RFP_Questions_and_Answers_-_ID08180015.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- ID08180015
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
Solicitation Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP_Questions_and_Answers_(Set_2)_-_ID08180015.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP_Attachment_J.1_-_Performance_Work_Statement_(Revision_01).pdf | ||
| RFP_Amendment_01_-_ID08180015.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment J.4 - Past Performance Data Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP Attachment J.1 - Performance Work Statement.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment J.3 - RFP Questions and Answers.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP - ID08180015.pdf | ||
| RFP Attachment J.2 - COFT-M-SA Upgrade Fielding Schedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
RFP Q&A
| Question # | RFP | ||||
| Page # | RFP Section/ Paragraph | Question, Comment, or Clarification | Answer | ||
| 1 | Attm J1: PWS Page #11 | PWS 3.0 | Please provide the list of "previously procured spares and/or warrantied parts from the Conduct of Fire Trainer Modular Situation Awareness (COFT-M-SA) to be utilized during this upgrade". This list is needed during the solicitation process to enable all bidders to properly estimate utilization of these items. | There are no previously procured spares and/or warrantied parts. The COFT-M-SA system is the only item provided for this upgrade. | |
| 2 | RFP Page # 51 | L.4.g | Volume 1, Technical Approach, is currently limited to 15 pages. We respectfully request the page limitation be expanded to 25 pages to allow adequate space for bidders to provide details of their technical approach useful during the evaluation of this solicitation. | The page limitation is hereby increased from 15 pages to 25 pages. This revision has been incorporated via RFP Amendment 01. | |
| 3 | Attm: J2 All pages | Column F | Attachment J2, Upgrade Fielding Schedule, currently states "Upgrade In Place". In several instances, the units must be delivered to a new location. We respectfully request you remove column F completely to allow the bidder to propose their approach for the location of upgrade activities prior to fielding for all units. | Attachment J2 will not be revised as all systems must be upgraded in place. Systems that will be delivered to a new location will be relocated by the government prior to upgrade activities. | |
| 4 | Attm J1: PWS Page #15 | PWS 5.7.1 | The PWS states that the contractor shall replace existing computers with computers that "can support Windows 10 Host Secure Baseline operating system." The PWS-required ACSL runs under Linux. Please confirm whether all software needs to run in a Microsoft Windows environment, or if an alternate operating system (e.g., Red Hat Enterprise Linux) is acceptable assuming all cybersecurity RMF requirements are satisfied. | The computers can run an alternate operating system such as Linux. The government will accept the systems without Windows 10 if the vendor can create all exercise requirements without using Windows 10 software and still meet the RMF requirements. This revision has been incorporated via RFP Amendment 01. | |
| 5 | RFP Page # 51 | L.4.f | The RFP Section L.4.f states, "f. Pricing information shall not be included in any volume other than Volume 2". Shouldn't this state Volume 3 instead? Volume 3 is the Price Volume. | Yes, Section L.4.f should state "Volume 3" instead of "Volume 2." This revision has been incorporated via RFP Amendment 01. | |
| 6 | Attm J1: PWS Page #13 | PWS 5.3.3 | Please clarify the requirement to provide "ensure that the HTPS shall replicate the look, function and be located in the same position as in M1A2 SEP V2 Abrams". The HTPS itself does not have any controls/indicators that a student could observe or interact with. Is the requirement to provide the functionality of this piece of equipment and provide a space claim with the "look" and "position" of the tactical equipment within the Commander's Station? | Concur, user has no interaction with Hull/Turret Position Sensor (HTPS), but calculations and turret position are displayed in the GCDP. | |
| 7 | N/A | N/A | Will the existing COFT-M-SA IUH and any other documents be supplied as GFE? | Yes, the IUH will be provided as GFE via AMRDEC. | |
| 8 | Attm J1: PWS Page #15 | PWS 5.8.1 | GAP procedures are required 15 days after contract award. This time frame does not provide sufficient time to develop comprehensive acceptance tests for the new configuration. Recommend changing this to 30 days prior to government acceptance testing. | Concur. GAP procedures shall be required 30 days prior to government acceptance testing, instead of 15 days after contract award. This revision has been incorporated via RFP Amendment 01. | |
| 9 | Attm J1: PWS Page #17 | PWS 5.12.1 | Requires delivery of IA passwords 30-days after contract award. IA requirements will not be finalized for at least 8-10 months ACA. Recommend changing this requirement to delivery prior to government acceptance testing. | Concur. IA passwords shall be delivered to the government prior to acceptance testing. This revision has been incorporated via RFP Amendment 01. | |
| 10 | Attm J1: PWS Page #16 | PWS 5.10 | Can we assume that all trainers will be fully operational at time of turnover? If not, how will the government ensure that all potentially reusable components are fully functional on trainers that are not operational? | Systems will be covered by a maintenance contract until August 28, 2018. There will be a lapse in maintenance coverage so there is a possibility something might be broke. | |
| 11 | N/A | N/A | Are the COFT-M-SA systems now under warranty or a maintenance contract? If so, what is the expiration date? | Yes, the systems are under an existing maintenance contract which expires on August 28, 2018. | |
