Vendor_Questions_20121101.pdf

P-19R Vendor Questions_20121101

Solicitation

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

# Document/Section Paragraph Vendor Question/Issue /Concern Government Response

1 Solicitation L.3; L.3.1

L.3 states "Foldouts are allowed on 11 x 17 inch paper for the submittal of integrated schedules/program master plans only".

Do the 11x17 inch restrictions apply to areas with no page limit? If so, is it expected that the printed copies of the Volume III pricing workbooks fit 8x11 inch paper only, or can 11x17 be used as well?

The 11 x 17 inch paper is only applicable for the integrated schedules/program master plans.

2 Solicitation

CDRL P006 CLINs 0017, 1017, 2017, 3017, 4017;

CDRL P007 CLINs 0018, 1018, 2018, 3018, 4018

Section B CLINs define CDRL Item P006 as the Cost Data Summary Report and CDRL Item P007 as the Functional Cost Hour Report; is this correct? As noted P007 should reference the Functional Cost Hour Report which will be provided

3 Solicitation Sec B - CLIN series x038

CLINs 0038, 1038, 2038, 3038 and 4038 for Training IPT Meeting reference SOW 3.1.16.1.3 and SOW

3.1.16.6.7. SOW 3.1.16.1.3 is titled Instructors/Trainers, however SOW 3.1.16.6.7 is not within the SOW.

The paragraph following SOW 3.1.16.6.4 is SOW 3.1.16.7. The SOW paragraph 3.1.16.1.6 is titled Integrated Product Team Meetings.

What SOW paragraphs are the requirements for CLINs 0038, 1038, 2038, 3038 and 4038 for Training IPT Meeting?

Changed CLIN to refer to Paragraph 3.1.16.1.6

4 Solicitation CLINs Series x082-x085 Operator and Maintainer Training have separate CLINs identified for CONUS and OCONUS locations.

Will the Government please provide the specific locations in which the training will be held?

Training shall be held at, but not limited to:

Camp Lejeuen, NC Camp Pendleton, CA Kaneohe Bay, HI Okinawa, Japan Iwakuni, Japan

5 Solicitation CLINs 1022, 2022, 3022 and 4022 These Post Award Conference CLINs are skipped in Section B.

Will they be marked RESERVED or excluded from award?

There is only ONE post award conference: CLIN 0022.

6 Solicitation CLINs Series x023

The In-Process Review CLINs are tied to SOW 3.1.1.10 for Program Management, as well as 3.1.16.3.6 for Training IPRs.

The required support for Program Management IPRs will be different than Training IPRs.

Should there be two separate CLINs for these efforts?

If not, are the Training IPRs within scope 3.1.16.3.6 to be combined with the Program Management IPRs within scope 3.1.1.10 and included within the x023 Series CLINs?

It is the Government's intent to combine IPRs to the maximum extent possible. There may be instances when a stand alone Program Management IPR or stand alone Training IPR may be required. Both Program Management and Training IPRs will remain the same CLIN and shall be priced as a singe event;

either one combined IPR or individual IPRs if required.

7 Solicitation CLINs Series x039

The total max quantity for QAMM CLINs X039 is 6. Per SOW 3.1.1.11, "The meetings shall include representatives from Quality, Production, and Engineering at a minimum, and shall be held in conjunction with the IPR or on an as needed basis."

The total max quantity for IPR CLINs Series x023 is 20.

The max quantities between the QAMM CLINs and the IPR CLINs conflict if the QAMMs are to be held in conjunction with the IPRs.

Please clarify.

It is the Government's intent to conduct IPRs and QAMMs in conjunction with each other to the maximum extent possible. However these are separate meetings. There may be instances when a stand alone IPR or stand alone QAMM may be required. Both CLINs shall be priced individually.

Solicitation

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

8 Solicitation Sec B - CLIN Series x009

This CLIN implies that there is a corrosion test at ATC, but the SOW does not appear to include any work that would be charged to this CLIN.

Is the CLIN intended to capture the costs of a contractor-performed corrosion test at ATC, a contractor-supported corrosion test at ATC or only the costs of test coupons that are delivered to ATC?

The intent of this CLIN is to fund the cost of the test coupons that are delivered to ATC. The cost of the contractor-supported corrosion test at ATC are captured under CLIN X009 series Test Support)

9 Solicitation Sec B - CLIN series x008 The stated work for CLINs x008 include SOW 3.7.1.13, which does not exist.

Is this meant to be SOW 3.1.7.13?

Corrected.

10 Solicitation Sec B - CLIN series x038

CLINs Series x038 for Integrated Product Team (IPT) Meetings reference SOW 3.1.16.1.3 and 3.1.16.6.7.

The SOW does not contain 3.1.16.6.7. The SOW references IPT meetings under 3.1.16.1.6.

Should the SOW reference for the IPT CLINs be 3.1.16.1.6 vs 3.1.16.6.7?

