J.12_M6785413R7802_Q_ _A__0001-0032_24_Jan_2013.pdf

M6785413R7802 Attachment J.9

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

RFP M67854-13-R-7802

DATE: 2 January 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Clarification of Section L Prototype CLIN designations

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section L, Volume II (Price Proposal / Administrative), identifies in paragraph “f” the definition and designation of “Prototype CLIN” which should not exceed 50% of the total price submitted by the offeror.

CLIN 0017, Anti-Armor-Javelin Simulator, is noted as a Prototype CLIN with a potential deliverable quantity of 32. However, CLIN 0005, Anti-Armor-Javelin Simulator (FY15), with a deliverable quantity of 3 is not identified as a Prototype CLIN.

Please confirm whether the prototype designations for CLINs 0005 and 0017 are correct.

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER: RFP 81 of 93 PARAGRAPH: “f”

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

CLIN 0017 is not a Prototype CLIN it is a Low Initial Rate Production (LRIP) quantity. Please note that SOW section 3.15 Warranty has been updated as follows to avoid confusion between LRIP and Prototype units: “The acquisition of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units in Option CLINS 0015 – 0021 shall include a warranty. If the Government exercises any of these option CLINS a warranty shall be provided for the LRIP units acquired.”

CLIN 0005 is considered a Prototype CLIN. RFP Section L has been updated as follows: “f) The Sum of the Prototype CLINS (CLINS 0002, 0003, 0005, 0007, 0009, 0010 & 0012) shall not exceed 50% of the TOTAL proposed price.”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0001

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE: 01/08/2013

CODE:

RFP M67854-13-R-7802

DATE: 10 January 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Clarification of Option Awards

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

FAR 52.217-7, Option for Increased Quantity – Separately Priced Line Item, states that the Government may exercise an option with 60 days written notice to the Contractor. The following questions are related to the exercise of the CLINs designated as Options in Section B:

1. CLINs for the NRE and their related prototypes (e.g., CLIN 0003 and 0004) are due on the same dates. We assume the Government will exercise the NRE and the prototype CLINs allowing adequate time to complete the prototype process. Please confirm.

2. We assume that the earliest that CLINs identified with fiscal years (e.g. CLIN 0003 (FY14)) can be awarded is October of that calendar year. For example the earliest CLIN 0003 can be awarded is October of 2014. Please confirm.

PAGE NUMBER: Section B (Pages 2-13) PARAGRAPH:

PAGE NUMBER: Section I (Page 35) PARAGRAPH: FAR 52.217-7

Options will be exercised pursuant to FAR 15.207 as the funding comes available, however, it would be the intent of the Government to exercise these options in a single modification.

Fiscal Year 2014 runs 01-Oct-2013 through 30-Sep-2014. The delivery date in the RFP for CLINs 0003 & 0004 is 21-May-2015. If these CLINS were exercised on the earliest FY14 date, 01-Oct-2013, that would leave about 20 months to accomplish both CLINs.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0002

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE: 01/24/2013

RFP M67854-13-R-7802

DATE:

10 January 2013

DFARS 252.227-7004, License Grant

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section I incorporates DFARS 252.227-7004, License Grant (Aug 1984). This clause appears to be intended for inclusion in patent releases, license agreements and assignments. Please confirm that Offerors are to provide a response to this clause.

PAGE NUMBER: 59 PARAGRAPH: 252.227-7004

DFARS Clause 252.227-7004 has been removed from the solicitation. The Government shall have not less than Government Purpose Rights to technical data and software developed under this contract in accordance with SOW 3.17.19 and DFARS Clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0003

PREPARED BY: J. Fondriest DATE: 01/18/2013

DATE: 10 January 2013

SUBJECT: Volume II Page Limitation

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section L.10. E notes that there is no page limitation for the Volume II Price Proposal. Section L.10.G (b) indicates that there is a page limitation by the following statement: “Volume I and II may not exceed either 25 double-sided pages or 50 single sided pages in length (including diagrams).”