| 12 | RFP Page # 51 | L.4.g | Currently only the Table of Contents and Cover/Title pages are not included in the page count. Can we also include an acronym list, list of figures, and list of tables without counting against the page count? | Concur. An acronym list, list of figures, and list of tables will not be included in the page count. This revision has been incorporated via RFP Amendment 01. | |
| 13 | RFP Page # 51 | L.4.g | Can we include an Executive Summary as a separate file with our proposal submission without counting against the page count for Volume 1? | No, any Executive Summary should be submitted as part of the vendor's proposal and it will be counted towards the page count. | |
| 14 | Attm J1: PWS Page #1 | PWS 1.1 | For the M1A1 SA and M1A2 SEP v2 platforms, which specific vehicle software versions are required to be represented on trainers? | 23 systems need to be on the M1A1 software and 13 systems need to be on the M1A2 ACSL software | |
| 15 | PWS Pg 2, 16, 17 | (1.3) (5.10.1) (5.10.2) (5.11.3) | The overall Period of Performance for this contract is listed at 24 months. However, this conflicts with the terms of the warranty and Cybersecurity support. Does the Government anticipate the 24-month Cybersecurity sustainment portion of this contract to end at the same time as the 24-month warranty? Or is it expected that the 24-month sustainment period begins once the ATO is granted (in which case the Cybersecurity sustainment will stretch beyond the 24-month PoP of the contract)? Similarly, Section 5.10.2 states, "The Contractor shall provide 24 months for the repair and replacement of all hardware and software components to ensure all 36 systems remain fully mission capable." Does this warranty period violate the overall Period of Performance for this contract (currently established at 24 months)? Or does the Government expect to provide the required repair/replace services from the date of delivery until the 24-month PoP expires? | The 24-month warranty shall cover the system starting after on site acceptance. The cybersecurity support is part of the warranty which is not included as part of the 24-month PoP of the contract. | |
| 16 | 13 | 5.2.6 | "Combat Override Section: The Contractor shall ensure that the ON pushbutton and lamp replicates the look and function of what is currently in the M1A1 SA Abrams." Does the "look and function" requirement pertain only to the physical button and lamp, or to the actual objective of the Combat Override button? (i.e., the button is meant to allow the turret to traverse over the loader's hatch, even if the hatch is open). | Combat Override for SCWS shall look and function as it does on platform. Commander's must be aware and proficient at its function during engagements with SCWS. | |
| 17 | 16 | 5.9.2 | "The COR will provide locations for delivery within 60 days prior to all deliveries to each required location." We believe this to be a typo, as <60 days might be inadequate time for coordination of a delivery/upgrade. Can this clause be reviewed to confirm it was intended to read, "The COR will provide locations for delivery at least 60 days prior to all deliveries to each required location?" | Concur. The language is revised to "The COR will provide locations for delivery at least 60 days prior to all deliveries to each required location." This revision has been incorporated via RFP Amendment 01. | |
| 18 | 17 | 5.12 | "The Contractor shall provide the adjudication of all controls within the eMASS tool and all required documents through the duration of the ATO…" Historically, ATOs have a three-year Period of Performance. This conflicts with the 24-month Cybersecurity requirements outlined throughout this RFP. Please validate this clause against the rest of the contract (24-month PoP, 24 months of Cybersecurity sustainment, etc.) | Systems will be picked up by ATMP after the-24 month warranty period. Also, see Answer to Question # 15. | |
| 19 | 17 | 5.12 | Based on the NETCOM SIS-CRN TTP, what type of Closed Restricted Network (CRN) will the COFT-M-SA be designated as? I, II, III, or IV? | Type 1 CRN | |
| 20 | 17 | 5.12 | For similar NGB contracts in the past, DIAP documentation was not based on system cold-start procedures. Can you confirm this will also be true for the COFT M SA upgrade contract? | It's unclear what is meant by "cold-start." If the term refers to a base line at the vendor's facility then the government will not require this since it will conduct a GAP initially and then accept the systems at each location. | |
| 21 | RFP Pg 51 | L.4 (f) | "Pricing information shall not be included in any volume other than Volume 2." Volume 2 is designated as the Past Performance Volume. We recommend revising this clause to reference "Volume 3: Price." | See Answer to Question # 5. | |
| 22 | 51 | L.4.1 | When evaluating the technical approach for each responder, how much significance does the Government place on the age and future capabilities of the software baseline? For example, will gaining ownership of a new software baseline, content and curriculum rank a higher technical score than re-purposing a 20+ year old software baseline that is already owned by the Government? | Please refer to the "Basis for Contract Award" in Section M of the RFP. | |
| 23 | 51 | L.4.1 (3) | If a proposed technical solution offers a more aggressive delivery schedule (allowing end users to receive their upgraded systems closer to Contract Award), will that be factored into the technical evaluation? | Please refer to the "Basis for Contract Award" in Section M of the RFP. |
&"Arial,Bold"&11RFP Questions and Answers - ID08180015&"Arial,Regular"
&"Segoe UI,Regular"&11Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it.