Changed CLIN to refer to Paragraph 3.1.16.1.6

11 Solicitation CLINs Series x001, x002 and x003

By inserting FAR 52.247-50 - No Evaluations of Transportation Costs, the Government is indicating that exact destinations are not known and it is impractical to establish tentative or general delivery places. For FRET calculation purposes, is the contractor to assume that all destinations and first use of the deliverable(s) are CONUS therefore including applicable FRET costs within the overall CLIN price? Or will the Government be adding CLINs to segregate FRET?

FRET is not included in the overall CLIN price. According to Title 26 Internal Revenues Code, section 4051.a(2) Exclusion for trucks weighing 33,000 pounds or less FRET is not required. In accordance with paragraph 3.3.1.1 of the P-Spec the objective weight of the vehicle is 26,000 pounds. Should the vehicle exceed this weight CLINS will be established and the FRET costs funded.

12 Solicitation Section M

The majority of CLINs are FOB Destination which would cause shipping of the deliverable to be a contract cost, however, the FAR Clause 52.247-50 - No Evaluations of Transportation Costs is included within Section M and the clause states that transportation costs will not be evaluated. Are transportation costs to be included in the price proposal for CLINs with FOB Destination? If so, will there be additional CLINs added specific to FOB Destination costs?

Transportation costs are to be included in the price proposal for all CLINs with FOB Destination. No additional CLINs will be added for transportation costs associated with CLINs identified as FOB Destination. CLINs X001-X007 have been updated to reflect FOB Origin.

13 Solicitation Sec B - CLINs 1024, 2024, 3024, The total max quantity for Production Readiness Review (PRR) is 1. Per SOW 3.1.2.4, PRRs may be held quarterly following the initial PRR.

Will the max quantity for QAMMs increase to allow for quarterly PRRs?

SOW Para 3.1.2.4 identifies only 1 PRR. It is at the Government’s discretion to hold follow-on production program reviews quarterly based on the production quality provided.

SOW paragraph 3.1.2.4 has been updated.

14 Solicitation CLINs Series x111 and x112

The 13 Month CONUS Warranty and 18 Month OCONUS Warranty references SOW 3.1.7.10. which speaks on Refurbishment of Vehicles.

Should these CLINs reference SOW 3.1.9 for Standard Warranty?

The CLINs for the 13 Month CONUS Warranty and 18 Month OCONUS Warranty are in reference to

SOW 3.1.10.

CLIN has been updated to references SOW 3.1.10

15 Solicitation Section E

CLINs 0004, 0005 and 0006 are Inspection and Acceptance at Destination.

The subsequent CLINs for x004, x005 and x006 are all Inspection and Acceptance at Origin.

Should Inspection and Acceptance for CLINs 0004, 0005 and 0006 be Origin?

Yes; Corrected.

Solicitation

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

16 Solicitation Sec B - CLINs Series x075

CLINs Series x075 for Job Aids references SOW 3.1.16.3.5 that includes the development of the job aids, as well as delivery of the job aid in both hard copy and electronic format.

The CLINs UOM is Hours.

Will there be a CLIN added to account for the cost not associated with labor?

No additional CLINS shall be added.

SOW

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

# Document/Section Paragraph Vendor Question/Issue /Concern Government Response

17 SOW 3.1.1.10 and 3.1.16.3.6

SOW 3.1.1.10 states, "IPRs shall be held on a quarterly or as needed basis, at a date and location mutually agreed upon." and

SOW 3.1.16.6 states, "The Contractor shall incorporate corrections into the programmed prototype and provide each Government reviewer with a corrected prototype at a time to be agreed upon by the Contractor and the Government, and prior to the prototype IPR. The Government reserves the right to conduct target audience assessment of the prototype and provide this feedback during the on-site prototype IPR, in which case the Contractor shall provide the programmed prototype per the approved project schedule."

Are the possible locations known for where the IPRs will be held?

IPR's will be generally be held at the contractors location / selected facility or Quantico, VA.

18 SOW 3.1.6.2

Reference the last sentence: “TDP will be provided to the Government 30 days prior to the audit.”

Is this requirement related to CDRL L023 Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists?

If so, the language in CDRL L023 indicates that a complete drawing package is due 75 days prior to PCA.

Yes, this sentence refers to CDRL L023. The CDRL will be updated to read 30 days prior.

Update CDRL and SOW, Delete TDP sentence in the SOW.

19 SOW 3.1.1.8

3.1.1.8. states, "Meetings, Formal Reviews, Conferences, and Audits. The Contractor shall plan, host, attend, coordinate, support and conduct the meetings, formal reviews, conferences, and audits (hereinafter called "reviews"). Formal and technical reviews will include but are not limited to Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), Production Readiness Review (PRR), Test Readiness Review (TRR), In Process Reviews (IPR) and other technical data reviews. The reviews shall be conducted at Government and Contractor facilities. Reviews requiring demonstration and/or examination of equipment shall be conducted at the Contractor's facility. All such reviews shall be included in the program schedule and may be held concurrently with the Government’s approval."

