Industry_day_questions_and_answers_egress.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 63 KB Posted Oct 28, 2013

Attached to: USMC Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Cougar Vehicle Egress Upgrades
Solicitation number: M67854-13-R-5501
Issued by: United States Marine Corps

About this file

From the source

Questions and Answers from Industry Day.

View the file

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

Number	RFP Document	Section #	Context/Issue	Question	Answer
1	SOW	1		What are the total quantities are being produced as part of this solicitation, and how are they to be broken out per variant? Or is this solicitation primarily an engineering design and development effort?	It is anticipated that 916 kits will be designed and manufactured as part of this effort.
2	SOW	1.2	‘…shall submit prototype Egress vehicle kits…'	What are the expectations/requirements of this prototype kit? Does it need to meet all requirements? Does it need to be production representative? Can it be a 3-D model or a similar system previously developed?	Prototype kit requirement removed from current version of SOW (latest version 13260901 - Sep2013). The test 'buck' is still required.
3	P-Spec Rear Door	3.2.5	‘…shall not obstruct more than 3% of the projected overall dimensions’	Does the 3% refer to the total hull cutout area or to linear dimensions of width and height?	Pspec verbiage: "When the door(s) is fully open, it shall not obstruct more than 3% of the projected overall dimensions of the hull cutout (O)" - This means obstruction of no more than 3% of the cutout height at any point and no more than 3% of the cutout width at any point.
4	P-Spec Rear Door	3.2.7	“The interior ballistic armor around the perimeter of the system shall be replaced.”	What are the tolerances or define “around the perimeter,” i.e. within 6-8 in. of the system?	The perimeter of the system in this reference is the entire rear wall of the crew compartment.

See also 3.3.10 - "Any attachments shall be integrated in such a manner as to not degrade existing internal or external armor properties ... and maintain (T) or increase (O) current armor coverage.

5 P-Spec Rear Door 3.5.9 What is Table XXX? The title of the table in Mil-STD 1472G is "Table XXX" (using Roman numerals in parallel with other 1472 tables.)

It can be found on page 164-165.

6 P-Spec Rear Door 3.5.10 What is Table XXX? The title of the table in Mil-STD 1472G is "Table XXX" (using Roman numerals in parallel with other 1472 tables.)

It can be found on page 164-165.

7	P-Spec Rear Door	3.6.13		Additional force beyond current door opening force? If so what is current rear door opening force?	The requirement reference is not to the current door opening force. The intent is that if the door assist itself is inoperable; it should not impede or add additional force required to open the door. The test will measure force to open the door with and without the door assist engaged/operable.
8	P-Spec Rear Door	3.7.1	Emergency egress attachment points shall be on the exterior of the rear door.	In conflict with 3.6.8 'shall be internal to the door and/or vehicle?	3.7.1 Emergency egress attachment point is for emergency extraction from the exterior of the vehicle so first responders can open the door. In 3.6.8, the door assist mechanism are to be located on the interior of the door, which is an objective requirement. The emergency egress attachment point and door assist each have separate functions.
9	P-Spec Rear Door	3.12.16	‘If the rear steps are removed for towing…’	3.12.17 states that the “Rear steps shall not be removed for towing”, as these requirements are in conflict, which (O) requirement takes higher precedence?	Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
10	General			It is understood that it is the intent of MarCorpSysCom to accept additional question once all pictures of the Six (6) different types of MRAP Cougars displayed at the Industry day event 17-19 Sept 2013.
Yes.
11	General			Is it the intent of MarCorpSysCom to release the MRAP Egress Door Upgrade RFP as a Small Business Set Aside?

