Att.10_Solicitation__Questions_Response_Form-21_.docx

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

RFP M67854-13-R-7803

DATE: Feb 14, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Requirement for IMS for multiple DOs

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section L Para F Proposal Format requires IMS for the Management Volume for two concurrent delivery orders as well as the initial IDIQ

An IMS page count can be 8-12 pages.

Could the Government clarify that the IMS is not part of the page count?

REFERENCE: RTS II RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 170 PARAGRAPH: E PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

An IMS can be included as an attachment.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: Feb 14, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Two Draft SAR in Volume I as part of the page count

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section L Para F Proposal Format limits Volume I to 100 pages. It also requires a draft SAR for the SIT and Dust Generator. A SAR can have a page count of 40-80 pages each. Could the Government clarify that the draft SARs are not part of the 100 page limitation for Volume 1?

REFERENCE: RTS II RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 172-174 PARAGRAPH: E PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Draft SAR should be included as an attachment and not considered part of the Page Count.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER: 22 PREPARED BY: DATE:

CODE:

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

17 Feb 13

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Environmentally-Friendly 3D Steel Armor Targets (EFSAT)

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the government consider using three quarter (3/4) inch thick steel plate or reducing the dimension for the Full Sized BMP, T72, and BRDM 3D EFSATs to stay under the 10,000 pound weight limit?

Using three quarter (3/4) inch thick steel plate will meet the requirements of para 3.3.5 (c) “The 3D steel targets shall withstand ammunition impacts up to .50 Caliber” thus reducing the overall cost of materials and meeting the 10,000 weight restrictions.

The current requirements in the RFP with one (1) inch A36 thick steel plate and the specific dimensions on the Full Size T-72, BRDM and BMP will exceed the 10,000 weight requirement.

REFERENCE: Attachment 2 Performance Specifications

PAGE NUMBER:42 PARAGRAPH:3.3.5 (g) (i) PAGE NUMBER: 42 PARAGRAPH: 3.3.5 (g) (vi) PAGE NUMBER: 42 PARAGRAPH: 3.3.5 (g) (viii)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government’s requirements will be modified in the SPEC for Steel thickness. The 10,000lb weight limit is firm based on lift requirements.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

17 Feb 13

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Environmentally-friendly 3D Steel Armor Targets (EFSAT)

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Can the government provided an estimated number of .50 caliber ball and .50 caliber armor piercing rounds that will be fired at the 3D EFSATs in a one year period?

Estimates are required for warranty statement purposes.

REFERENCE: Attachment 2 Performance Specifications

PAGE NUMBER: 41 PARAGRAPH: 3.3.5 (c) PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government will not provide an estimate for this value which will vary dependent on the installation.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

18 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: RFP M67854-13-R-7803 Deliverables

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Page 138, Paragraph F.3. states: “Please note that all supplies, regardless of quantity ordered, must be delivered within 90 calendar days of the Government’s issuance of a Delivery Order.”

Maximizing the utilization of small business and small disadvantaged small businesses the 90 calendar day delivery requirement will preclude many from participating in this Government effort. These vendors generally have limited production capacity and committing to delivering their products; regardless of quantity ordered”; within 90 calendar days is not possible. Also due to the fact that some of these deliveries are overseas that fact exacerbates the situation. If nothing else the Government would be forced to use air freight to meet this schedule and that will increase costs of the program.

Request the Government revise this requirement to a more reasonable 180 day delivery requirement.

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER:138 PARAGRAPH: F.3 DELIVERABLES PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government has adjusted the delivery time to 180 days.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

19 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: CLIN Pricing Clarification

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Does the Government want vendors to include travel costs for completing hardware installation in the price for purchasing CLIN’s? At paragraph 3.1 the SOW states, “The contractor shall include delivery and installation costs into each CLIN item.” and then in paragraph 3.2 it states, “The contractor shall include pricing for associated RTS II design, shipping, installation, testing, labor, materials, and integrated program management in each CLIN. Technical Data shall be included in the CLIN pricing.” It is unclear whether travel costs should be included.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Travel has a separate CLIN 3600- NTE $500,000, CLIN 3601 and 3602

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 17FEB13

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: There is a non conformity between “Attachment_2.-Performance_Spec ver 1.0 January 2013” and “Attachment_12-_Cross_Reference_Matrix” regarding the content of some paragraphs. Please clarify the requirements.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The following paragraphs does not correspond;

3.1.1.1.1 RCS Controlled Equipment

Q1. Is it correct to assume that SIT, DSIT and AK-47 Simulator shall be added to the Cross reference Matrix?