SOW 3.1.1.8 references at least one Test Readiness Review (TRR), but it is not specified how many TRRs will be scheduled or the specific timing for each.

Will the Government please provide a TRR meeting schedule or provide the planned quantity?

Updated CLIN X033 series to state a maximum quantity of 3 TRRs per year. See SOW Para 3.1.7.15 for additional information. TRRs will be held prior to each test event.

20 SOW 3.1.2.1

SOW 3.1.2.1 states, "The Government shall conduct a System Functional Review (SFR) at the Contractor's facility 30 days after contract award."

It does not identify that additional meetings will be necessary.

Are CLINs 1034, 2034, 3034, and 4034 required?

The SFR is similar in scope to the PAC, and the subsequent years CLINs for the PAC were removed.

CLINs 1024, 2024, 3034, 4034 deleted and marked reserved. Added text stating At the Governments discretion and at no additional cost the Government may require additional meetings to address specific issues with the vehicle. to SOW 3.1.2.1

SOW

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

21 SOW 3.1.6.3.1

SOW Paragraph 3.1.6.3.1. states, "Changes Prior to First Production Vehicle Inspection. Prior to FPVI, the Contractor shall not make any Class I changes prior to Government approval."

Prior to the FPVI it is stated the contractor shall submit Class I ECPs and VECPs for changes affecting PM-M&HTV-P-19R-01 or contract price. Also it states the contractor shall not make any Class I changes prior to Government approval. It is expected there will be Class I changes to the interim product baseline that do not affect PM-M&HTV-P-19R-01 or contract price and as such no ECP or VECP will be submitted.

How will Government grant approval for these Class I changes?

The Vendor and the government will use the US Army's, Multi-User ECP Automated Review System (MEARS) located at mears.army.mil to manage all ECPs and all configuration related documentation.

22 SOW 3.1.3.1

SOW 3.1.3.1 reads "3.1.3.1. Contractor M&S Analyses. If the CLIN is exercised, the Contractor M&S analyses shall be provided in accordance with PM-M&HTV-P-19R-01 of this solicitation, and shall reflect vehicle configuration."

The SOW paragraph states that M&S analyses shall be provided IAW the P-Spec, however, the P-Spec only identifies tests, inspections and certifications to be performed.

Is it the Government's intent there will be no M&S analyses performed through this SOW 3.1.3.1 paragraph or CLIN x060?

The M&S Analyses CLIN may be exercised at the Governments discretion to help assess and develop solutions to issues or problems affecting the P-19R. The Government may exercise this option in support of Government directed changes IAW Section 3.1.3 of the SOW.

23 SOW 3.1.7.8

SOW 3.1.7.8 for Follow-On Production Testing (FPT) states, "The FPT shall be conducted in accordance with PM-M&HTV-P-19R-01 and shall be priced as individual CLINs for supporting one test per year."

Please identify the CLINs that relate to SOW 3.1.7.8.

Support for these test events have been included in the CLIN X008 Series.

24 SOW 3.1.7.13

SOW 3.1.7.13 states, "The Contractor shall assemble, furnish, and ship (to include packing, packaging and transportation) the SSPs to each designated test site(s) to arrive concurrently with the test vehicles."

Please identify the test site locations.

SSPs will be shipped via Government Bill of Lading (GBL)

Added CLINs 0120, 1120, 2120, 3120, 4120

P-Spec

Last Update: 11/2/2012 10:46

# Document/Section Paragraph Vendor Question/Issue /Concern Government Response

25 P-Spec 3.1.7

Section 3.1.7 of the Performance Specification states that.." the structure panel shall be equipped with the following components..." c) Instrumentation - item 8 Intercom communications jack.

Section 3.4.17.2 Intercom of the Performance Specification states that ..."the P-19R shall provide the capability to integrate government furnished intercom systems, tactical communications equipment, and commercial communications equipment as agreed to by the Government..."

What type of intercom communications jack is required and how should this interface the GFE system?

Or, is the requirement intended to identify space claim for the GFE system?

It is the governments intent to allow the vendor to propose an internal vehicle intercom system in order to allow communication between the structural panel and the cab. In addition, the intercom shall have the capability to accept a GFE and commercial communication radio interfaces. Section 3.4.17.2 and subsequent sections of the P-Spec have been updated to reflect this change.

26 P-Spec 3.3.4.2.4 If a supplier's CPCP satisfies the 22 year corrosion requirement, will the Government accept MIL-DTL- 53022 Type II primer in place of the Type IV primer?

The government does not concur with the proposed primer. Vendors shall use the primer specified in the P-Spec.

27 P-Spec 3.2.17.4

P-Spec section 3.2.17.4 states, "The P-19R at CW, shall not exceed a deck load of 500 pounds per square foot (PSF) (Threshold) or 200 PSF (Objective).

Is this measured using the tire contact patch area or is it the shadow of the vehicle? If it is the shadow of the vehicle, how is the shadow defined? Does the shadow include the overall length and width of the vehicle or is it the wheelbase and track width? If something different, how will it be measured.

The deck load of 500 pounds per square foot (PSF) is measured by dividing the weight of the vehicle by its shadow area. The shadow area of a vehicle is calculated by multiplying its overall length by its overall width in transportation configuration. This deck load is defined as Uniform Distributed Load (UDL).

28 P-Spec 3.3.4.2.3

According to P-Spec paragraph 3.3.4.2.3, "Cleaning and pre-treating shall be performed in accordance with MIL-DTL-53072."

Pretreatments such as Alodine 5200/5700 have received approval on prior USMC and Army ground vehicles.

Will the Government allow pretreatments other than those listed in MIL-DTL-53072?

The government does not concur with the proposed deviation. Vendors shall use the pretreatments specified in the P-Spec.

29 P-Spec 3.3.4.2.3

According to P-Spec paragraph 3.3.4.2.3, "Cleaning and pre-treating shall be performed in accordance with MIL-DTL-53072."

Will the Government allow inorganic nanoceramic pretreatments per TT-C-490F Type IV (pending)?

Pretreatments such as these are free of chrome and offer improved performance over wash primer.

The government does not concur with the proposed deviation. Vendors shall use the pretreatments specified in the P-Spec.

30 P-Spec 3.4.14.2

P-Spec para 3.4.14.2 states, "Two remote-mounted Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) brackets placed within proximity of the driver and turret operator shall be placed inside the cab. Two SCBA seats shall be provided for the remaining crew members."

Can the Government please provide the SCBA bottle size and brand to allow proper sizing of brackets that will properly retain the standard issue SCBA?

Generally the ARFF units use Scott (primary) and MSA (secondary) bottles. They are both 4500 psi and 60 minute bottles.

31 P-Spec 3.3.3.1

Section 3.3.3.1 Automatic Fire Extinguishing System, states: “The performance of this system shall be comparable to the currently fielded USMC AFES (specifications available upon request).”

Please provide the specifications that the crew AFES and exterior tire fire systems will be required to meet.

See Reference #45. Subsystem Performance Specification for the P-19R Crew Compartment/Cab AFES Rev 1 dtd. 18 Oct 2012 is attached. Extinguishing the exterior tire fires were removed from the sections of the P-19R P-Spec. This does not negate the requirement set fourth in Section 3.3.3.1 Undertruck Nozzles.

P-Spec

Last Update: 11/2/2012 10:46

32 P-Spec 3.3.6.1

P-Spec para 3.3.6.1 states, "The P-19R’s design shall incorporate features to protect exposed and non-exposed metal surfaces from corrosion due to exposure to salt water and salt fog tests for periods of up to 96 hours. (Exceptions to the Salt water salt and fog tests) there shall be no corrosion for normal function requirements include:

Exhaust system (7 years) Engine and transmission cooling systems and lines (15 years) Radiators (11 years)"

Past Marine Corp performance specifications have required no corrosion beyond stage 2 on sheet metal components for a period of 22 years.

Is this statement missing in this requirement?

Without the 22 year requirement, the exceptions of the exhaust system (7 years), engine (15 years), and radiator (11 years) does not make sense.

In the P-Spec, Section 3.3.6.1 after the statement "The P-19R's design shall incorporate features to protect exposed and non-exposed metal surfaces from corrosion due to exposure to salt water and salt fog tests for periods of up to 96 hours." the following was placed:

"The production vehicles shall be protected from rust and corrosion such that stage two corrosion on each major sheet metal subassembly (e.g., cab shell, hood, door(s), steps, windshield frame, front bulkhead, fuel tank(s), fender(s), air tank(s), battery box(es), storage box(es), engine and transmission cooling systems and line, radiators, splash shields, etc.) shall be limited to 5% or less of the surface area, stage 1 corrosion shall be limited to 20% or less of the surface area of each major sheet metal subassembly, and there shall not be any corrosion beyond stage two, for a period of 11 years. Corrosion stages shall be as defined by TM 4795-OR. Sheet metals used in the manufacture of the vehicles that are 0.14 inches (0.36 cm) or less in thickness shall, as a minimum, have an inherent corrosion resistance equivalent to that provided by ASTM A653 G90 double-sided galvanized sheet metal. In addition, no component or part replacement due to corrosion shall be necessary in order to maintain normal function for a period of 11 years.

Exceptions to the 11-year length of time for which there will be no corrosion beyond stage 2 and the 11-year length of time for normal function requirements include the P-19R Exhaust system (7 years).

33 P-Spec 3.4.18

P-Spec 3.4.18 States a list of BII items in Appendix A. In Appendix A the ARFF Rescue Kit is asking for item "ALTI-HOUOLY TOOL".

Cannot locate any information about an ALTI-HOUOLY TOOL, is this a possible spelling error?

If so, can the Government please identify what tool is actually needed?

This is a spelling error and has been updated in the revised P-Spec. Correct spelling is Alti-Houly. An example can be found at the following website: http://www.cuttingedgetactical.com/altihouly.aspx (B) The P-Spec has been updated to incorporate this change.

P-Spec

Last Update: 11/2/2012 10:46

34 P-Spec 3.1.6.1 Reeled

P-Spec 3.1.6.1 states: "The primary agent shall have one reeled, pre-connected handline consisting of 1 inch inside diameter, 150 foot length rubber hose equipped with a variable stream, pistol grip nozzle designed to discharge the primary agent..."

The NFPA Fire Protection Handbook Table 13.3.8 states that the friction loss coefficient (C) for a 1" booster hose is 150. Using the equation for friction loss [FL = CQ2L] as stated in the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook in Section 13, Chapter 3, pages 13-29 through 13-30, the calculated loss through a 1" ID x 150 ft. hose at 95 gpm is approx. 200 psi.

NFPA-414 Table 4.1.1(d) states: "Nozzle flow rate (gpm) for Vehicle Water Tank Capacity >528 to <1585 gal equals 95 gpm.

Nozzle manufacturers typically require an inlet pressure to the nozzle of approximately 75 to 100 psi.

To achieve rated flow at the nozzle, taking into account hose pumping losses and no other system losses, the minimum required pump output pressure would be in excess of 275 psi. Standard ARFF Pumps operate at or below 250 psi.

Will the Government approve a larger hose size to allow the system to provide 75-100 psi system pressure at the nozzle of a 150 ft. handline? A larger ID handline hose would reduce the pressure losses and would allow a lower pump outlet condition which would be within typical pump maximum pressures.

The 1-inch inside diameter reflects the 100-foot hose length on our current vehicle, and did not take into account the additional friction loss created by increasing the hose length to 150-foot. Increasing the diameter of the 150-foot hose is acceptable, provided the hose remains non-collapsible rubber, and system performance remains in accordance with the P-Spec. The P-Spec has been updated to reflect this change.

35 P-Spec 3.1.6.1

P-Spec 3.1.6.1 states, "...shall be equipped with electric rewind as primary and manual rewind as backup."

The Performance Specifications requires the two reeled handlines to have electric rewind as primary rewind with manual rewind as back-up.

Will the Government allow the requirement listed in P-spec paragraph 3.1.6.1 to be changed to 'automatic rewind' as primary with manual rewind as backup?

This will allow for other, potentially, more cost effective solutions.

As long as the ARFF Marine has positive control of the rewind process, we are not concerned with the source of mechanical power and as long as it is consistent with NFPA 414 4.20.4.3. The P-Spec has been updated to allow 'automatic rewind' as primary with manual rewind as backup.

P-Spec

Last Update: 11/2/2012 10:46

36 P-Spec 3.4.14.2 and 3.4.14.2.1 & NFPA 4.12.1.5

P-Spec 3.4.14.2 states, "Two remote-mounted Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) brackets placed within proximity of the driver and turret operator shall be placed inside the cab. Two SCBA seats shall be provided for the remaining crew members."

P-Spec 3.4.14.2.1 states, "An integral five-point seatbelt system, designed to allow a single step quick release, shall be provided for each seat position in the vehicle. A seatbelt system with no more than two connection points into the quick release buckle is the Objective requirement. A five attachment point quick release buckle and five separate belts: one for each shoulder, one for each side of the lap, and one for the crotch is the Threshold requirement. "Y" configurations for the shoulder belts shall not be used.

Seatbelts shall conform to FMCSR 393.93. Seat belts shall be provided for each seating position in the vehicle cab and be accessible to the operator and passengers at all times while seated. Seat belts shall allow 5th percentile female through 95th percentile male operators while wearing Kevlar upper body armor and Kevlar helmet, full protective or firefighting gear unencumbered access to cab controls and displays."

NFPA 414 4.12.1.5 states, "Three-point seat belts equipped with a single hand hookup shall be provided for each of the designated seating positions."

Would the Government consider changing the 5-point seat belt requirement listed in P-Spec paragraph

3.4.14.2.1 to an Objective requirement and the 3-point seat belt requirement listed NFPA 414 paragraph

4.12.1.5 to a Threshold requirement, on the required SCBA seats?

There is a concern the shoulder belts may slip off of the occupants in the SCBA seats that are equipped with 5-point seat belts as the shoulder belt spacing necessary to allow the SCBA tank to be removed from the seat can place the shoulder seat belts too far apart and slip off the occupants in a frontal impact.

Current COTS SCBA seats have a 3-point seat belt that eliminate this concern.

This is a military survivability requirement which exceeds NFPA 414. No, the government will not consider modifying the P-Spec at this time.

37 P-Spec 3.4.8.5 Auxiliary Power Unit

P-Spec 3.4.8.5 states: "...the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) capable of providing sufficient 120/240-volt AC 60 Hz and supply 12/24-volt DC power to operate all auxiliary systems."

P-Spec 3.4.8.5 also states: "The following components are examples of auxiliary systems: HVAC, winterization kit, communications, back-up power, and auxiliary lighting. The APU shall incorporate a minimum of two 120-volt outlets."

Question: What is the continuous and maximum sustained power requirement for the APU in KW?

The vendor shall determine the power draw with all required systems operational, including arctic kits plus an additional 2-4 KW's. The P-Spec has been updated to reflect this change.

38 P-Spec

3.1.3.3 Surrogate Foam Test

System

The specification requires both visual and metered indicators of surrogate fluid flow. Can we receive a clarification of the acceptable methods the Marines require to meet the requirement.

Acceptable means of detection are stated in the P-Spec paragraph 3.1.3.3.

39 P-Spec 3.1.4.1 Bumper Turret The specification notes manual overrides, controlled in the cab. Can the Marines clarify what turret functions require the override controls? Turret movement only or other functions?

All turret functions (flow, direction, lateral and longitudinal) shall be capable of manual override. P-Spec has been updated to include both movement and flow.

40 P-Spec 3.1.4.2 Roof Turret The specifications note 500 GPM performance in accordance with NFPA 414. A typical roof turret performance per NFPA 414 based on this vehicle class would be 750/375 GPM, Please clarify requirement.

IAW the NFPA 414 table 4.1.1 (d) Section 2a. Roof Turret, for a vehicle of this class is greater than or equal to 750 gpm for the total minimum flow rate. When used in conjunction with the bumper turret shall be greater than or equal to (250 gpm) the roof turret shall be greater than or equal to (500 gpm). The P- Spec has been updated to reflect this clarification.

P-Spec

Last Update: 11/2/2012 10:46

41 P-Spec

3.1.5.2 Auxiliary Agent test

system

This is an unusual requirement for a Halotron system. In reviewing with our system suppliers they have indicated that there is not a suitable substitute test substance. Please clarify the requirement.

This is an optional capability that will be primarily used for training. The goal is to provide our Marines with the ability to train with the auxiliary agent system without expending any of the auxiliary agent. This system shall not discharge a environmentally harmful chemicals but it should allow the operator to experience the operation and discharging of the auxiliary agent system. Use of an environmentally safe non-flammable material is desired. This material should closely mimic the operational characteristics of the chosen secondary agent in discharge strength and duration. The chemical shall not be reactive to flame or heat if the compound is used in a simulated firefighting situation. Intent of this system is similar to the surrogate foam test system identified in paragraph 4.4.3.3 of the P-Spec.

42 P-Spec 3.1.10 External Water Sources The specification notes drafting capabilities in accordance with NFPA 1901, however referenced pump performance in other sections of the specifications are not consistent with this requirement.

Please clarify.

The requirement has been updated in the P-Spec to reflect the following. The P-19R shall maintain the pump's rated capacity (e.g.. 750 gpm) during a drafting event for the tank to be filled from a 2.5 ft. deep standing water source using 3 sections of rigid hose, and at a minimum of a 10 ft. lift. NFPA 1901 Table 16.2.4.1(b) shall be used as a guide for determining hose diameter.

43 P-Spec 3.2.5 Breakover Angle The interaxle clearance angle is defined as 15 degrees, typical is 13 degrees. The objective of C- 130 transportability requires a vehicle with reduced clearances that can effect this requirement.

Please clarify which objective is most important.

The interaxle clearance angle is a military necessity and a threshold requirement. The C-130 transportability requirement is an objective.

44 P-Spec

3.2.15.1 Operating/Starting

Temperatures

Exposure to operational temperatures of -26 degrees will require some degree of winterization, while the requirement of arctic kits is defined as -50 degrees. Please clarify these two separate requirements.

The vehicle shall operate without arctic kits down to -26 degrees. The vehicle shall operate with arctic kits down to -50 degrees (if utilized). No P-Spec clarification is necessary.

45 P-Spec 3.3.3.1 Automatic Fire Extinguishing system

The specification notes an AFES system that is currently in field use. Please provide specifications and requirements of the current system

See Reference #31. Subsystem Performance Specification for the P-19R Crew Compartment/Cab AFES Rev 1 dtd. 18 Oct 2012. Attached.

46 P-Spec 3.3.3.8 Rollover Protection An objective of a rollover prevention system is noted. Numerous methods can be used to prevent rollover. Please clarify the specific requirements.

The vendor shall evaluate the trade space of their vehicle and make the best recommendation based on the proposed vehicle.

47 P-Spec 3.4.1 Engine The reference to EPA regulations versus JP-8 requirements is in conflict. Please clarify.

The vendor shall consult the EPA for the process and procedures in order to obtain a waiver. See 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Ch. I (7–1–10 Edition) § 89.908 National Security Exemption. (2) for details.

48 P-Spec

3.4.8.3.2 Floodlights and

Spotlights

The specification notes hand adjustable spotlights on each side of the cab. These type of spotlights are difficult to mount and can be problematic. We would suggest revising specification for joystick controlled spot lights.

Joystick controlled spotlights are an acceptable alternative and the P-Spec has been updated to reflect this change. In addition, the following sentence has been added to the P-Spec: The vendor shall locate the controls within the cab in a manner consistent with commercial practices.

TMCR

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

# Document/Section Paragraph Vendor Question/Issue /Concern Government Response

49 TMCR 2.7.17.c

Paragraph 2.7.17.c states, "Parts information shall be accessible from the reference designator. The illustrated parts breakdown (IPB) typically contained in IETMs shall be replaced by drawings and graphics to specific part(s) contained in the parts list. Component views or illustrations shall be linked to the parts list."

Is this requirement referring to “hotspots” where the illustration callouts would be linked to the accompanying parts information in the RPSTL/IPB?

Yes, this requirement is referring to "hotspots" contained in the illustrations that shall be linked to the accompanying parts information contained in the RPSTL/IPB.

50 TMCR 2.7.17.c

Paragraph 2.7.17.c states, "Parts information shall be accessible from the reference designator. The illustrated parts breakdown (IPB) typically contained in IETMs shall be replaced by drawings and graphics to specific part(s) contained in the parts list. Component views or illustrations shall be linked to the parts list."

Would this be required only for the maintenance procedures?

No, this requirement also pertains to Operator maintenance tasks requiring parts contained in the RPSTL/IPB and the items contained in the Basic Issue Items (BII) and Components of the End Item (COEI) Lists.

51 TMCR 2.7.17.c

Paragraph 2.7.17.c states, "Parts information shall be accessible from the reference designator. The illustrated parts breakdown (IPB) typically contained in IETMs shall be replaced by drawings and graphics to specific part(s) contained in the parts list. Component views or illustrations shall be linked to the parts list."

Would each callout require a hotspot or only the mandatory replacement parts?

Each specific part illustrated in the IPB shall be required to be linked to the accompanying parts information contained in the parts list, as stated in paragraph 2.7.17.c.

52 TMCR 2.7.17.4.i

Paragraph 2.7.17.4.i states, "The ECO column/field indicates items that are more economical to replace during rebuild than to expend the man-hours necessary to fully inspect those items. The MAN column/field indicates items that must be replaced any time they are loosened or removed. No "X" in either column/field indicates the item has special inspection procedures or that the item is further dissembled and components will be covered by a subsequent IPB frame."

MIL-STD-40051-1 does not support this column in the IETM RPSTL.

Would it be acceptable to identify these items using another method such as documenting ECO/ MAN in the LSAR database?

The requirement for ECO/MAN has been deleted from the TMCR.

53 TMCR 2.7.4

Paragraph 2.7.4 states, "All IETMs prepared under provisions of this TMCR will be composed utilizing EMS-NextGen and in accordance with MIL-STD-40051.2. They will also be reproducible into a printed format to meet MIL-STD 40051-2."

Should this actually be MIL-STD-40051-1 as the “-2” version of the spec is for page based publications?

Yes, the TMCR has been updated to state "in accordance with MIL-STD-40051-1.

54 TMCR 2.7.11.1

Paragraph 2.7.11.1 states, "Illustrations shall follow as close as possible to its first reference in the narrative text. Illustrations and associated text shall be on the same page, or facing pages when printed, whenever possible."

These statements appear to be contradictory. Based on previous programs, customer feedback recommends avoiding the use of manual page breaks when publishing paper manuals from IETM content as changes in the content or publisher may disrupt page breaks during future updates that may lead to extensive manual pagination.

Will the Government accept manuals prepared in accordance with the first sentence in paragraph 2.7.11.1 and consider removing the “same or facing page” requirement? Yes, the TMCRhas been updated appropriatly.

TMCR

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

55 TMCR 2.7.11.1

TMCR para 2.7.11.1 states, "Illustrations shall follow as close as possible to its first reference in the narrative text. Illustrations and associated text shall be on the same page, or facing pages when printed, whenever possible. Callouts on illustrations shall be IAW MIL-SD-40051.2. However, when an illustration is extensive and requires a foldout sheet, such as for a large schematic diagram, it shall be located at the end of the manual when printed. In-text and foldout artwork and graphic depictions shall be an integral part of the manual and shall be included throughout the text. The IETMs shall contain all art necessary to illustrate and/or clarify written explanations. The graphics shall be developed IAW MIL-PRF- 87269. The graphics for the IETMs shall be derived from the engineer drawing data base."

Schematics are only mentioned in this paragraph and are only described as being foldout size that can be printed with the paper manuals.

Is there any requirement in this contract for Flash Point to Point or any other type of “enhanced” schematics?