No.
12	General	Is the MRAP Egress Door Upgrade a funded program?	Yes.
13	General	Will the MRAP Egress Door Upgrade be a Firm Fix Price (FFP) / Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract?	Firm Fixed Price
14	General	Is the MRAP Egress Door Upgrade contract going to be; Base Year with options?	18 month period of performance with no options.
15	General	Is there an estimated quantity of MRAP Cougar Egress Door sets (front and read) by Vehicle type available?	Refer to answer of question 1, and the requirement for commonality.
16	General	Will Technical Drawing Packages (TDP) be available upon request prior to the release of the RFP?	No.
17	General	Will classified material be available prior to the release of the RFP?	No not prior to the release of the RFP.
18	General	Will JPO accept the use of Pyrotechnics to reduce force of the doors opening?	Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government and Marines.
19	General	Will there be a preference / dictation for the EGRESS system design to be based on Electronics; Pyrotechnics; Hydraulic; combination of all or some?	Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government and Marines.
20	General	Can JPO provide detailed drawings of the doors for each vehicle; their weight; hinges structure; armor steel composition, etc.?	No. The Government does not own the rights to the vehicle TDP.
21	SOW	SOW Para 1.1 mentioned 2 X USMARINES reports - Can we get the USMARINES reports?	The "reports" are actual Urgent Universal Needs Statements of which this requirement is based. They contain no information that would be of any benefit to an Offeror during the design of the modifications.
22	General	Of all the different Cougar / MRAP type / configurations - which are the ones intended to be fitted with EGRESS system?	ALL of the Cougar variants. CAT I and CAT II. A1 and A2. Ambulance. TOW ITAS.
23	General	Will Schematics / ICD for each vehicle be provided, to allow design of the specific Kit installation for each Cougar variant type?	No. The Government does not own the rights to the vehicle TDP. The intention is to have a common system for each variant type.
24	General	Will the MRAP JPO expects the supplier to provide a standalone EGRESS system Kit, to be installed in the vehicle by the user either at the Depot or in the field?

Alternatively, will the MRAP JPO intends to provide different MRAP type Doors frames, Window frames, etc. where the supplier will install the EGRESS system and return a complete "ready to fit on a vehicle" EGRESS system Kit for each vehicle?

Yes. The modification will occur during reset of the vehicles.

No. MRAP PM will not supply doors or windows to incorporate into suppliers kit.

25	General	Is this EGRESS system to be a RETROFIT or just for NEW production vehicles?	Reset of vehicles, there are no plans to procure any new production vehicles.
26	General	For each Cougar variant, what are the anticipated number of Kits / vehicles involved?	Refer to answer of question 1, and the requirement for commonality.
27	General	What is the fleet density of the TOW variant?	Refer to answer of question 1, and the requirement for commonality.
28	General	During industry days the TOW Target Acquisition Sub-System was mounted on a plywood shelf above the HVAC unit, is this typically the location for the Sub-System and what type of permanent structure would normally be there?	Final TOW system integration currently in design by the Government. At this time, the location demonstrated at industry day is the location for the subsystem components.
29	General	All vehicles seemed to have upper and lower mounting rails in the center of the vehicle, should this be considered typical?	Yes.
30	General	Is there a need for any modifications to the exhaust routing if the egress designs do not require any changes to the routing?	Yes. The Cougar Exhaust Upgrade is required to mitigate the possibility of the exhaust pipe becoming deformed and blocking any egress point, by modifying or rerouting the current exhaust system.
31	General	Are there any restrictions to modifying the dash / front console area?	Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
32	General	What are the restrictions as far as internal reconfigurations?	Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
33	General	Is it possible to eliminate any seating or move current seating?	Seating may not be eliminated. Propose a seat location that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
34	General	During industry days the CAT 1 A2 had 3 in. plate surrogate armor. Is this what we should expect for the entire fleet?	No. Those surrogate plates are used during test and remained on the vehicle during the Industry Day.
35	General	Does the battle lock need to be a separate system of engagement from the normal door lock (currently it is)?	Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
36	General	Several industry day vehicles had existing first responder mechanisms for the rear doors. Are the uses of the existing first responder system required/necessary/optional?	A first responder mechanism is required, but use of the existing solution is not required. Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
37	General	If not, whose responsibility is it to remove these from the existing vehicles?	All integration of the kits will be completed by the Government. If current first responder solution needs to be removed to install egress kit, the Government will be responsible to remove the existing first responder kit.
38	General	Some of the A1 vehicles had additional armor plates and provisions (ex. P/N 0NDM7-M6193-3) for additional armor around the driver/co-driver door seams. Will mounting provisions for these plates need to be added to the proposed design of the new front doors?	Additional armor seen on that vehicle is obsolete and its function will be replaced by the Offeror's Front Door Upgrade solution. The egress kit is required to meet MPB (T), CPD 1.1 (O) SAF and fragment survivability requirements. No mounting provisions for those plates necessary. Mounting provisions for Add-On-Armor is necessary see Front Door Upgrade Pspec section 3.2.4.
39	General	What is the standard C4 configuration for the Cougar Fleet?	There is more than one vehicle configuration and each fleet has its own configuration.
40	General	Will space claim information for existing C4 placement be made available to industry prior to proposal submittal?	No. C4 equipment mounts to digirack and other mounting provisions which were made available during industry day.
41	General	Will any CAD or TDP drawings be made available to industry prior to proposal submittal?	No.
42	General	Will overall vehicle dimensions/weights/CG for embarkation requirements be made available to industry prior to proposal submittal?	No CG requirement.