Please confirm that Volume II is not subject to a proposal page limit.

PAGE NUMBER: 77 PARAGRAPH: L.10.E

PAGE NUMBER: 78 PARAGRAPH: L.10.G

Section L.10.G(b) of the Solicitation has been updated as follows: “Volume I and III may not exceed either 25 double-sided pages or 50 single-sided pages in length (including diagrams).”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0004

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE: 01/15/2013

SUBJECT: Conflict between Section M (Evaluation Criteria) and Attachment J11 (Cross Reference Matrix)

There appears to be some discrepancies between Section M of the RFP and Attachment J11.

1. In Section M3 of the RFP Evaluation Criteria, (a)(1) states: "Factor 1, Technical Understanding:

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's technical knowledge and ability to perform technical requirements under Statement of Work paragraphs 3.2 and 3.5 through 3.11.1.". However, the M.3.a.1.a and M.3.a.1.b mapping for Attachment J11 references paragraphs 3.2, 3.5-3.11, and 3.12, 3.14.

2. In Section M3 of the RFP Evaluation Criteria, (a)(2) states: "Factor 2, Safety: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's technical knowledge and ability to perform Safety requirements under Statement of Work paragraphs 3.12 through 3.13.". However, the M.3.a.2.a and M.3.a.2.b mapping for Attachment J11 references paragraphs 3.12, 3.13 and 3.12 and 3.17.9.

3. In Section M3 of the RFP Evaluation Criteria, (a)(3) states: "Factor 3, Program Management:

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's operational plan and competence in meeting requirements under Statement of Work paragraphs 3.3 through 3.5 and 3.13 through 3.22.2". However, the M.3.a.3.a, M.3.a.3.b, M.3.a.3.c, and M.3.a.3.d mapping for Attachment J11 references paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 3.17, 3.13, 3.17.1.

PAGE NUMBER: 89 - 90 PARAGRAPH: M3

PAGE NUMBER: Attachment J11 PARAGRAPH:

1. RFP Section M.3(a)(1) has been revised to add “and 3.14.”

2. 3.17.9 is a reference for a CDRL list, the SAR language is stated within section 3.12.2.

3. Cross Reference Matrix J.11 revised under Statement of Work column for Factor 3.a. Added paragraphs 3.3 through 3.5 and 3.13 through 3.22.2.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0005

DATE: 9 January 2013

SUBJECT: Small Business Participation Form, Attachment 4

The proposal instructions for the Volume II Price Proposal state that “Under no circumstances shall cost or pricing data be included elsewhere in the proposal (with the exception of the Small Business Participation Form, Attachment 4).”

There does not appear to be a Small Business Participation Form, Attachment 4 be in the RFP. Please clarify.

PAGE NUMBER: 80 PARAGRAPH: G, Volume II , Second Paragraph

The proposal instructions for the Volume II Price Proposal have been modified to remove “(with the exception of the Small Business Participation From, Attachment 4)”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0006

SUBJECT: Data Rights

SOW paragraph 3.17.20 provides that the Government shall have Government Purpose Rights (GPRs) to all information or data developed under the contract in accordance with DFARs 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014.

The clause also states that all data developed at Government expense by the contractor are the property of the Government and are not to be used for resale to any Government agency, organization or Command. It further states that the Contractor shall not distribute or use the information and data without written approval of the PCO.

The intent to restrict use of the data appears to conflict with the DFARs clauses which provide the Government with a license to use the data, but not typically ownership of that data. Nor or contractors normally precluded from using the data in support of other contracts. Will the Government consider removing the restriction on the Contractors use of the information and data from the SOW?

PAGE NUMBER: SOW Pg. 43 PARAGRAPH: 3.17.20

The Government shall have not less than Government Purpose Rights to technical data and software developed under this contract in accordance with DFARS Clauses 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014. The SOW section on Licensing/Ownership Rights 3.17.19 has been revised accordingly.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0007

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE: 01/24/2013

SUBJECT: TOW Simulator

There appears to be a conflict between the deliverable TOW requirements. SOW Section 1, item #2, it includes the following SITE-specific capability: “Anti-Armor – Integrated M220 TOW and M98A1 Javelin simulator capabilities and paring sensors.” In Section 3, Paragraph 3.2.5.1, it states “The contractor shall provide a M41 TOW with Target Acquisition System simulator. The capability shall include…” Please clarify what version of TOW the contractor must simulate: the M220 or the M41 TOW.

PAGE NUMBER: 7 PARAGRAPH: 1.

PAGE NUMBER: 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.1

M41 TOW. SOW Section 1, item #2 has been updated accordingly.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0008

RFP M67854-13-R-7802

DATE:

10 January 2013

SUBJECT: Identification of Prototype CLINs

Section L, Volume II (Price Proposal / Administrative), identifies in paragraph “f” the definition and designation of the “Prototype CLINs” which should not exceed 50% of the total price submitted by the offeror.

The RFP has removed several CLINs from the Section B Worksheet; however, the language identifying Prototype CLINs in Section L Volume II paragraph “f” of the RFP remained unchanged from the DRFP. Our assumption is that the total of the Prototype CLINs (0002, 0003, 0005, 0007, 0009, 0010 & 0012) when summed, should not exceed 50% of total price submitted. Please confirm this assumption.

PAGE NUMBER: 81 PARAGRAPH: L.10.G Volume II (f)

Section L of the solicitation has been updated as follows: “f) The Sum of the Prototype CLINs (CLINs 0002, 0003, 0005, 0007, 0009, 0010, & 0012,) shall not exceed 50% of the TOTAL proposed price.”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0009

SUBJECT: Capability Enhancements

Please confirm that the Government expects/requires replicas of the M41 TOW Target Acquisition System and the Javelin CLU (including day and night sights). In the case of the SMAW, the requirement is to provide an interface for attaching the actual sites.

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7802, Attachment J.1, 05 Dec 2012

PAGE NUMBER: Page 11 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.4 PAGE NUMBER: Page 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.1 PAGE NUMBER: Page 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.2

The Government requires replicas for the M41 TOW and Javelin CLU.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0010

SUBJECT: Geo-Pairing Sensors

Please confirm the requirement that "The Control Electronics shall integrate Geo-pairing sensors" requires their use to generate weapons orientation data as the basis for determining engagement outcomes. Moreover, that the use of lasers (with exception of forward and back-blast) for determining outcomes is not compliant.

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7802, Attachment J.1, 05 Dec 2012

PAGE NUMBER: Page 11 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.4 PAGE NUMBER: Page 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.1 PAGE NUMBER: Page 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.2

The Government confirms that geo-pairing sensors shall be used to generate weapons orientation. Please propose your solution to meet the requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0011

SUBJECT: Proposal Submission Date

In order to provide Offerors sufficient time to analyze the Government’s responses to the questions and incorporate any changes into our solutions, we are respectfully requesting a two week extension to the due date for proposal submission.

REFERENCE: RFP Section L

PAGE NUMBER: 74 PARAGRAPH: L.7

The Government has amended the RFP to extend the proposal delivery date by two weeks from 28 Jan 2013 to 11 Feb 2013.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0012

DATE: Jan 9, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Affiliate written statement

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Is an affiliate defined as in DFARS Subpart 19.1 “either controls or has the power to control the other”.

Are these requirements directed at entities that have common ownership?

REFERENCE: RFP

PAGE NUMBER:79 PARAGRAPH: G

(1) Teaming or subcontracting with an affiliated company or group for the needed expertise will identify the affiliate and demonstrate how and under what conditions this expertise will be provided, with a written statement from said affiliated company or group to that effect.

An affiliate is any company or group who will be providing support to the Prime contractor under this effort to develop the requirements as defined by the SOW.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0013

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE:

01/17/2013 CODE:

DATE: Jan 9, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Affiliate written statement and page count

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Is the required affiliate written statement on conditions of expertise to be provided within the 50 page limit or as an attachment?

REFERENCE: RFP

PAGE NUMBER:79 PARAGRAPH: G

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Yes, the affiliate statement will be included in the Technical/Management Volume page count.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY:

CONTROL NUMBER: 0014 PREPARED BY: K. Odermann

DATE: 01/17/13

DATE: 1-10-12

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Develop/Deliver Training

There doesn’t appear to be any requirements to develop or deliver operator, maintainer, New Equipment Training (NET) or any other training. Did you intend to omit the development and delivery of training?

REFERENCE: SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 1 - 49 PARAGRAPH: Global

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Training requirements can be found in the following SOW sections:

3.14.15 Training Effectiveness Evaluation Event

3.17.14 Training Products and Services

3.17.15 Training Conduct Support Document

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY:

CONTROL NUMBER: 0015 PREPARED BY: K. Odermann

DATE: 01/17/2013

DATE: Jan 9, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: DFARS 225.502 Language

SPECIFIC QUESTION: The RFP cites FAR25.503(c) and DFARS 225.502(c) (iii) but adds explanatory language that identifies a “domestic offer” and a “foreign offer” without citing the exemption clause.

DFARS 225.502 (c) (i) states that qualifying country end products are exempt from applications of BAA or BOPP factors and (iii) states that “If there are domestic offers, apply the 50 percent BAA or BOP evaluation factor to all foreign offers unless an exemption applies. Would the Government consider adding the clause ” unless an exemption applies” to the description in the RFP of the evaluation process to comply with the cited FAR and DFARS regulations and the DFARS 252.225-7001 referenced in Section I Contract Clauses.

For further information on designated end products exempt from domestic preferences such as the BOPP see DFAR§§ 225.401-70) and 252.225-7007.

REFERENCE: RFP

PAGE NUMBER:81 and 82 PARAGRAPH: Volume II (g) PAGE NUMBER: 24 PARAGRAPH: Section I Contract Clauses

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

In accordance with DFARS 225.502(c)(i), DFARS 225.502(c)(iii)(A), and DFARS 252.225-7001the third paragraph of RFP Volume II (g) has been revised to: “If an offer is not a domestic offer, however, then it will be considered a foreign offer. Pursuant to FAR 25.503(c), FAR 25.504-4(b), and DFARS 225.502(c)(iii), the government will appy a 50 percent Buy American Evaluation factor to the price of all foreign end products of the foreign offers unless an exemption applies.”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0016

PREPARED BY: J. Fondriest

DATE: 01/22/2013

DATE: Jan 9, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: GEO-pairing sensors

SPECIFIC QUESTION: What is the function of the GEO-pairing sensor? Is there an output function in the LT2 ICD or RISCon?

REFERENCE: SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 11 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.4

PAGE NUMBER: 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.1

PAGE NUMBER: 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.2

Geo-pairing sensors shall be used to generate weapons orientation. Please propose your solution to meet the requirements.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0017

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann

DATE: 01/17/2013

DATE:

Jan 9, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Page Limit Tech/Management Volume

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section L states that Volume I maximum page count for 50 pages except for manufacturers product sheets and a list in Para G Proposal Content that also excludes TOC, cross reference indices etc..

Section L Volume I also requires draft Safety Assessment Report (SAR). SARs are large documents that can number over one hundred pages. Can the draft SAR be an attachment outside the page count.

Can the draft SAR be on a single CLIN Article simulator or should it cover all CLIN articles?

REFERENCE: Section L Para G

PAGE NUMBER:78 PARAGRAPH: E,F and G

PAGE NUMBER: 79 PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The draft SAR is an attachment that is outside the Volume I page count. A single CLIN article would be considered sufficient in the evaluation of a draft SAR.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0018

DATE: 01/17/13 CODE:

DATE: Jan 9, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Round Detection Sensor

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

What is the function of the round detection sensor? Is there a report to the RISCon that shows if a round is in the tube? Does the round have to report if it has already been fired or some status? Is it enough that a MILES code or other firing code cannot for fire is there is no round in the launcher?

REFERENCE: SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 11 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.4

PAGE NUMBER: 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.1

PAGE NUMBER: 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.2

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The round detection sensor would say if there is a round in the tube and what type of round and communicate back to the RISCON. It does report status back to RISCON.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0019

DATE: Jan 9, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Best Value and Delivery Schedule

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Is there any Best Value to the Government for an offer of COTS items that could be delivered rapidly after award in a short period rather than over a four year period?

REFERENCE: RFP

PAGE NUMBER:18 PARAGRAPH:F.2

Please propose your solution to meet the requirements defined in the RFP

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0020

DATE: 1-10-12

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

3.14.15 Training Efficiency Evaluation Event

In paragraph 3.14.15 Training Efficiency Evaluation Event you are asking us to develop an exercise event and to produce a Training Situation Document per CDRL F003 (DiD DI-SESS-81517B). CDRL F003 is missing from the RFP package so we don’t know if you want both a training situation analysis and a training technology assessment. Normally, the Government does a delete tailor to the DiD to only request one or the other, not both. The paragraph states that “the contractor shall evaluate training results and identify training gaps as they emerge”. From that I’m guessing you want a training technology assessment, but I can’t be sure until I see CDRL F003. Do you want us to deliver Part 1 and/or Part 2?

REFERENCE: SOW & CDRL F003

PAGE NUMBER: 38 of 49 PARAGRAPH: 3.14.15

The subject SOW paragraph has been updated in the RFP.

CDRL F003 is now F002. F002 has been added to the RFP.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0021

DATE: 1-10-12

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

3.17.15 Training Program Structure Document

In paragraph 3.17.15 Training Program Structure Document you are asking for “documentation that provides complete procedures to aid user personnel in operating and achieving full use of the SITE capability”. That is basically what would be in the operator and maintenance manuals. The DiD you referenced: DI-SESS-81521B would not provide that information. Its purpose is to provide information necessary for the acquisition of resources for the conduct of training. It also provides information necessary for training implementation management. Is that document really what you want?

REFERENCE: SOW & CDRL F001

PAGE NUMBER: 41 of 49 PARAGRAPH: 3.17.15

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The subject SOW paragraph has been updated in the RFP to “3.17.15 Training Conduct Support Document.” Please see this SOW paragraph for additional changes. CDRL F001 has also been updated to reflect updated paragraph.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0022

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE: 01/17/13

DATE: 1-10-12

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

3.17.16 Training System Support Document

In paragraph 3.17.16 Training System Support Document you are asking us to “provide complete procedures, diagrams, screen shots or graphics to aid user personnel in operating and achieving full use of the SITE capability upgrades to support SITE training requirements”. The DiD you referenced: DI-SESS- 81527B would not provide that information. Its purpose is to provide specific data necessary for the operation and life-cycle software configuration management of the training system, i.e., SITE. Is that document really what you want?

REFERENCE: SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 41 of 49 PARAGRAPH: 3.17.16

The SOW Paragraph Training System Support Document has been deleted from RFP.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0023

DATE:

11 January 2012

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Clarification of Contract Clauses in RFP

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In RFP M6785413R7802_12.27.2012 states the following “The Government will make payments to the Contractor when requested as work progresses” and also “No performance based or progress payments shall be offered”

Questions; This appears to be a contradiction please clarify?

REFERENCE: RFP M6785413R7802 Section I and Section L

PAGE NUMBER: 30 PARAGRAPH: 1

PAGE NUMBER: 81 PARAGRAPH: g

The clause 52.216-7 Allowable COST and Payment in Section I on page 30 pertains only to the COST Reimbursable CLIN 0014. In accordance with RFP Section L (g) No performance based or progress payments shall be offered. Offerors proposing to receive any type of performance based or progress payment will be considered deficient and ineligible for award.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0024

PREPARED BY: J. Fondriest

DATE:

12 January 2012

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Clarification of Government Furnished Equipment

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In Attachment J1 paragraph 3.23 the following is stated as GFE: RISCon, I-TESS II MDS with accessories and I-TESS II Independent Targeting System.

Questions; To enabling End to End system testing is the Instrumentation communication system needed, will that be part of the GFE?

The SAT M107 and a dry fire cable is also needed as GFE can that be included in the GFE equipment?

REFERENCE: Attachment J1 SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 13 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.7.1

PAGE NUMBER: 45 PARAGRAPH: 3.23

The Government will provide GFE in accordance with SOW 3.23. If the Sniper requirement option is exercised the SAT and a dry fire cable will also be provided.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0025

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE: 01/23/13

DATE:

11 January 2012

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Incorrect reference

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In Attachment J1 paragraph 3.12.15 Safety Marking the referenced standard is missing (Error! Reference source not found). Please update to reflect the intended reference.

PAGE NUMBER: Page 33 PARAGRAPH: 3.12.15

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Error has been corrected in SOW 3.12.15. The reference is MIL-STD-130.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0026

DATE:

11 January 2012

Clarification of requirement

In Attachment J1 paragraph 3.2.8.1 M18A1 Claymore Directional Anti Personnel Mine the following is stated:

“The capability shall include physical components at least consisting of a representative claymore device and associated radio hardware. “ normally the M18A1 is used with the M57 Firing Device.

Please clarify what is intended with “associated radio hardware”?

Additionally, shall there be a wired firing device provided with the mine?

PAGE NUMBER: Page 13/14 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.8.1

The Marine Corps requirement is for the SITE M18A1 Claymore Directional Anti Personnel Mine Simulator to as accurately as possible reflect the actual equipment characteristics. SOW 3.2.8.1 states the SITE Claymore Mine Simulator shall model the form factor and capability of the actual device.

There is no specific requirement for a wired firing device to be provided with the SITE Claymore Mine Simulator in the SOW. If your proposed design includes the provision of a wired firing device with the Mine Simulator to replicate a capability of the mine then annotate that in your proposal. Please propose your solution to meet the requirements as defined in the RFP.

In addition the SOW 3.2.8.1 does state "The capability shall include physical components at least consisting of a representative claymore device and associated radio hardware." The intent is to represent as closely as possible the Claymore mine and its remote control.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0027

DATE: 01/28/13 CODE:

DATE:

11 January 2012

In Attachment J1 the following is stated for the SMAW, TOW and MK 19:

“The application shall communicate to the RISCON. “

This requirement is not included for the Javelin (paragraph 3.2.5.2).

Questions; is it applicable for the Javelin application to communicate with RISCON as well?

PAGE NUMBER: Page 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

There is no specific requirement for the Javelin to communicate to the RISCON in the SOW. If your proposed design requires Javelin communication to the RISCON to replicate a capability of the Javelin then annotate that in your proposal.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY:

CONTROL NUMBER: 0028

DATE:

11 January 2012

In Attachment J1 paragraph 3.2.6 the following is stated for the MK 19:

“The MK19 shall include ammunition characteristics. “

Please clarify the type of ammunition characteristics to be included?

PAGE NUMBER: Page 13 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.6

40mm Grenade. SOW 3.2.6 has been updated accordingly.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0029

DATE:

11 January 2012

In Attachment J1 paragraph 3.2.5.1 the following is stated for the M41 TOW:

“The capability shall include physical components at least consisting of a M41 TOW launcher and firing tube, day sights, night sights, surrogate rounds to replicate High Explosive dual purpose round, anti tank round, and novel explosive rounds, and SATs representing the forward firing and back blast of the equipment. “

Please clarify that the highlighted (bold) text can be removed from the specification?

Rational; it seams that these rounds are applicable to the SMAW and not to the TOW. The TOW shall simulate, as stated below in the paragraph, BGM 71H and BGM 71F missiles.

PAGE NUMBER: 12 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.5.1

The highlighted text will not be removed from the SOW as it does apply to the TOW.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0030

DATE: Jan 15. 2013

SUBJECT: Back-Blast Simulation

There is a concern in regards to the requirements of back-blast simulation on the Javelin, M41 TOW and the SMAW. Requirements:

3.2.5.2; The Javelin shall simulate lethal back-blast effects of the weapon on personnel. The back blast shall have a 60 degree cone 100 meter lethality area.

3.2.5.1; The M41 TOW/ITAS shall simulate lethal back-blast effects of the weapon on personnel. The back-blast shall have a 90 degree cone 75 meter lethality area.

3.2.4; The SMAW shall simulate lethal back-blast effects of the weapon on personnel. The back blast shall have a 60 degree cone 30 meter lethality area.

Our concern is that the laser energy needed to be emitted in order to be detected by an MDS laser detection system at the maximum distance of the cone is so high that the energy level close to the launcher will exceed that of Laser Class 1. Our is of the opinion that laser class 1 should be the norm utilized in order not to harm soldiers operating close to the Launcher, such as for instance the loader.

• Our analysis for Javelin is that laser safety Class 1 may be achieved in a 60 degree cone out to a distance of about 33 meters. This would meet the requirement for SMAW.

• Our analysis indicates for TOW that laser safety Class 1 may be achieved in a 90 degree cone out to a distance of 22 meters.

Additionally: the safety distances specified for Javelin and TOW does also include, not only the primary danger area, also the Caution Area. Based upon field manual information the following is relevant for Javelin According to FM 3-22-37 and for the TOW the following is relevant according to MCWP 3-35-3 Appendix B:

It may be so that it is relevant for these weapons to only specify the primary danger area out to a distance where class 1 may be maintained in order to provide a safe trainer. It may also be relevant to possibly reduce the angle for TOW from 90 degrees to 60 degrees in order to meet the class 1 laser safety restrictions thereby increasing the danger zone somewhat.

25 meter

100 meter

Caution Area

PAGE NUMBER:79 PARAGRAPH: G

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Marine Corps requirement is for the simulator to as accurately as possible reflect the actual equipment characteristics. Any limitations due to safety or any other reason should be annotated in your proposal. Annotate where the proposed capability does not meet the requirement as defined in the Statement of Work.

In terms of danger vs. caution areas the SOW has been updated to reflect the following information:

3.2.5.2; The Javelin shall simulate lethal back-blast effects of the weapon on personnel. The back blast shall have a 60 degree cone 25 meter lethality area.

3.2.5.1; The M41 TOW/ITAS shall simulate lethal back-blast effects of the weapon on personnel. The back-blast shall have a 90 degree cone 50 meter lethality area.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0031

DATE: Jan 9, 2013

Clarification of Contract Clauses in RFP

Section L states that ”The Sum of the Prototype CLINs (CLINs 0001, 0002, 0004, 0006, 0008, 0010, 0012, 0013, 0015, 0017) shall not exceed 50% of the TOTAL proposed price.”

Questions 1; The NRE CLINs stated in the paragraph 0001, 0004,0006 , 0008, 0013 but not 0011 that also is a NRE CLIN, this appears to be a contradiction please clarify?

Questions 2; There is also Hardware CLINs for Prototypes and Serial Deliveries stated in the paragraph 0002, 0010, 0012, 0015, 0017 this appears to be a contradiction please clarify?

PAGE NUMBER: 81 PARAGRAPH: Volume II (f)

RFP Section L (f) has been updated as follows: “The Sum of the Prototype CLINS (CLINS 0002, 0003, 0005, 0007, 0009, 0010 & 0012) shall not exceed 50% pf the TOTAL proposed price.”

SOW section 3.15 Warranty has been updated as follows to avoid confusion between LRIP and Prototype units: “The acquisition of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units in Option CLINS 0015 – 0021 shall include a warranty. If the Government exercises any of these option CLINS a warranty shall be provided for the LRIP units acquired.”

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 0032

PREPARED BY: K. Odermann DATE: 01/22/13