST3 SVT COTS Tier levels_01_MAY_26.xlsx”. For requirements JFT-T-01, JFT-T-02, and JFT-T-03, will the Government accept full JFS ESC accreditation for JTAC training as sufficient evidence of compliance, provided the accreditation covers applicable Joint Fires, Call for Fire, and CAS training tasks? Or does the Government require a separate requirement-by-requirement crosswalk to FIST certification IAW TC 3‑09.8 Chapter 6 dtd 2 Jun 25, JFO MOU dtd 20 Feb 2025, and Warrior Task 061‑283‑6003 Adjust Indirect Fire required? | The government will accept JFS ESC accreditation as evidence of compliance for the JFO MOU task and basic Call for Fire tasks. However, it does not cover all tasks found in CH 6 TC 3-09.8. |
| 23 | 4. | Ref: “Call-for-Solutions_SVT_WSD_JFT_20260511.docx” and “ST3 SVT COTS Tier levels_01_MAY_26.xlsx”. Requirement JFT-T-07 states: “Support 10-30 students with minimal instructor support.” Is the Government asking for a single portable JFT system to support 10-30 students in a classroom arrangement or if multiple portable JFT systems may can be interconnected to support a classroom arrangement? | A single system is not a requirement to meet the "10 to 30" student classroom environment. |
| 24 | WSD-T-25 refers to DA Form 3595 and 3601. Both forms are obsolete and no longer published by the Army Publishing Directorate. Why is the government requiring out of date/circulation scorecards? We have developed to the current DA Forms7814 and the 7801 per the TC 3-20.40. | The DA Form 3595 and 3601 were an oversight that were provided as examples for specific ranges. Acknowledge the use of outdated DA Forms. The DA Form 7801 and 7814 will suffice. Each course of fire for each weapon system that requires a qualification score will need to produce the correct DA Form that corresponds with that weapon. | |
| 25 | This Company assessed that we may be at a disadvantage for companies that have already had contracts, for this WSD capability, with the government. Specifically, referring to ballistic firing tables. The Army uses ARDEC data from the FT 5.56-A-1. This data is only available as GFI if a vendor is under contract with the government (so it's been told). Our solution currently uses ballistic data that is publicly sourced. Can the ARDEC tables be supplied as GFI for this marketplace effort? | This competition for Marketplace entry is establish specifically so new companies can compete and gain entry to the Marketplace. The ARDEC data will not be made available for the Marketplace but will be GFI for the OTA. OTA respondents should put this and any other GFI / GFP/ GFE in their response within the SP or SOW. | |
| 26 | Is the STE SDK available for us to look at and develop our roadmap for the OTA portion? | This GFI will be provided if the company is sleceted for an OTA for development of the WSD solution. | |
| 27 | Based on WSD T 02, 3 networked systems equal 15 lanes, does WSD T 05 dimension requirements relate to 1 system or 3?3 | 3 | |
| 28 | The proposal must describe how the offeror intends to meet all Tier 1 through Tier 4 requirements for the JFT. Are we supposed to price through Tier 4 requirements? Some are open-ended and would require vendors including substantial risk into their pricing. | The marketplace entrants must meet Tier 1 requirments. OTA Solutions must show a plan which describes the development, timeline and price to meet all tier 1 through tier 4 requirments. | |
| 29 | With the Cybersecurity SOW defining responsibilities for a "Cybersecurity Lead Integrator" supporting coordination across multiple software development teams, RMF compliance, DevSecOps integration, accreditation, and enterprise cybersecurity oversight, can the Government clarify whether this role is anticipated to be procured as a standalaone cybersecurity.intergrations support requirmement, a seperately competed task order or support services effort, or an embedded function withing each individual SVT/JFT/WSD development effort? Additionally, if currently included within a larger procurement, would the Government consider seperating the Cybersecutiry Lead Intergrator responsiblitites into ta distinct enterprise security support requirement ot support the standardized RMF governnace, DevSecOps, overnsight and cross-programs cybersecurity cooridnation across the SVT portfolio | The Cybersecurity requirement applies to the OTA portions of this CFS. The COTS items are not intended to be added to a government network at this time. Each company submitting an OTA Solution must meet the Cyber Security requirements individually and work with the government for an Authority to Operate (ATO) and should be part of the solution. | |
| 30 | Will our pricing for the COTS catalog be viewable to other companies in the Marketplace. | No, the intent is that the company will have access to the marketplace as a contractor but will be able to see and adjust only their catalog. Units planning to buy COTS items in the marketplace will be able to see all catalogs and prices so they can determine which solution to purchase and budget accordingly. |
Tables
| Table 1: Primary Distinctions | ||
| Feature | Small Arms | Crew-Served Weapons |
| Operator | Single soldier | Two or more personnel |
| Portability | Hand-carried by one person | Requires team transport or vehicle mounts |
| Caliber Range | Typically under .50 caliber (12.7mm) | .50 caliber up to major artillery sizes |
| Mounting | Handheld or shoulder-fired | Tripods, vehicles, aircraft, or watercraft |
| Tactical Role | Individual self-defense and close combat | Area denial and sustained suppressive fire |
| Logistics | Light ammunition loads per person | Heavy ammunition supply chains required |
| Table 2: Weapon Classifications and Examples | ||
| Category | Sub-Type | Common Examples |
| Small Arms | Handguns | Glock 19, Sig Sauer M17 |
| Shotguns | Remington 870, Mossberg 500 | |
| Submachine Guns | MP5, CZ Scorpion | |
| Assault Rifles | M4 Carbine, AK-47 | |
| Designated Marksman Rifles | M110 SASS, Mk 12 SPR | |
| Crew-Served | Light/Medium Machine Guns | M249 SAW, M240B |
| Heavy Machine Guns | Browning M2 .50 Caliber | |
| Automatic Grenade Launchers | Mk 19 40mm | |
| Anti-Tank Missile Systems | FGM-148 Javelin, BGM-71 TOW | |
| Mortars & Artillery | M224 60mm Mortar, M777 Howitzer |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .