LTATV_ID04190104_Q&A_DraftRFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Light Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (LTATV)
- Solicitation number
- ID04190104
About this file
This document contains a draft request for proposal for the procurement of Lightweight Tactical All-Terrain Vehicles by the General Services Administration on behalf of Special Operations Forces. The solicitation seeks proposals for two-seat and four-seat diesel and diesel-electric hybrid variants of the vehicle. The anticipated contract type is a hybrid of firm-fixed-price and time-and-materials arrangements over a potential seven-year ordering period from March 2020 through March 2027. The evaluation criteria utilize a best-value tradeoff methodology, weighting technical factors highest followed by past performance and price. The estimated response date for the forthcoming RFP is November 15, 2019. Interested offerors are advised to register in the System for Award Management and complete annual representations and certifications.
Q&A for Draft RFP
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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
| Area (PSPec, SOW, Solicitation, CDRLs, RFP) | Question | Response |
| Pspec | ||
| 2.2.3 a,b | Please confirm that it is acceptable for the LTATV to be designed for JP-8 fuel and to use a minimum modification (a lubricity tank, a pump, and potentially a fuel selection switch on the dashboard) when switching between JP-8 and diesel fuel types. We believe this modification is necessary to maximize the LTATV durability and lifecycle performance. | Any modification required between fuel types is not acceptable. Please refer to P-Spec 2.2.3.b. |
| 2.4.1 | Is a foam-filled tire acceptable to accomplish PSPEC 2.4.1? | The Government only provides a performance requirement. The proposed solution must meet the performance requirement. |
| 2.4.4.v | 2.4.4.v listed correctly or should it instead be 2.4.4.b? | This will be corrected on a future P-Spec update. |
| 2.5.9.b | Spec listed twice, but the requirements are different | This will be corrected on a future P-Spec update. |
| 2.7.4.d,e and 2.7.3 | 2.7.4.d and 2.7.4.e are located under 2.7.3 “Blackout Mode/ IR Lights” and again under “2.7.4 Gauges and Warning Lights” but defined differently in each section | The Government will correct this issue on a future P-Spec update. |
| 2.9.1.a | We understand the V-22 has the most restrictive requirements for internal transportability. Therefore, would the Government please provide the V-22 transportability specifications relevant to this solicitation (for example, number of D rings, placement of D rings, rating of D rings, PSI floor rating, ramp gross vehicle weight rating, breakover angles, door height and width, etc.)? | The vendor shall refer to miliatry standards and NAVAIR to understand design constraints for V-22 transport. Vendors may use their own means of attaining information, below are a couple POCs from NAVAIR CARGO that may assist: |
1) Mike Jackson, Michael.l.jackson4@navy.mil, 301-342-5872
2) Todd Anderson, todd.anderson@navy.mil, 301-995-3173
| 2.14 | These specifications are essential to selecting a capable vendor, but as the PSPECs and draft RFP are currently written, they will not be part of the evaluated criteria in vendors' formal proposal responses. Given the level of complexity associated with system durability, performance specifications, etc. of diesel/electic hybrid vehicles, would the Government please require vendors to respond to Section 2.14 specifications in their Volume 2 Technical proposals? | The Government will add a limited amount of Diesel/electric hybrid information into Section L and Section M. |
| 2.14 | The Government provided very detailed specifications for non-hybrid vehicle performance. However, many of the same specification categories are not defined for the hybrid vehicles. Would the Government please provide the associated specifications for the hybrid vehicles such as: expected curb weight, payload capacity, expected battery life, temperatures of operation, electric drive voltage requirements if applicable beyond meeting safety requirements, gradeability and side slope requirement for hybrid and electric-only)? | Section 2.14 is only Diesel/electric Hybrid specific requirements. If a requirement is not addressed in Section 2.14, the base vehicle requirement would be applied. |
| 2.14 | During SOFIC 2019 and on the SOCOM website, the Government specified that unmanned characteristics of the LTATV are areas of requirement. Would the Government please give evaluation credit for solutions that address unmanned capabilities so that bidders may be evaluated for their ability to successfully meet requirements associated with unmanned operation of the LTATV? | The Government is not evaluating unmanned systems. |
| 2.14.1 | Would the Government please specify the required payload capacity of the diesel electric hybrid in order to accommodate the necessary tradeoffs between payload capacity and GVW while also gaining a secondary drive system? | The payload capacity is defined in the Pspec (hybrid vehicle components count as payload). |
| 2.19.2 a,b | This PSPEC states the vehicle platform must protect occupants and fluids from extreme arctic conditions. Would the Government please define “extreme arctic conditions”, to include temperature, moisture, wind speed, precipitation, etc.? | The Government will provide further clarification on a future P-Spec update. |
| 2.19.a,b,c | These PSPECs appear to be duplicates of PSPECs 2.20.2a,b,&c. Would the Government please confirm they are duplicates, or please add additional specifications to clarify how 2.20.2a,b,&c are different? | 2.19 is the track kit that includes an environmental enclosure kit. 2.20 is just an environmental enclosure kit. 2.19 and 2.20 are different CLINs. |
| SOW | ||
| 4.2 | Regarding the Initial Spares Packages referenced in SOW Section 4.2, will the government provide an estimated number of miles traveled during the one year of consumable spares period? | For pricing purposes, the Government recommends utilizing a 1,000 miles per year estimation. |
| 4.5 | Section 4.5 PRODUCTION SOW requires a Design Review Phase that includes completion of a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR) followed by a Production Qualification Test (PQT) Vehicle Production Phase, which includes 3rd party ROPS certification and test support. | If the question is referring to the ROPS certification, the vendor may perform the ROPS certifcation at anytime prior to PQT Phase. |
| 4.6.5 | SOW 4.6.5 (OPSEC) states, “All data and documentation submitted under this contract will be subject to OPSEC review.” a. Request that this be changed to “all data and documentation generated as a result of this contract will be subject to OPSEC review.” b. Data that a contractor previously developed for their commercial NDI platform and subsequently provided to the government should not be OPSEC | We will modify this paragraph to say generated vice submitted. |
| The government indicates that a Post Award Conference must be held within 15 days following contract award; however, a required schedule for PDR, CDR, PQT and other reviews are not offered. Will the government be providing requirements for major milestones and reviews that indicate days after contract award, or is the government relying on the contractor to develop its best case schedule of key milestones? | The Government will provide notional schedule requirements for PDR and CDR in a future SOW update. | |
| For production schedule development, how long is the PQT phase anticipated to last? | The PQT phase for each model tested could be up to a year. PQT phases may be done in parallel. Delivery Orders may be placed during PQT phases. | |
| Will the government submit the first production delivery order after completion of PQT? If so, what is the earliest date that an order would be placed after PQT? | The Government may place production orders during PQT. | |
| 4.5.3 | SOW Section 4.5.3 references procurement of up to twenty production representative LTATVs for PQT. It is anticipated that the pre-production timing of these vehicles may cause their price to differ significantly from the production CLIN pricing. Will an additional CLIN be added to specifically account for these pre-production PQT vehicles? | Additional CLINs will not be allowed for PQT vehicles. These vehicles are production vehicles. |
| 4.11 | SOW Section 4.11 references a Contractor requirement to generate system safety documentation. Will the required documentation be identified as a CDRL in the final RFP? | The Contractor is responsible for identifying and evaluating these areas. It is not a deliverable, thus no CDRL is required. |
| CDRLs | ||
| A006, A007 | CDRLs A006 (Operators Manual) and A007 (Maintenance Manual) both reference MIL-STD40051-2C in block 4. Both CDRLs also tailor block 4 to require submittal in Microsoft Word format. This appears to be a contradiction, as MIL-STD-40051-2C requires XML tagging and final copies provided as pdf files. Is the government’s intent to tailor out the requirement for XML tagging within the manuals? | The Government will update the CDRLs A006 and A007 to remove the MS Word file type wording |
| RFP | ||