Q2. Is it correct to assume that IED Simulators shall be withdrawn from the Performance specification?

3.1.1.1.2 Network and Communication (last sentence)

Q3. Please clarify maximum number of targets, 500 or 2800ea?

3.1.2.1.1 Target Lifters Power Requirements

Q4. Is it correct to assume that the Performance Spec is correct and that the Cross reference Matrix shall be updated accordingly?

REFERENCE: Attachment 12 Cross reference

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH: PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Matrix is a reference point as to where the requirements are in each document, related to the proposal; the Specification is the requirements document.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER27 PREPARED BY: DATE:

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: Feb 14, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Cross Reference

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section L Para F Proposal Format requires 1. A “Cross Reference Section” referencing each of the offeror’s technical proposal paragraphs and page numbers to the appropriate Section L paragraph and SOW paragraph and page number.

It does not require references to the Specification or Section M.

The RFP also provides a comprehensive Attachment 12 that includes the SOW, Section L, SPEC and Evaluation Factors from Section M. The matrix is well organized to show the Section L content links to the SOW and SPEC and Section M evaluation factors.

Could the Government clarify the cross reference requirement to be as follows?

A “Cross Reference Section” referencing each of the offeror’s technical proposal paragraphs and page numbers to Attachment 12 “Cross Reference Matrix”. Do want to keep it in Excel file format in the electronic copy for ease of evaluation and scoring?

REFERENCE: RTS II RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 172-174 PARAGRAPH: E PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government will accept Excel.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 19 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Design Submittal Package

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Is it the Governments intent for the wording ‘design submittal package’ in the reference paragraphs below, to be ‘drawing submittal package’ for each specific DO.

Example: For a range that contained a Pistol Pneumatic Target System, CDRL A00F (CLIN 3402) would be the Design submittal package?

If this is the case the wording in the reference paragraphs below, should be changed from ‘Design submittal package’ to ‘Drawing Submittal Package’ to align with the correct CDRL & CLIN name.

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Drawings CLIN is separately priced and will be executed as required per each delivery order, 3401, 3402, 3303, 3304.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Existing Electrical Emplacement Upgrade

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Is it the Governments intent to keep requirements for existing electrical emplacement upgrades in references below, although there is no SOW or SPEC requirement for this item?

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 61 PARAGRAPH:4.5 Drawing Requirements

M67854-13-R-7803 SOLICITATION, OFFER, & AWARD

PAGE NUMBER: 120 CLIN: 3403 Facilities Drawing Package Submittal- Electrical Emplacement Upgrade (CDRL A00E)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

CLIN is separately priced and will be executed if the delivery order requires. The CLIN is tailored for the requirement when an electrical outlet change is required for installation and considered standard as part of the installation. The SIT CLIN pricing would include the material cost.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: Feb 10 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:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The request is under review. A Government response will be provided no later than 11 March 13.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

17 Feb 13

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Environmentally-friendly 3D Steel Armor Targets (EFSAT)

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Can the government provide the “Faux” standards, references, patterns, and colors required for the Environmentally-friendly 3D EFSATs?

Paragraph 3.3.5 first sentence reads; “The Faux 3D Steel Target shall be painted to give the appearance of the actual vehicle in an assortment of colors and camouflage.” Faux can be very elaborate with many colors and requiring special techniques (increase to manufacturing time and material cost) or very simple one solid color. Not understanding the actual requirements will result in excessive target pricing to the government.

REFERENCE: Attachment 1 Statement of Work

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The minimum acceptable quality would be a solid color, with the color for the target being specified by the Marine Corps at the time of the issuance of a delivery order. This contract will be awarded to the best value candidate through trade off analysis.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER:32 PREPARED BY: DATE:

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

2/15/2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Pistol Pneumatic Target System

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

What are the frequency restrictions for RF communication?

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER: N/A PARAGRAPH: N/A PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

RTS II communications shall operate within frequency bands approved by the USMC Base Spectrum Management, Land Mobile Service as defined and allocated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for DOD training systems.

SOW pg 56, section 4.2.3.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

2/15/2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Pistol Pneumatic Target System

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Can the hand held control be hardwired to the transmitter and to the interface control box for down range RF communications?

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 2.1 / (b) PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Per the specification, the portable hand-held control box can be hardwired or RF.

If it’s hardwired, it must be accessible in the control booth. There can be no hardwire connection between the control booth and targets in the RF configuration.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

2/15/2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Pistol Pneumatic Target System

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

It states that the portable handheld control box will have twenty-five toggle switches. Won’t the control box become overly complex w/25 individual toggle switches? Couldn’t the toggle switches be located on the junction box at the target?

REFERENCE: SPEC

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: (c) PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

(a) The portable hand-held control box shall have individual “On/Off” toggle switches that choose which targets are actuated by the master toggle switch.

This requirement does not identify that 25 physical switches are present on the hand held box, but the switch selects which target will be actuated by the master.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Master Target Switch Clarification

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

At paragraph 3.3.1.9.1 sub section F, the SOW states; “Shall be appropriately sized with enough 10/100/1000 Mbps RJ-45 ports required to provide data communication to the master target and subsequent slaved targets”. 1000 Mbps is a fiber data rate specifying RJ-45 port will negatively impact system availability, suggest the Government revise the SOW to require “communication ports”.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Cat5 and Cat6 cables can meet 1000 Mbps.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Slave Target Switch Clarification

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

At paragraph 3.3.1.9.2 the SOW states; “The Slave Target switches shall come in the following general sizes and configurations”. If the Government permitted; a 5 port (1TX - 4TX) Slave Target Switch, Ethernet is available in place of the 3 and 4 port units, program cost would be reduced without negatively impacting system performance.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 17 PARAGRAPH: 3.3.1.9.2 Slave Target Switch

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

5 port switches will meet the requirement of 3 or 4 port variations, best value through tradeoff analysis.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Master Target Switch Clarification

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In conventional Ethernet system half duplex is the data protocol. At paragraph 3.3.1.9.1 sub section B the SOW states, “Shall use full duplex communication”. In a mixed communication environment Fiber/Ethernet combination, Half Duplex may at times be required to complete coms, however this is range specific and not always true. If the Government permitted, switches are available with choice of half and full duplex; program cost would be reduced without negatively impacting system performance.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Modern Ethernet is full-duplex and typically supports half-duplex for communication with legacy items.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Master Target Switch Clarification

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

At paragraph 3.3.1.9.1 sub section C the SOW states, “Shall be IEEE 802.1Q VLAN for traffic segregation compliant”. The master Switch is a media converter designed for linkage of protocols. This paragraph belongs with the Range Control Network Switch not the Master Switch and if required would require a managed switch, this would negatively impact cost.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Requirement has been updated to reflect VLAN in the Range Control Network Switch section.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

21 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Multi-Purpose Pneumatic Target Operating System

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

At paragraph 3.3.3.1.2 the SOW states, “The contractor shall deliver and install the same Pneumatic Target Operating System as the Pistol Pneumatic Target System IAW paragraph 3.4.1.1.2 of the SOW and 3.4.20.2 of the specification.” These two reference paragraphs do not exist. Please correct references.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 31 PARAGRAPH: 3.3.3.1.2 Multi-Purpose Pneumatic Target Operating System

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Section 3.3.3.2 of SOW

Section 3.3.2 of Spec

SOW has been updated.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

2/15/2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Manual Moving Target System

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Does the target holder need to lock in the down position? Currently gravity keeps the target holder in the down position.

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER: 2 PARAGRAPH: (j) PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

It must be stable and not wobble or have other stability issues in the down position, including during movement, loading, and unloading.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

18 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: RFP M67854-13-R-7803 Proposal Format

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The Statement of Work For Range Training Systems II (RTS-II), at page 64 states: “The contractor shall provide the NET training package to the Government for review thirty (30) days following contract award.”

While CDRL F003 state that “Initial Document Outline is due 15 days prior to TRR, 2nd submission is due 15 days prior to GFI and the final submission is due during GFI.

Please correct this ambiguity.

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER:64 PARAGRAPH: 5.2.4.3 New Equipment Training (NET) PAGE NUMBER: CDRL F003 PARAGRAPH: Block 12

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The contractor shall provide the NET training package to the Government for review in accordance with the CDRL timeline.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: Feb 14, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Requirement for O&M Manual

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Section L Para F Proposal Format requires “example of your O&M Manual” in Volume II. An O&M manual page count can be 40 to 80 pages.

Could the Government clarify that the O&M manual example is not part of the page count?

REFERENCE: RTS II RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 172-174 PARAGRAPH: E PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The O&M manual is not considered part of the proposal page count and should be included as an attachment.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

18 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: RFP M67854-13-R-7803 Proposal Format

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Page 174, Paragraph E.6.(d) VOLUME I – Technical 4.2.1. states: “Provide a draft Safety Assessment of 2 systems, the Stationary Infantry Target (SIT RF, Battery Powered, Solar Panel) and Dust Generator. Address your approach to fulfill related safety requirements.”

and Page 172, Paragraph D. COPY AND PAGE LIMITATIONS restricts the Volume I – Technical to 100 pages.

Are the draft SAR’s excluded from the Technical Volume page count? Vendors that choose to submit a quality, substantially complete SAR’s would be penalizing their selves by allocating too many pages to this effort.

REFERENCE:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The SAR is not considered part of the proposal page count and should be included as an attachment.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

2/15/2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Pistol Pneumatic Target System

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

For the RF range, do the targets require their own power source (battery) or will they be hardwired to a junction box?

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER: N/A PARAGRAPH: N/A PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

They would be shore-powered.

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER:45 PREPARED BY: DATE:

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

17FEB13

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Pistol Pneumatic Target System: SOW and Specifications (SPEC) (ATS)

SPECIFIC QUESTION: The detail in SOW 3.3.3.2.1 gives the impression that you would like the controls to be both hardwired and wireless capable.

Whereas the detail in SPEC 3.3.2.1 (e) seems as though you would designate before hand on a range by range basis whether or not it would be exclusively wireless OR hardwired….not both on the same range. The SPEC 3.3.2.1 makes more sense. Which is it?

Allow me to explain the system. The control system has two main components: #1 is the receiver unit; it has the power supply and interface connections for each individual target actuator. #2 is the transmitter or control box. (the thing the operator uses to send commands to the receiver unit and ultimately to each target) The transmitter or control box can be a laptop computer or a handheld programmable wireless device or a manual switch type control box. In all cases we need to hardwire each actuator to the receiver unit, then the control system can be a hardwired or wireless computer station, and/or a wireless handheld control or a hardwired or wireless switch box (per SPEC 3.3. 2.1 (c) and (d)). So a wireless range would have #1 a wireless receiver unit #2 a wireless laptop computer station and/or a handheld wireless fully programmable control capable of running the same programs as the laptop, but in the hands of the range master down on the range (not specified here, but available and recommended!) and/or a wireless box with 25 individual switches to operate the targets. (all our wireless systems have a minimum150 meter range) per SPEC 3.3.2 (d) the wireless receiver will be located at the target line, therefore 120 VAC outlet needs to be installed/available at that location.

A hardwired range would have #1 a hardwired receiver unit #2 a hardwired laptop to the receiver unit and a hardwired 25 position switchbox. (to run all 25 pairs of signal lines, the hardwired system will need at least 3” conduit from the target line back and into the control tower.)