Weight requirements provided in Pspec for each respective upgrade.

43 General Can you please provide a list of all of the attendees and the companies who attended the 3 days? By name attendees are considered PII. The names of the companies that participated are: Iibis Tek, LLC;

CMC Impact Metals; DynCorp International LLC; Mistral Inc;

Richter and Company, LLC; DRS Sustainment Systems, Inc;.

Tencate Advanced Armor USA, INC; General Dynamics Land Systems - Force Protection, Inc; Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services LLC; Underground Pipeline, Inc.; American Defense Systems, Inc.; Control Solutions LLC; Texsas Hydraulics; Fidelity Tech Corp; and Service Steel, Inc.

	44	General			Were the vehicles demonstrative of fielded vehicles or did they have material that is not part of this upgrade program? I noticed doubled armor on the lower edge of the doors on one of the variants as well as different ballistic blankets on the inside of the doors.	Additional armor seen on that vehicle is obsolete and its function will be replaced by the Offeror's Door Upgrade solution. The egress kit is required to meet MPB (T), CPD 1.1 (O) survivability requirements.
	45	General			Are we to use the Tier 3 vendor's material that is on these vehicles or can we propose alternative supply?	Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
	46	P-Spec Exhaust	3.2	3.2.4 The system shall be compatible with all Egress/SSU modifications
3.2.5 The system shall not interfere with the controls and operation of Egress/SSU modifications	Since the SSU modifications are currently unknown and will be unknown at the time of proposal submittal, how can industry be responsible for ensuring compatibility and non-interference?	SSU modifications are known on all variants but the CAT II A1. SSU RFP for the Cat II A1 requires common driver and A-driver seats as Cat I A1 SSU. If interference/incompatibility with Cat II A1 SSU is observed, the Government will investigate mitigations at the CDR.
	47	P-Spec Front Door, P-Spec Rear Door	3.6	3.6.1 "The system's door assist shall be able to operate 1 cycle while…"

3.6.2 "The systems door assist shall be able to perform 20 cycles …"

3.6.4 "The system’s door assist shall be able to perform 2 cycles (1 cycle = open and close) independent of vehicle power in any vehicle orientation except when the vehicle is resting on that plane of egress at 12 hours after vehicle power interruption (T)" How much time is allowed to "charge" the systems before any of the referenced cycle requirements are performed?

If an electrical system is proposed, what is the current available power that can be used for the system?

No time requirement for charging the system is specified in the PSpecs. A full charge is allowed before the stated time requirements (PSpec 3.6.1 - 1 week, PSpec 3.6.2, 3.6.4 - 12 hours). The vehicle operates on a 24 volt system with a 570 amp alternator. There is at least 100 amps at idle available for the system.

Door assist needs to be able to operate independent of the vehicle's power supply (PSpec 3.6.1-3.6.5) 48 SOW 1.2 "In response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the Contractor shall submit prototype Egress vehicle kits, along with a technical proposal and price proposal." What level of detail is expected for the "prototype" egress vehicle kits?

Are virtual (solid digital models) acceptable mateirla prototypes?

If mockups are required, are basic materials (e.g. wood/mild steel versus armor) acceptable?

Are the prototypes required to meet all the performance specificied requirements?

Is the intent of the prototype kits to permit acutal mounting onto vehicles or to include sufficient detail to convey a concept?

Do the prototypes need to be "fully functioning" prototypes?

Prototype kit requirement removed from current version of SOW (latest version 13260901 - Sep2013). The test 'buck' is still required.
49	SOW, P-Spec Front Door, P-Spec Rear Door	1.0/1.1/3.6.18	a. "The Front Door system will reduce the force to open the door using a door assist…"

b. "The Rear Door system will reduce the force to open the door(s) using a door assist…" "The Rear Door system (hereafter referred to as ‘the system’) will reduce the force to open the door(s) using a door assist…" "The system’s door assist shall have remote activation control to open and close the door(s), accessible by the driver and a-driver while belted in the seated position…" Based on the referenced paragraphs, what is the desired intent of the door assist system: Remote and automatic or a system that reduces the force necessary for the operator to unlock and open the doors locally and manually?

In general, the referenced documents specify a "system" that will reduce the force required to open the doors. However, the portion of paragraph 3.6.18 referenced specifies doors that can be remotely opened and closed without user input (force) at the doors themselves.

If remote and automatic opening and closing is required, does that also apply to the front doors or only the rear doors? If remote and automatic opening is required is it intended to be used as the main opening/closing method? Or only in emergenecy situations?

The intent of the front door assist is to be automatic. The Front Door system (hereafter referred to as ‘the system’) will reduce the force to open the door using a door assist and will include armored door, hinges, opaque armor, transparent armor, emergency egress attachment points, first responder receptacles, primary/service, and secondary/combat locks. In addition to the system, the interior ballistic armor around the perimeter of the system shall be replaced with a material with multiple sources of supply. There is no requirement to open the front doors remotely. The remote requirement is for the rear door upgrade.

3.6.18 is a remote operation for the rear door only. The main operation of the rear door is intended to be can be both locally and remotely operated.

Intent is for remote operation of the door assist to be a non-emergency function with both remote and non-remote activation as valid options.

50	CDRLs	CDRLs	Will the Government provide the CDRL documents with the official RFP?	Yes.
51	General	In response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the Contractor shall submit prototype Egress vehicle kits, along with a technical proposal and price proposal. The Contractor’s technical proposal must detail an in-depth understanding of the requirements and how the Contractor shall meet the requirements in the SOW.	Is the Offeror disqualified if they do not submit prototype Egress vehicle kits along with the technical and price proposals?	Prototype kit requirement removed from current version of SOW (latest version 13260901 - Sep2013). The test 'buck' is still required.
52	General	In response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the Contractor shall submit prototype Egress vehicle kits, along with a technical proposal and price proposal. The Contractor’s technical proposal must detail an in-depth understanding of the requirements and how the Contractor shall meet the requirements in the SOW.	What requirements must the prototype Egress vehicle kits meet?	Prototype requirement removed from current version of SOW

(latest version 13260901 - Sep2013)

	53	SOW	Review and approval of updated Contractor’s updated Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Plan.	The CDR scope addresses an RDT&E Plan, but the only other mention of a similar activity is in section 4.1 where the contractor is required to provide a RDT&E Test SUPPORT PLAN.
Does the Government require an RDT&E plan and a support plan?	SOW section 3.7.5.1 requires at the CDR a review and approval of updated Contractor's RDT&E plan. The RDT&E plan should include the Offeror's plan to support their RDT&E.
	54	SOW	Pre-existing reliability data shall be used to the maximum extent possible.	Will this pre-existing reliability data be provided as part of the formal RFP release?	The Government will not provide pre-existing reliability data.
	55	SOW	The Contractor shall maintain a comprehensive RAM program to ensure the Egress Modifications meet the RAM standards set forth by the program.	What RAM standards have been set forth for the program?	Reference CPD 1.1 (available upon request after release of the RFP) for requirements.

Follow MIL-HDBK-470 as guidance.

56 SOW The Contractor shall detail how reliability testing shall be implemented and how it shall conduct reliability testing as an integral part of all required system and subsystem testing to demonstrate that supportability or sustainment requirements are capable of achieving the reliability requirements of the specification from the Government. What are the reliability requirements? Reference CPD 1.1 (available upon request after release of the RFP) for requirements.

Follow MIL-HDBK-470 as guidance.

57 SOW The Contractor shall detail how RGT procedures shall be implemented as an integral part of the reliability program to demonstrate reliability growth in the refinement for any supportability or sustainment requirement. The reliability growth should demonstrate that the system is capable of meeting the provided guidance. The Contractor shall document the results of all required testing as part of this effort. What are the reliability requirements? Reference CPD 1.1 (available upon request after release of the RFP) for requirements.

Follow MIL-HDBK-470 as guidance.

58	SOW	Any new equipment or rerouting shall not degrade the current vehicle EMI levels.	What are the current EMI levels?	Program office will not provide. Propose a solution using best practices you that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
59	P-Specs	3.12.22 The system shall not exceed 550 lbs per door excluding those major sub-systems which do not articulate with the door.(T)

3.12.24 The system shall not exceed 550 lbs per door (O) These requirements are very similar; however one is an objective while the other is a threshold requirement. Please clarify the difference between them with regard to not exceeding 550 lbs per door? Threshold weight requirement excludes sub-systems that do not articulate with the door (i.e. items that mount to door frame).

Objective weight requirement includes sub-systems that do not articulate with the door (i.e. items that mount to door frame).

60	P-Specs	The system's door assist shall prevent crush injuries by detecting objects in door's inherent pinch points along the door periphery while closing. (O)	3.6.7 repeats 3.6.6 are identical, however. 3.6.7 is identified as an objective requirement. What is the difference in requirement between 3.6.6 and 3.6.7?	Requirement 3.6.6 will be removed from the final Pspec. Will remain as an objective requirement as stated in 3.6.7
61	P-Specs	The system's door assist shall prevent crush injuries by

detecting objects in door's inherent pinch points along the door

periphery while closing. (O)	The Performance Spec for the front door upgrade identifies this as a requirement. The Performance Spec identifies this as an objective requirement. What is the threshold requirement for the rear door upgrade?	Requirement 3.6.6 will be removed from the final Pspec. Will remain as an objective requirement as stated in 3.6.7
	62	P-Specs	The secondary/combat lock shall have the ability to be
activated/deactivated independently of the primary/service lock D	Does requirement 3.11.2 conflict with requirement 3.10.2? Please clarify.	No. There can be separate mechanisms for the primary/service lock handle and the secondary/combat lock.
	63	P-Specs	When the door assist is disabled, the system shall require no more than 50 lbs. of force to operate while the vehicle is in any orientation. (O)	Please clarify the requirement when considering the wegiht of the door.	When the door assist is disabled, the Contractor's design may utilize mechanical advantages to be leveraged in order to meet this objective requirement. Propose a solution that you think is in the best interest of the Government.
	64	P-Specs	Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the Contractor is responsible for the acceptable performance of the end item in accordance with this specification. The Contractor may use their own facility or any other facility suitable for the verification requirements specified herein unless otherwise directed. The Contractor may use their own facility or any other facility reserves the right to perform any of the verifications set forth in the specification where such verifications are deemed necessary to ensure supplies and services meet prescribed requirements.	On multiple requirements, the P spec states that the Government will conduct a test or demonstration. Is the Contractor required to perform their own test?	The Contractor is not required to perform tests outside of required demonstrations but the Contractor is responsible for the acceptable performance of the system in accordance with the specification.
	65	P-Spec Front Door		What consists a single Front Door Upgrade?	A single Front Door Upgrade System applies to both the Driver and A-Driver front doors.

A single Front Door Upgrade System is to include the following for each door in the system: a door assist, an armored door, hinge(s), opaque armor, transparent armor, an emergency egress attachment point, a first responder receptacle, a primary/service lock, and a secondary combat lock.

In the specifications, when a requirement is listed for a single door assist, armored door, opaque armor, transparent armor, emergency egress attachment point, first responder receptacle, primary/service lock, or secondary combat lock, the requirement applies to each door assist, armored door, opaque armor, transparent armor, emergency egress attachment point, first responder receptacle, primary/service lock, or secondary combat lock included in the system.

Sheet2

Sheet3

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.