| 1 | Due to the compressed proposal schedule of 30 days, we suggest the government eliminates the hardcopy requirement. | The Government will not eliminate the hardcopy requirement; however, we may allow a couple days more than 30. |
| 2 | At what frequency does the government anticipate issuing Orders for production vehicles under the IDIQ contract? | The Government anticipates deliveries to be issued on an as needed basis. |
| 3 | In the 20 February draft RFP, the CLIN 1004 2-seat diesel/electric hybrid vehicle was noted as ordering period 3-5 and the CLIN 1005 4-seat diesel/electric hybrid vehicle was noted as ordering period 2-5. The 24 September draft RFP lists all vehicle variants as ordering period 1 and beyond. Does this indicate the government’s desire to procure 2 and/or 4 seat diesel/electric vehicles in ordering period one (1)? | The ordering period for the 2-seat and 4-seat Diesel/Electric Hybrid will be reflected to begin in Year 3. The Design Phase for the Diesel/Electric Hybrid to begin in Phase 2. |
| Page 40 | RFP Page 40 - Clause 52.211-92 Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Using Passive Tags a. Given there is a requirement for IUID labels on each vehicle, request removal of this clause. | The Government will update the clause number 552.211-92; however, the requirement for RFID will remain. |
| Page 85 Clause 552.216-75 Transactional Data Reporting | RFP Page 85 - Clause 552.216-75 Transactional Data Reporting a. Will the resulting contract be awarded as a BPA against the Offeror’s existing GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contract? b. If the resulting contract is NOT against the Offeror’s existing MAS contract, is the clause 552.216-75 Transactional Data Reporting applicable, where all the delivery orders are issued directly by the GSA? c. If the clause 552.216-75 is applicable, please explain what the Contractor Access Fee (CAF) is and the process for collection and remittance. | The contract will be awarded as an Inefinite Delivery Indefinte Quantity contract. All Delivery Orders will be placed by GSA. The clause 552.216-75- Transactoinal Data Reporting is required. There will be no Contractor Access Fee applied. |
| Schedule B | Schedule B Pricing Matrix, specifies ordering periods by year for each CLIN. a. Using CLIN 0003 as an example, would a proposal that outlines a production schedule that does not allow for ordering vehicles during “Ordering Period 1” be considered noncompliant? b. Example: i. Contract Award 20 April 2020 ii. PDR, CDR, etc. April 2020 – June 2021 iii. PQT vehicles ordered in June 2021 iv. Production delivery order in September 2021 (or upon completion of PQT) | If pricing is not provided for order period 1 year 1 on CLIN 0003 (per example), the proposal would be considered non-compliant. |
| Schedule B | Schedule B indicates Two Seat Diesel/ Electric Hybrid Vehicles and Four Seat Diesel/ Electric Hybrid Vehicles can be ordered in “Ordering Period Year 2.” The draft RFP released by USSOCOM in Feb 2019 indicated 2-Seat Hybrid/Electric Vehicles were in “Ordering Period 3-5.” a. Request ordering period for 2-seat and 4-seat hybrid/electric vehicles begin in Order Period Year 3 vs. Order Period Year 2. | The ordering period for the 2-seat and 4-seat Diesel/Electric Hybrid will be reflected to begin in Year 3. The Design Phase for the Diesel/Electric Hybrid to begin in Phase 2. |
| Schedule B and Attch 01 (Pricing Matrix) | Our assumption is that we self-select quantity ranges to quote for each ordering period. Is this correct? | This is correct. |
| Schedule B and Attch 01 (Pricing Matrix) | Given that there is a separate pricing matrix for Section B, do the CLINs within the Section B need to be filled out? If so, how? | The CLINs in Section B should not be filled out, pricing of CLINs should be included in the 10_Attach01_ScheduleBPricing_Volume_III |
| Schedule E | Schedule E pg. 29 lists CLINS for NET, Driver’s and Mechanic’s training as Inspect & Accept at Origin. Section 4.3 of the SOW indicates training courses will occur “at fielded CONUS locations.” a. Should CLINS for NET, Driver’s and Mechanic’s training be Inspect & Accept at Destination instead of Origin? | The Government will change the training Inspection and Acceptance at Destination |
| Section F | Section F specifies “Quantity Within Days After Contract.” L.3.2.2.2 states, “For purposes of production, anticipate a contract award of 20 APR 2020.” a. Are we to infer that all CLINS listed in Section F might be ordered on 20 APR 2020 or should Section F instead read, “Quantity Within Days After Delivery Order? b. What is the earliest (days after contract award) a delivery order may be placed for each CLIN? | The Program Managmenet CLIN would be awarded at time of contract. PQT Delivery Orders would not be ordered until after the Critical Design Review. |