Next, SPEC 3.3.2.1 (e) states that you want a minimum range of 100 meters. First, a 25 position toggle switch box will not be very “portable”, especially if hardwired while trying to drag a 100 meter long cable around, is that what you want, a 100 meter 25+ conductor cable? Second, then (g) says the hand held control box will be typically in the range booth……so should we assume a large 100 meter cable or a short cable for use in the control booth?

SOW 3.3.3.2.1 says “both automatic and manual control systems shall be designed to receive hard-wired or wireless data communication depending on if the Range has existing conduit to utilize a hard wired connection”. Then SOW 3.3.3.2.4(i) states “The Pneumatic operating system shall tie into existing infrastructure including existing power and pneumatic lines”. This seems to imply that we will ONLY use existing conduits for power/signal and pneumatic lines…is that true? Therefore we should not be expected to trench/supply or install any new underground conduits. True?

Consequently if the conduits are not adequate we will go to a wireless system then?

In the event that the conduits are undersized for the signal lines, will it be allowed to then pull a 120VAC line thru the conduit to provide power at the target line for the wireless receiver unit if an outlet is not already there?

(comment….the wireless system will be less expensive overall (due to the lack of cables/wires, conduit) and most convenient, as the range master/operator can use the handheld units anywhere up to 150 meters without any cables to deal with.)

Next, SOW 3.3.3.2.4 (d) I don’t understand this statement…..should it be “may” instead of “shall”? Does this refer to moving an existing 120 VAC outlet up to 6 feet from where it is now? Or???

Next, SOW 3.3.3.2.4 (a) If needed……………The contractor shall install the target system on the pre-cast equipment pads…..

Then (f) says, The Pistol Pneumatic Target shall be bolted down to existing concrete firing line….(shouldn’t this say “target line” not “firing line”?) Also, should I assume that all the ranges will have an adequate existing concrete TARGET LINE so I don’t need to use pre-cast pads????

If a range does not have an adequate pad (either poor/cracked condition or wrong size) who is responsible to provide an “adequate pad”?

Are the pre-cast pads assumed for the new items, such as a control booth pad or compressor shed pad, not necessarily for targets themselves?? Should I assume we can or cannot pour new concrete for sheds/buildings?

Next, SPEC 3.3.2.2 (c) Is it adequate for the compressor system to be located behind the firing line to deem it protected from direct weapons fire damage……or do you want ballistic (expensive) protection besides that?

SPEC 3.3.2.2 (a) what do you mean by sound dampening? A structure in itself is sound dampening, or do you want some type of additional insulation/foam pads inside?? If so, what dB reduction are you seeking specifically? How will it be tested/accepted?

Any sound dampening schemes will be hampered by the fact that the structure needs to be ventilated against heat….you’ll need to be much more specific here if you want something other than the typical compressor enclosure/shed.

Will you require full engineering (wind, snow, seismic) studies/specifications for the compressor shed? Is the base/customer responsible to supply the power circuits needed? That would entail the base to bring in the power needed (120 VAC and/or 220 VAC) to compressor and control system locations. Will they furnish the connections needed, such as outlets, cut-off switches, service panels so we can plug-in our equipment. If not, at what point are we responsible for power. Please be very specific.

What power is available at offshore locations, such as Okinawa?

SOW 3.3.3.2.2 ….air compressor with dryer package, a pressure gauge, regulator, filter, an air cooled after cooler, desiccant dryer assembly…..by stating “dryer package” do you want more than what’s detailed? Do you want a refrigerated electric dryer with the compressor plus all the rest as listed, or is the dryer package implied as the listed air cooled after cooler and desiccant dryer assembly?

REFERENCE: SOW and SPEC

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Propose your solution. The requirements are identified in the SOW and SPEC.

No trenching will be required under this contract. If conduit is available this will be utilized otherwise, RF communication will be required.

Design CLINs are individually priced.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

2/15/2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Pistol Pneumatic Target System

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

We need clarification on the statement “corrosion resistant conduit up to six (6) feet”. Why not all the way to the control enclosure?

REFERENCE:

PAGE NUMBER: 2 PARAGRAPH: (d) PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The power supply will be provided within 6 feet of the intended location of the pneumatic targets. The contractor is required to provide the conduit and wiring to connect the power supply to the targets. The contractor shall install electrical wire in corrosion resistant conduit up the existing power source. The existing power source will be within six (6) feet of the target line.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

Feb. 15, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Performance specification: 3.1.1.1.1 “RCS Controlled Equipment”

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 (m) states: “All Explosive Effect Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Simulators shall be controllable by a RCS.”

Is this in reference to paragraph 3.2.5 “Explosive Effect Simulators” or to paragraph 3.2.7 “Roadside Improvised Explosive Devices Effects Simulator” or to both? There is no requirement listed in either of these two paragraphs for interfacing with the RCS.

REFERENCE:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Explosive Effects Simulators shall be controlled by the RCS. The Roadside Improvised Explosive Devices Effects Simulators are not required to be controlled by the RCS.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

19 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: RCS Interface with Omega 36/B2

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Omega stated that they will not offer the Omega 36/B2 product line and the RTS RFP does not have this product listed in the Schedule B. Is it an oversight in the System Specification paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 RCS- Controlled Equipment to list the Omega 36/B2? Recommend the Omega 36/B2 be removed.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 System Specifications For Range Training Systems (RTS-II)

PAGE NUMBER: 5 PARAGRAPH: paragraph 3.1.1.1.1 RCS-Controlled Equipment

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

It is not an oversight. We have many Omega 36 systems in the Marine Corps inventory that will be used in conjunction with RTS-II equipment.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: SES

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Shall be compliant with RFC 2326 for Real-Time Streaming Protocol for streaming audio

Is it the Government’s intent in reference to real-time streaming protocol, to have the availability to allow time triggerable events? This would allow sound files to be delivered on a real-time basis.

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Yes, time triggerable events, as well as operator announcements.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: SES

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Shall be compliant with RFC 2326 for Real-Time Streaming Protocol for streaming audio

Is it the Government’s intent in reference to real-time streaming protocol, to allow the source of the data to be a stored audio sound/file?

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The real-time streaming protocol is from the RCS to the SES. This would allow RCS-stored audio/sound files to be played, as well as live announcements.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Sound Effects System (SES)

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

d. Shall have RCS controls that include a mixer that has at least four (4) concurrent audio channels

Is it the Governments intent for the above statement to apply to all SES configurations? We recommend the Government consider applying this requirement only to Integrated shore power SES.

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 20 PARAGRAPH:3.3.2.1 (d) Sound Effects System (SES)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

One channel per speaker streaming from the RCS. So 4 channels per integrated SES, 1 channel per portable RCS.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: SES Portable 1/8” Connector

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

III. Shall play Ethernet network connector input, for network-based streaming.

The above statement should be removed as a sub task of the 1/8” connector input, as the RJ45 connector that enables the user to play sounds through Ethernet cannot be plugged into a 1/8” connector.

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 22 PARAGRAPH:3.3.2.1.2(b.iii.1.III) SES-Portable,Shore/Battery Power

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Yes, (III) should be iv.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE: 20 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: SES Portable single-man transportation

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

e. Shall include a backpack for single-man transportation.

The above statement should be reworded to “shall be a single-man transportation/lift.”, due to not all portable SES will be able to fit in a backpack, but are considered single-man lift/transportation.

REFERENCE: M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

PAGE NUMBER: 22 PARAGRAPH:3.3.2.1.2(e) SES-Portable,Shore/Battery Power

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

a. Shall be single-man transportable with carrying equipment (i.e, attached handle, backpack, etc.).

FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY: CONTROL NUMBER:54 PREPARED BY: DATE:

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

19 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Master Target Switch Clarification

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

At paragraph 3.3.1.9.1 sub section N the SOW states, “Shall have a DIN rail mountable power supply to convert 110 to 250 VAC to 10 to 30 VDC”. Various types of power supplies run from main power directly to Media converter, opening the SOW to permit various mounting methods would reduce the cost of compliance without negatively impacting system performance.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Propose your solution.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

Feb. 15, 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT:

Performance specification: 3.3.1.4.6 Provide spare rail segment for MIT

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Paragraph 3.3.1.4 states that “The contractor shall deliver and install spare ten (10) feet track sections to increase the track length of the MIT track IAW the DO. “

Please clarify the requirement. Is the intent that a DO for a 200 foot long MIT should be delivered and installed with 210 feet of rail which includes the spare 10 feet of track? Or should 200 feet of track be installed and a 10 feet segment be delivered only complete with all footers, hardware, railing, etc., per the specification, to form a complete and usable ten (10) feet section of track if needed to repair the installed track?

Would the Government consider changing the requirement to delete the word install to make it clear that the spare segment is delivered but not installed.

REFERENCE:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

200 feet of track comes with the MIT CLINs. The additional track spare CLIN will be used to increase the track length and also installed at that time of installation. For example, when a 300 ft track is required, 1 MIT would be ordered with 10 Spare track CLINs.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

21 February 2013

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: SRR Scheduling

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

At paragraph 3.4.2.1 the SOW states, “Upon the award of each DO, the contractor shall conduct the following conferences and reviews:

a. The contractor shall hold an In-Process Review (IPR) IAW 3.4.2.2.2. The IPR shall be held within 14 calendar days of DO Award.”

At paragraph 3.4.2.2.2 the SOW states, “The contractor shall conduct an IPR for each DO in conjunction with the SRR.”

In conducting an SRR at paragraph 3.4.2.3.2.1c. the SOW states, “ . . . Delivery and acceptance (as applicable) of all the CDRL items scheduled to be delivered prior to SRR including, but not limited to draft submissions of: . . . “

Many of the CDRL’s listed at paragraph 3.4.2.3.2.1c. have a due date 20 working days prior to the IPR/SRR. The requirement for conducting an IPR/SRR 14 calendar days after DO Award equates to numerous CDRL’s being due prior to Delivery Order Award.

Adjustments are required for proper scheduling of events.

REFERENCE:

M67854-13-R-7803 SOW

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

CDRLS DELIVERY SCHEDULE HAS BEEN UPDATED.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

17 Feb 13

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Environmentally-friendly 3D Steel Armor Targets (EFSAT)

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Can intergraded sling lifting locations be used instead of Lifting Rings? Drilling specific holes through the plates will allow for the lifting of the targets or elements of the target by helicopter slings.

Designing the 3D EFSAT with specific “sling holes” through the steel plate would eliminate the extra cost of lifting rings.

REFERENCE: Attachment 2 Performance Specifications

PAGE NUMBER: 41 PARAGRAPH: 3.3.5 (f) PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Sling lift holes are a permissible substitute for lifting rings.

SOLICITATION QUESTION/RESPONSE FORM

DATE:

17 Feb 13

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Environmentally-friendly 3D Steel Armor Targets (EFSAT)

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Is it the government’s intent to have the 3D EFSATs delivered in multiple pieces and assembled at destination without welded angle iron supports or are the 3D EFSATs to arrive completely assembled with welded angle iron and ready for use at the final destination?

The T-72, BRDM and BMP 3D EFSATs will weigh close to 10,000 pounds. If the government’s intent is to assemble and disassemble the 3D EFSATs on site, then heavy equipment such as forklifts or cranes w/slings will be required to move each piece of the 3D EFSATs.

REFERENCE: Attachment 2 Performance Specifications

PAGE NUMBER: 41 PARAGRAPH: 3.3.5 (d) PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

(a) The 3D Steel Target shall have interlocking sections that can be quickly assembled into the three-dimensional target, and disassembled for shipping and storage without the use of any special tools. The contractor shall deliver the EFSAT to the installation fully assembled.

3D EFSATS must be assembled prior to delivery, unless the Marine Corps specifically requests otherwise. The Marine Corps does not require that they can be disassembled after final assembly.