Yes, there is a requirement for Flash Point to Point for enhanced schematics in the IETM. The TMCR has been updated throughout to reflect this requirement. All required schematics shall be capable of being printed for use in the paper manual.

56 TMCR 2.5

Paragraph 2.5 states, "All three IETMs shall be capable of being printed into a paper Technical Manual, formatted IAW MIL-STD 40051-2."

The EMS NG software is used to create the IETM files. The IETM files shown on the GUI (viewer) can appear different than the appearance of the paper manual.

The IETM files are used as the basis for printing the paper manual, however, the publishing activity (Antennae House software) can slightly alter the appearance of the files from the way they are displayed in the IETM viewer.

Will the Government accept paper manuals published via an alternate software that uses the same source content used on the IETM to satisfy the “printing from IETM” requirement?

IETMs are to be printed utilizing MIL-STD 40051-1 vice 40051-2. TMCR has been updated as appropriate. Software used shall be limited to government owned software.

CDRLS

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

# Document/Section Paragraph Vendor Question/Issue /Concern Government Response

57 Solicitation CDRLs P006 and P007 It appears CDRL Item P007 is a duplicate of CDRL Item P006.

Should P007 be the Functional Cost Hour Report (DD 1921-1) referred to in SOW 3.1.19?

P007 CDRL should be the Functional Cost Hour Report (DD 1921-1) CDRL has been updated to reflect this change.

58 CDRLs T003

T003 for Instructional Performance Requirements Documentations references only SOW 3.1.16.2.1, but is also referenced under SOW 3.1.16.2.2.

Should T003 also reference SOW 3.1.16.2.2?

CDRL T003 has been updated to include Para 3.1.16.2.2

59 CDRLs E018

CDRL E018 for Control Test Report states, "Report shall be submitted 10 days after Control Test or correction of deficiencies found during control test."

SOW 3.1.7.11.4 for Control Test Reporting states, "The Contractor shall submit a final test report to the on-site Government QAR within 30 days of acceptance of the control test vehicle by the Government."

Is the deliverable of E018 for the Control Test due within 30 days of acceptance of the control test vehicle?

Changed submissions delay to 60 days.

Other

Last Updated: 11/2/2012 10:46

# Document/Section Paragraph Vendor Question/Issue /Concern Government Response

60 Other Sec B - CLIN Series x118 and CLIN Series x119

Is there a SOW paragraph reference or section of the TMCR that gives additional information to support the level of effort required?

Are these CLINs related to Maintenance of Data of the technical Manuals and provisioning files?

UPDATED CLINS

CLIN Series x118 and x119 will be utilized to capture the costs associated with Logistics efforts initiated by the Government to include but not limited to maintenance of data, sustaining engineering, training, etc.

Specific scope will be defined, and hours required will be negotiated prior to initiation of these CLINs.

61 General Issue Section F - Delivery or Performance and P-Spec 4.2.14 Endurance Test

Section F - Delivery or Performance states that "15 Months from delivery of first test article to completion of testing, reporting and MS C / LRIP approval" and "15 Months from delivery of first LRIP vehicle to completion of testing, reporting and FRP approval".

Additionally, Table 4-3 Endurance Test Mileage within paragraph 4.2.14 Endurance Test in the specification shows a total of 6,000 miles for PPQT and PVT.

In order to properly support the Government with the appropriate personnel during the duration of the actual testing, has the Government determined the actual on site test time needed for support of these two tests?

PPQT is anticipated to be 7 months in duration , LUE is anticipated to be I month, PVT is anticipated to be 4 months in duration , FUE is anticipated to be 2 months.

62 General Issue Statement of Work paragraph 1 Scope

SOW para 1 states, "This Statement of Work (SOW) sets forth the work efforts required to produce and deliver the P-19A Replacement (P-19R) and associated logistics and engineering support.

The scope of work includes support of the Government’s effort during Pre-Production Qualification Test (PPQT), Limited User Evaluation (LUE) and First Article Test (FAT) consisting of a Production Verification Test (PVT) and Field User Evaluation (FUE).

This SOW will be used to procure up to four prototypes for use in PPQT, up to 17 LRIP vehicles and up to 200 Full Rate Production vehicles over the life of the contract."

Does the Government have a target date for award of the P-19R Contract?

Per the Solicitation, the Government anticipates that an award will be made with the 180 calendar days in which the proposal is valid. Reference Section L.1.

63 General Issue SOW 3.1.7.8.2

SOW paragraph 3.1.7.8.2 states "All transportation costs necessary to ship test units to and from the test sites shall be the responsibility of the Government via GBL".

This is in conflict with the designation of "Destination" for the FOB point for the test units under CLINs 0001 and 0002.

Should the FOB point for CLIN 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, CLIN 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002 and CLIN 0003 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003 be FOB: Origin in lieu of FOB: Destination?

Yes; Solicitation CLINs have been updated.