| Section F | Deliveries or Performance. Page 31. “LTATV vehicles, regardless of LTATV variant, desired delivery at a rate of 90 vehicles in the first three (3) months and 45 vehicles per month thereafter. a. Please confirm our interpretation that deliveries may occur in the year following the Order Period Year?b. Example: Using CLIN 0003 as an example, and the desired delivery schedule, our interpretation is the following schedule would be considered compliant: “Ordering Period Year 1” (Schedule B Pricing Matrix) i. Contract award 20 April, 2020 ii. Delivery order placed: 19 April, 2021 iii. 90 Vehicles delivered 17 July 2021 iv. 45 Vehicles per month thereafter | The assumption of delivery schedule is correct; however, a production delivery order could be placed prior to the end of PQT. |
| Section F | Under Section F, “desired delivery,” Item No. 0006-0012; Item No. 0014; Item No. X0006-X0012; and Item No. X0014 are desired 90 days after receipt of order. Under Section F, “required delivery,” of the same Item No.’s are required 30 days after receipt of order, which is more aggressive than the desired delivery schedule. a. Please confirm the required delivery of Item No. 0006-0012; Item No. 0014; Item No. X0006-X0012; and Item No. X0014. | This will be updated on future RFP. |
| Section G | RFP Section G.3.2 states, “Firm Fixed Price (FFP) services provided shall be invoiced for work performed by the contractor on a monthly basis in equal allotments.” a. For FFP CLINs 0001, 1001, and 2001 (Program Management and Test Support) does the phrase “in equal allotments” mean the contractor should invoice the government monthly for an amount equal to the total CLIN price divided by the number of Months in the CLIN Ordering Period regardless of the actual services performed during each month? b. For the FFP CLINs 0015, 0016, 0017, 0018, 0019, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 (Training/Certification Courses), does the phrase “in equal allotments” mean the contractor should invoice the government monthly for an amount equal to the total CLIN price divided by the number of Months in the CLIN Ordering Period regardless of the actual services performed during each month? c. For the FFP CLINS 0021, 1021 and 2021 (LTATV Engineering Change Proposals), does the phrase “in equal allotments” mean the contractor should invoice the government monthly for an amount equal to the total CLIN price divided by the number of Months in the CLIN Ordering Period regardless of the actual services performed during each month? | a. this can be billed for monthly |
b. Training classes can be invoiced upon completion of the training course.
C. This will be dealt with on each Delivery order
| Section L | ||
| L3.2 Volume 2 Factor 1 | L.3.2 VOLUME 2 – Factor 1 – Technical states, “The Offeror shall submit a Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) for the Technical Volume, RFP Attachment IV, to help ensure that all solicitation requirements are addressed and to facilitate the Government’s review of the Offeror's proposal. The CRM shall be a single integrated matrix and cross-reference the proposal volume and paragraphs to specific RFP requirements, as well as other parts of the proposal that contain relevant information.” a. We interpret this as the CRM may be attached as a standalone Excel spreadsheet. Is this interpretation correct? | A. The CRM does not count against the page count. |
| L 3.4.1 Prices for Technical Data | Please confirm that prices for CDRLs should be submitted on DD1423 Form in boxes 17 and 18. Since CDRLs are not priced individually, where are the BOEs supposed to be captured? | The CDRL BOE should be placed in Volume III |
| L 3.2.1.5 | L.3.2.1.5 Roll Over Protection System (ROPS) design and certification process a. 2.4.3.a, 2.4.3.b b. 2.9.1.a c. 2.15.1.a, 2.15. Comment: On the top of page 103 bullet c the reference to 2.15.b should be 2.15.1.b | This will be fixed in future RFP update. |
| L3.3.2 | Section L.3.3.2 requires the offeror to submit a maximum of five and minimum of three Performance Information Sheets identifying active or completed contracts by the prime contractor. The sentence that follows it requires offerors to include at least one Performance Information Sheet where they are the prime. Is the government’s intention to accept some Past performance Information Sheets where the offeror was/is not the prime? | The Government will accept prime and sub contracts; however, one must be prime. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .