ACV_1_1_RFP_QA_Round_2.pdf

Question

No.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

17 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L.11, Proposal

Content and Volumes Pages 98-99

Comment: The Final RFP requires substantiating data to support assertions made against various SPS requirements, along with a variety of specified Models, Analyses, and supporting data, to enable the Government to assess an

Offeror's ability to meet stated requirements. To enable the

Government to adequately assess an Offeror's claims, it may be necessary to submit extensive data. Currently, however, Volumes 4 (Classified Annexes) and 5 (Unclassified Annexes) are limited to 100 and 200 pages respectively. The proposed page count limits for these two volumes may not allow for sufficient justification to adequately assess performance claims.

Request: Will the Government consider increasing the page counts for these two volumes? Perhaps to 200 pages for

Volume 4 Classified Annexes and 400 pages for Volume 5

Unclassified Annexes?

No, the Government will not increase the page count of Volumes 4 and 5. However, the

Offeror may provide pertinent sections of test and analysis reports instead of complete reports to efficiently use the allocated number of pages.

22 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L22.2, Original

Equipment Manufacturer

Comment: Section L22.2, which applies to RFP Sections A – M

(Volume 9), states, "If the Offeror is not the baseline vehicle

OEM, then the Offeror shall respond to this subparagraph in an Annex."

Request: Will the Government please clarify the proposal volume in which the requested information should appear?

The offeror shall provide the baseline vehicle

OEM information in Volume 9 not in the

Annex. This will be corrected in an upcoming

Amendment.

Section L, Attachment 1 - ACV 1.1 Solicitation - Questions/Answers Log

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

28 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L11, Proposal

Content and Volumes

Comment: Section L11 states "Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier sub paragraphs."

Request: Is it the Government's intent that Offerors include the entire Section L paragraph number in its proposal paragraph numbers/letters? For example, is the following numbering consistent with the Government's intent?

3.L.16 Technical Proposal

3.A.L16.1 Water Operations

3.B.L16.2 Land Operations

3.C.L16.3 Carry & Payload

3.D.L16.4 Protect

This statement will be removed in an upcoming Amendment.

29 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L10.1, Proposal

Format

Comment: Section L10.1 Proposal Format, states “Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font and shall contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph to the same accuracy that a 10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid provides.”

Request: Please describe the referenced grid. What is meant by “10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid? Is it the Government's intent that all graphs include horizontal and vertical axes lines spaced 0.05 inches apart?

This statement will be removed in an upcoming Amendment.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

30 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A L10.1, Proposal Format Page 97

Comment: Section L10.1 states "All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers"; however, it is possible that a single page in the proposal could contain multiple sections or sub-sections, potentially resulting in multiple page numbers on a single page.

Request: Is it permissible to number the proposal pages with

Volume and page numbers instead of section and page numbers?

Yes, its permissible to number the proposal pages with Volume and page numbers. An upcoming amendment will reflect the revised language.

31 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L, Part A, General

Instructions

Comment: Section L, Part A of the Final RFP requires Offerors to "...submit documentation indicating its facility has been granted a SECRET FCL"; however, it does not specify where in the proposal it would like this information included.

Request: Please specify where in the proposal Offeror should submit evidence of its SECRET FCL.

The Offeror shall submit the evidence (DD254) in Volume 9. An upcoming amendment will include this revision.

34 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L.5 Page 94

Comment: Section L.5 provides information on 5 companies

(CACI, Davis Defense Group, Nevada Automotive Test Center

(NATC), SEI, and URS) which may be used by the Government during the Source Selection process and directs Offerors to initiate execution of NDAs with these companies. Section L.5, however, only provides contact information for 3 of the companies (CACI, Davis Defense Group and the Nevada

Automotive Test Center (NATC)).

Request: Is it the Government's intent that Offerors initiate

NDAs with only the 3 companies for whom contact information is provided? Or shall NDAs be initiated for all 5 companies listed in Section L.5?

References to SEI, Davis Defense Group and

URS will be removed in an upcoming amendment.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

40 Section F - Deliveries or Performance N/A Section F. CLIN 1002 38 of 127

Section F indicates for CLIN 1002 option may be exercised within 14 months after contract award. EMD Test Support per section F states a period of performance of 14 months after option exercise. Offeror suggests a CLIN period of performance of 26 months after option exercise in order to facilitate the purchase of long lead items for EMD testing.

The Government will not extend the POP for

CLIN 1002. CLIN 1008 will begin prior to CLIN

1002 ending (SOW pg 11).

41 Section F - Deliveries or Performance N/A Section F. CLIN 1003 38 of 127

Section F of the RFP states period of performance ends 12 months after option exercise. However, the Corrective

Action Period (CAP) schedule per the EMD test schedule is 15 months in duration. In addition, we require 3 months for ordering parts and supplies to conduct CAP. Offeror suggests a period of performance of this CLIN of 1 April 2017

– 31 October 2018.

The Government assumes this question refers to CLINs 1003 and 2002AA. CLIN 1003 includes all CAP prior to MS C. CLIN 2002AA includes all

CAP post MS C (SOW pg 11).

45 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L.11 97/98 of 127

L.11 states "Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal

Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier sub paragraphs."

In Q&A response to DRFP #2 issued on 25 Feb 2015 (Q#170), the government indicated the text quoted above would be removed.

Offeror suggests that the quoted text be removed from L.11.

See response for Q28.

47 Section J - Attachment 1 N/A N/A N/A

Will the government provide the latest approved Capability

Development Document (CDD) for Amphibious Combat

Vehicle as GFI for review and deeper understanding of RFP requirements?

The Government has appropriately decomposed the CDD in the ACV peformance specification and will not release the CDD.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

48 Section J - Attachment 1 N/A N/A

Operational

Context 1.1

Summary

Is government considering the attached USN corpsman as integral to unit integrity of a USMC rifle squad bringing the rifle squad total to 14 for keeping unit integrity?

No, the Navy corpsman is not integral to the unit integrity of the current 13 man rifle squad.

However, as reflected in the loads at Appendix

A of Attachment 02, a Navy corpsman can be attached to the rifle squad as a reinforcement.

Though attachment of a Navy corpsman to a rifle squad is very common, it is dependent upon the mission and unit task organization.

49 Section J - Attachment 2 N/A Doors ID# 908 and 4442 110-111

Would the government consider providing the rationale associated with the carry requirements range to permit optimization of vehicle size, amphibious ship embarkation constraints, ACV support of company landing team (CLT) employment, operational impacts, and vehicle cost/performance trades?

As described at pages 8 through 10 of

Attachment 12, 2 ACVs provide transport for a reinforced rifle squad, and an ACV platoon of

21 vehicles will carry a reinforced rife company. The personnel embarkation range is intended to maximize potential lift aboard 21

ACVs to provide as much flexibility as possible to the rifle company commander when task organizing subordinate elements and attachments across the full range of potential military operations. In short, the more seats and stowage space available aboard the ACV, the greater the operational flexibility the rifle company commander has in adjusting to various missions.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

50 Section J - Attachment 2 N/A Doors ID# 908 and 4442 110-111

With respect to the personnel embarkation range 10(T) to

13(O), is it to reduce the number of ACVs to lift/support a company landing team (CLT) of 210 thereby reducing amphibious shipping embarkation space claim or is it to increase the number of Marines lifted beyond 210?

Per the Performance Specification, the the embarkation range of 10 (T) to 13 (O) supports

Marine Corps employment concepts.

51 Section L - Instructions to Offerors

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE

52.215-20, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or

Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Oct

2010) - Alternate IV is included by reference but it requires a fill-in describing the data and format required. It states: "As prescribed in 15.408(l), replace the text of the basic provision with the following: (a) Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required. (b) Provide information described below: [Insert description of the data and the format that are required, including the access to records necessary to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed price in accordance with 15.403-3.]" What is the fill-in data?

Section L, FAR 52.215-20, Alt IV has been filled in with "See Section L of the RFP"

52 Section J - Attachment 2 ID 1188, Paragraph 3.9.7.1

(U) Highway

In the Section 3 column, it states, "(U) the ACV at GVW shall be transportable in accordance with MIL-STD-1366 by Marine

Corps Lowboy trailer on US and NATO highways." And the

Verification Criteria states, "(U) Testing shall be conducted to verify compliance with the Section 3 requirement using TOP

1-2-501." Is this correct? TOP 1-2-501 applies to rail car crash tests.

No, the correct TOP is 1-2-500.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

53 Section J - Attachment 22

The ACV Integrated Program Plan shows that the IOT&E will occur during the 1st quarter of 2020. The Program Plan does not indicate when the vehicles are schedueld to be returned for reset or what time frame is acceptable for making the reset repairs. In additon, no time frame is listed for the delivery of the 21 reset vehicles. Can the Program Plan be revised to include this information?

The Government intends to satisfy IOC requirements using LRIP Lot 2 Vehicles. The

LRIP Lot 1 reset requirement is governed by

CLIN 2004. The CLIN 2004 PoP will be updated from 26 to 11 months.

58 Section J - Attachment 2 NA Doors ID# 1176 138

Given that the SSC is not yet described in MIL-STD-1366E, what weight and dimension parameters should ACV developers use to meet this requirement?

For cargo weight, the ACV developer should use an SSC cargo weight planning factor of 74 short tons. In other words, two ACVs at GVW together should not exceed 148,000 lbs. For purposes of this solicitation, the ACV developer should use the cargo deck dimensions of the

LCAC. Though the SSC cargo deck will overall be slightly narrower, the inboard tie down rails are spaced the same as the LCAC to accommodate loading M1A1 Tank or two ACVs along the center line of the craft. The forward and aft loading ramps of the SSC will have similar angles as those presented for the LCAC at Figure 24 of MIL-STD 1366E.

59 Section L - Instructions to Offerors NA L.11 99

Regarding the classified annex, is it still the government's desire to receive one (1) original hard copy and six (6) electronic copies on compact disk?

No, regarding the classified annex, the government now desires to receive one (1) original hard copy, 4 additional hard copies, and (2) electronic copies on compact disk.

65 Section J - Attachment 1 N/A N/A N/A

To better inform the offeror's Product Support bid, will the

USMC please provide the ACV Life Cycle Support plan?

No. All information necessary to propose is in the Solicitation.

70 Section B - CLINs N/A CLIN 6005 29

Please confirm that CLIN 6005 is to be included in Total

Evaluated Price. If evaluated separately, what is the evaluation criteria?

CLIN 6005 is included in the Total Evaluated

Price.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

71 Section B - CLINs N/A CLIN 6005 29

What level of rights must be offered with the CLIN 6005

Price? The Government's expectation is that the

Offeror shall provide the appropriate level of rights in accordance with the DFARS clauses

252.227 identified in section I of the RFP.

73 Section M - Evaluation Factors N/A M.6.6 127

Will the USMC clarify how the four emphasis areas will be evaluated if determined that additional costs are warranted?

For higher priced proposals that fall within the premium limit, the Government will consider the relationship between performance in the emphasis areas and the additional cost.

74 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L.22, RFP Sections A

– M (Volume 9)

Comment: Section L.22 requires the Offeror to complete the

Technical Data Package (TDP) Pricing Sheet, Enclosure 2 to

Attachment 17 and submit with its proposal. Additionally, Offerors are required to include the total price for TDP in

Section B, CLIN 6005.

Request: Please confirm that CLIN 6005 is for a copy of the

TDP, as defined in Attachment 17, consistent with standard

FAR clauses (and that CLIN 6005 is not requesting non-standard rights in intellectual property).

Request: If CLIN 6005 is requiring Offerors to propose pricing for non-standard or additional rights in the TDP, will the

Government consider deferring such a request until after the

EMD phase, when the TDP can be identified with greater certainty?

The Government is not requesting non-standard rights in intellectual property. The

Government's expectation is that the Offeror shall provide the appropriate level of rights in accordance with the DFARS clauses 252.227 identified in section I of the RFP.

No, the Government will not defer this request until after the EMD phase.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

75 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L.22, RFP Sections A

– M (Volume 9)

Comment: Section L.22 requires the Offeror to complete the

Technical Data Package (TDP) Pricing Sheet, Enclosure 2 to

Attachment 17 and submit with its proposal. Additionally, Offerors are required to include the total price for TDP in

Section B, CLIN 6005.

Request: Please confirm that Offerors’ proposed CLIN 6005 prices will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price

(“TEP”), as identified in M.5.2.4.

Request: If Offerors’ proposed CLIN 6005 prices are currently intended to be included in the Total Evaluated Price, as identified in M.5.2.4, will the Government consider deferring such a request until after the EMD phase, when the TDP can be identified with greater certainty?

CLIN 6005 is included in the Total Evaluated

Price.

No, the Government will not defer this request until after the EMD phase.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

78 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A L.22 RFP Sections A – M

(Volume 9)

Comment: Section L.22 requires the Offeror to complete the entire Technical Data Package (TDP) Pricing Sheet, Enclosure

2 to Attachment 17 and submit with the proposal.

Additionally, Offerors are required to include the total price for TDP in Section B, CLIN 6005. Some of the information required in the TDP, however, is also provided and priced under other CLINs. For example, CLINs 4002, 5002 and 6002 require development and delivery of Logistics Information

(such as that required by CDRL A128) identical to that required under the CLIN 6005 TDP. Including costs for development and delivery of information in multiple CLINs would result in these costs appearing twice in an offeror's proposal.

Request: Please clarify how CLIN 6005 should be priced. One option would be to include only costs for items that are not already reflected in other CLINs. Alternatively, the NTE for

6005 could be all-inclusive and repeat costs that are reflected in other CLINs. A third alternative would be for CLIN 6005 to be all-inclusive, and to remove costs for identical information from other CLINs in which they appear.

TDP CDRLs that are delivered as part of other

CLINs should be priced appropiately to that

CLIN. Relative to CLIN 6005 the price should include all costs to update the CDRL to the final delivery and the associated data rights.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

80 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L21.1 Pages 105 and

Comment: Section L21.1 Cost/Price Proposal, General

Information Page 105 indicates: “The information required in these cost/price instructions applies to both the Offeror, to any Major Subcontractors, to any Joint Venture …..” while

Page 107, “Cost Accounting System,” states, “If an accounting system has not been determined to be adequate by DCMA or

DCAA, the Offeror shall coordinate with the PCO to obtain an accounting system review prior to submitting a proposal”

Request: If our strategic partner’s accounting system is certified by the Ministry of Defense in their home Country, do we still need DCMA or DCAA review of that system prior to proposal submission? If not, will that accounting system require an audit at any point or will the home country certification be sufficient for the life of the program?

For the CPFF CLINs, the Government will need to perform an accounting system survey for the major subcontractor’s located in foreign countries. The points of contact for all countries are listed on the DCAA website. The subcontractor should complete a Preaward

Accounting System Adequacy

Checklist (SF-1408) and attach the completed checklist to the proposal. The checklist can be found on the DCAA website:

http://www.dcaa.mil/preaward_accounting_sy stem_adequacy_checklist.html.

81 Section J - Attachment 17 N/A Section 3.2.2, UNITS OF

MEASURE, CDRL A021

Various

Comment: Attachment 17, Section 3.2.2, Units of Measure, states "The TDP shall use the International System of Units

(SI) as the basic unit of measure in accordance with the FED-

STD-376, Preferred Metric Units for General Use by the

Federal Government and IEEE/ASTM SI 10-2010, IEEE/ASTM

American National Standard for Metric Practice." However, CDRL A021, Block 16 indicates "WEIGHT PER UNIT OF

MEASURE (ENGLISH/AMERICAN UNITS)." Additionally, much of our existing data uses English measurements.

Request: Please confirm is it the Government's intent to have the contractor\ convert all existing design definition data into metric measurements, per Attachment 17, Section 3.2.2.

No, it is not the Government's intent to have the Contractor convert all existing design definition data into metric measurements.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

82 Section J - Attachment 10 N/A Section 10.2 N/A

Comment: Attachment 10.2, GFP reports listed 16 sets of

GFE, with no value listed.

Request: Will the Government please provide value of GFP for Government Property Accounting?

No. The cost column for Attachment 10.2 will not contain any value until contract award.

These values will be populated when GFP is delivered and are used in conjunction with other data fields to determine levels of monitoring and disposal. The government procurement and replacement costs of GFP may be significantly different than the vendors acquisition costs.

The Government has provided National Stock

Numbers (NSNs) for the majority of the GFP components in Attachment 10.2. The NSNs can be used to search in WebFlis (Federal

Logistics Information System) for the unit cost.

83 Section J - Attachment 10 N/A Section 10.2 N/A

Comment: Attachment 10.2, GFP reports listed 16 sets of

GFE; it would be beneficial to obtain a golden set of GFE for

GFE integration and test.

Request: Will the Govt provide an additional set of GFE at mfg and test and integration site within CONUS?

The Government will not provide an additional set of GFE.

84 Section J - Attachment 10 N/A Section 10.2 N/A

Comment: Attachment 10.2. GFP listed both M2 50 Cal MG and 40mm AGL.

Request: Will the Government provide ammunition for both of these weapons for functional integration and test verification?

The Government will not provide ammunition to the Contractor as the Contractor is not required to fire Government supplied weapons prior to delivery of their vehicles to the

Government.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

85 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A Section L.18, Unclassified

Annexes (Volume 5)

Pages 102 to

Comment: The TRCM provided with the RFP implies that the

Unclassified Annexes (Volume 5) are to include substantiating data for Energy requirements addressed in

Volume 6 (SPS IDs 577 and 578), but there is no section within L.18 that requests this data.

Request: Consider adding Section L18.5 for the substantiating data related to L.19 Energy (Volume 6) requirements SPS DOORS ID 577 and 578.

The Government will update Section L to allow the Contractors to submit data to support the

Energy factor in the Unclassified Annex.

87 Section J - Attachment 11 N/A Figure 1, EMD Test Schedule N/A

Comment: Figure 1, EMD Test Schedule, shows OA Training and OA occurring in months 9-12 of test at Camp Pendleton and 29 Palms. However, the figure also shows activity labeled

"GDT/OT" taking place in months 20 and 21 at 29 Palms and in months 24-26 at Ft Greely Alaska.

Request: Please clarify if the activity labeled "GDT/OT" in months 20 and 21 and 24-26 are also Operational Tests which the contractor must support in accordance with SOW

Paragraph 3.5.1.6.7.2? If not, should the Contractor assume this activity is Government Developmental Testing and therefore requires support in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.5.2.2.1?

The activities labeled "GDT/OT" taking place in months 20 and 21 at 29 Palms and in months

24-26 at Ft Greely Alaska are combined

Developmental & Operational test events.

Contractor support should be in accordance with SOW paragraphs 3.5.1.3.1, 3.5.1.6, and

3.5.2.2.1.

89 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A

Section L, Attachment 2, Technical Requirements

Compliance Matrix

N/A

Comment: The TRCM provided with the RFP shows blank cells under Volume 4 (Classified Annex) for SPS IDs 855 and

862, implying classified substantiation is required for these two requirements. Neither of these requirements, however, appear in the Classified Annex.

Request: Is it the Government's intent that Offerors update the TRCM with “N/A” for SPS IDs 855 and 862? Or alternatively, are these Spec IDs intended to be part of the

Classified Annex?

The Government's intent is that any supporting data for SPS IDs 855 and 862 be included in the classified annex. The Government will modify

L18.4 from Section L.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

90 Section J - Attachment 1 A091, A093, A094, A095 3.6.4.2 Provisioning N/A

Comment: CDRL A091, Block 12 indicates 1st submittal of

Provisioning/LMI data in LRIP is 90 days after LRIP Option;

however CDRL A093 Product Support Plan and A094 Parts

Management Plan are not submitted until 120 days after exercise of LRIP Option 2, which would be much later.

Additionally, CDRL A095, EDFP, is not delivered until 300 days after LRIP Option, which does not align with

Provisioning conferences or LMI data deliveries.

Request: Please clarify submission requirements for

Provisioning Planning CDRLs A093 and A094, EDFP CDRL

A095 , and provisioning data in LRIP and FRP CDRL A091.

Comply with the requirements of all the CDRLs independent of each other.

91 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A

L18.3.1, Models Required to

Support Payload, Embarked

Marines Emphasis Area

Comment: RFP Section L18.3.1, Models Required to Support

Payload, Embarked Marines Emphasis Area, requires the

Offeror to "...provide PRO-E compatible 3D CAD models of the proposed interior layout noting key features and functions of equipment"; however, such models typically do not include annotations to satisfy the Section L requirement to note " ... key features and functions of equipment."

Request: Is it permissible to include the information required by Section L18.3.1 using a combination of PRO-E compatible

3D CAD models and an accompanying powerpoint presentation?

Yes, it is permissible to include the information required by Section L18.3.1 using a combination of PRO-E compatable 3D CAD models and accompanying pictures that are annotated. The accompanying pictures will not count towards the maximum page count.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

92 Section E - Inspection & Acceptance N/A INSPECTION/ACCEPTANCE Pages 32 and 33

Comment: The EMD Vehicle CLINs (0002 & 0005) "Accept at" is "DT/OT Test Sites Various - Destination" and "Accept By" is

"Government". The associated NOTE 1 indicates that interim acceptance shall be conducted at the Contractor's facility and be approved by the Government (non Live Fire) and a DD250 shall be completed with an exercised option to proceed into

LRIP or in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.8 if not.

Request: While the contractor assumes responsibility for repair and maintenance support of the non-GFP portion of the EMD vehicles during testing, please confirm the

Government accepts overall responsibility for the EMD test vehicles prior to the start of vehicle testing in the event of the loss of a vehicle during testing?

If a vehicle is lost during Government testing the Government may assume responsibility depending on the outcome of the root cause of the loss. If the vehicle is lost prior to delivery to the first Government test site and prior to the completion of the LTI at the first Government test site then the Contractor is responsible.

95 Section J - Attachment 11 A099 Table 5 Page F-3

Comment: Table 5 in Attachment 11 indicates Training is to begin 120 days prior to start of TTP activity. CDRL A099 says to deliver curriculum 60 days prior to start of GDT, which is

30 to 60 days later than the Table 5 date.

Request: Please clarify when Training will begin and when associated CDRLs should be delivered.

Training materials should be delivered in accordance with the CDRLs. Per figure 1 - EMD

Test Schedule the Government considers months 3, 4 and 5 training periods for TTP.

96 Section J - Attachment 17 A118, A129 N/A N/A

Comment: We understand that a TDP cost is requested on

CDRLs A118 and A129. It was noted that each DD Form 1423 was followed by a "TDP Option Selection Worksheet" that references CDRL A005 (Block D).

Request for Clarification: Are the worksheets for CDRL A005 to be used for A118 and A129? or will there be a separate worksheet specific to A118 and A129?

The TDP OSWs in the CDRL package are incorrect. The Government will reissue the

CDRL package with the correct OSWs for the required CDRLs.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

97 CDRLs A058, A059 N/A N/A

CDRL A058 and A059 were issued in the Final RFP package and a "TDP Option Selection Worksheet" followed each

Form 1423. This worksheet is directly related to CLIN 6005

(Block C) and CDRL A005 (Block D). Please confirm that the contractor is not required to develop CDRL A058 and A059 using these worksheets.

The TDP OSWs in the CDRL package are incorrect. The Government will reissue the

CDRL package with the correct OSWs for the required CDRLs.

98 Section J - Attachment 2 N/A 3.4.4.3 N/A

P-Spec 3.4.4.3 states "(U) The ACV VC in all clothing conditions shall have full operational control separate from the Gunner of the weapon system from a single closed hatch position.". However, Attachment_10.3.02-RWS_ICD-

CROWS_-03_ASSY60201886-03 displays only 1 controller.

Could the Government please clarify.

The Government intends to integrate updated

RWS hardware that provides both VC and

Gunner control at a future date. SPS IDs 9715 and 4460 are specific to this future effort and will be unmet during the EMD phase of the program. The Government does not intend for the Offeror to supplement or modify the GFE to meet SPS IDs 9715 and 4460.

99 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A L21.1 N/A

Section L 21.1 states "Numerical data presented in MS Office format must not be pictorial (i.e. pasted as a picture out of a

MS Excel file), and files received in a format other than requested are unacceptable. ". Could the Government please confirm that embedded excel files are acceptable.

The intent would be to mimic the same process used for the

TDP pricing sheet found in Section J, Attachment 17, Enclosure 2 .

Embedded excel files are acceptable provided it follows the same process used for the TDP pricing sheet found in Section J, Attachment

17, Enclosure 2.

100 Section B - CLINs N/A N/A N/A

Comment: Section B, CLIN 0004 states that "CDRLs are not separately priced (NSP)". However, CLIN 6005 - Technical

Data Package has a corresponding pricing document found in

Section J - Attachment 17, Enclosure 2 titled "Technical

Data Package Pricing Sheet."

Request for Clarification: To remain compliant to Section

L.22 para 4, is it acceptable to list a specific cost or "Not separately Priced (NSP)" or zero dollars on Enclosure 2 depending on the cost & pricing approach chosen by the contractor?

Attachment 17 requires pricing to be completed. The costs associated with

Attachment 17 are to deliver the applicable data rights and to deliver the information in a format that is usable to the Government. It is acceptable to list a specific cost. If the

Offeror's approach is to provide a zero dollar on enclosure 2 that is acceptable. The Offeror shall not use NSP on Enclosure 2.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

101 Section F - Deliveries or Performance N/A N/A N/A

Comment: In numerous instances, the option award is stated as "within xx months after contract award" (CLIN 1001-1007) or "within 13 months after Milestone C approval" (CLIN 3001-

3003).

Request for Clarification: The use of "within" suggests the

USD can order to options at any point in time within the interval and does not relate to Attachment 22 - ACV

Integrated Program Schedule. Please confirm that the option exercise months are in fact CLIN start dates (based on compare to Attachment 22).

Contract Milestone Schedule previously provided via AMRDEC SAFE on 16 April is available upon request and provides information for the Government's current plan of execution. Use of "within" is intended to allow program flexibility for option exercise.

102 Section F - Deliveries or Performance N/A N/A N/A

Section F, CLIN 0001 period of performance ends Sept 2017.

Where does contractor direct typical Program Management, Contracts, Configuration Management efforts between end of CLIN 0001 and Start of CLIN 2003AB (or CLIN 1006 non selectee).

For system level Systems Engineering/Program

Management (SE/PM) the Government would like to draw the Offeror's attention to CLINs

1001 and 2002AB.

103 Section J - Attachment 17 N/A N/A N/A

Attachment 17 Enclosure 2: Requests pricing for 25 CDRLs under CLIN 6005, however the SOW to CLIN crosswalk only maps 5 CDRLs to CLIN 6005. Please clarify.

The Government will add the rest of the TDP

CDRLs to the Map so the CLIN crosswalk will match Enclosure 2 of Attachment 17.

104 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A L.22.3 N/A

L.22.3 Not-to-Exceed for Full Rate Production: The requested pricing will be submitted in Volume 8 and also Volume 9 with the CLIN fill ins. What information is the Government seeking to be included under L.22.3?

The Offeror should only provide NTE values in volumes 8 & 9. No further information is requested at this time.

105 Section L - Instructions to Offerors N/A L.22.4 N/A

L.22.4: Not-to-Exceed Vehicles Production at Down-Select:

Understand that the Government will provide a more refined

FRP requirement prior to exercising the LRIP option. What other information is the Government looking for the contractor to include in its proposal with regard to this section?

Nothing more for the initial award. Insight into the Government's plan is provided for informational purposes and impacts to the

Offeror's business plan.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

107 Section C - SOW N/A 3.4.8 N/A

Comment: The reset definition for CLIN 2004, Reset per

SOW 3.4.8 is "Code "A" Serviceable (Issuable without

Qualification) per DOD 4000.25-2-M" is a follows: Code A

SERVICEABLE (ISSUABLE WITHOUT QUALIFICATION) New, used, repaired, or reconditioned materiel which is serviceable and issuable to all customers without limitation or restriction. Includes materiel with more than 6 months shelf-life remaining.

The SOW 3.4.8 also includes an Acceptance Test sequence as detailed in SOW 3.4.7.5.

Request for Clarification: Where can Contractors find additional directions that address the USG definition of

"used, repaired or reconditioned material". See below examples:

-Are tires with 66% remaining tread acceptable?

-Does an engine/transmission assembly require performance certification such as a dynamometer check or is a 500 hour

Service check sufficient?

-The LRIP1 IOT&E vehicles will be approximately 9 months old when they become available for reset. In regards to Code

A description "Includes material with more than 6 months shelf-life remaining", please confirm that used, repaired or reconditioned

Clearer directions are required so that final DD250 inspection at contractors facility and DD250 acceptance at end

IAW DoD 4000.25-2-M, Condition Code A definition is determined based upon the

Offerors specific design solution.

108 Section C - SOW N/A 3.5.1.7 66

The SOW 3.5.1.7 (2nd paragraph) clearly identifies that contractor is to conduct training per Section J, Attachment

11, Figures 1 & 2. This is in conflict with information in

Section J, Attachment # 11, Table 5 (row 3) calling for 30

Government personnel for 55 days at the Contractor's

Facility, 60 days before start of Testing. Please confirm that training per Attachment #11, Table 5 (row 3) is not required.

Attachment #11, Table 5 is the correct training event activities. Table 5 (row 3) of attachment

#11 is the training required for government test operators.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

109 Section C - SOW N/A 3.3.31.5 N/A

Please confirm that the phrase "newly developed and modified components" refers only to components that are developed or modified after the ACV 1.1 EMD contract award?

Yes, the phrase "newly developed and modified components" refers only to components that are developed or modified after the ACV 1.1 EMD contract award.

110 Section C - SOW N/A 3.3.32.2.2 N/A

What new CDRL/DID shall the Contractor use for the delivery of the individual FACAR reports as stated in SOW 3.3.32.2.2 to the Government. The required response times stated by this SOW paragraph are not satisfied by the Failure Summary and Analysis Report, CDRL A077).

The intent of the FACAR CDRL is to identify the proposed corrective actions that will be implmented in each of the three Corrective

Action Periods (CAP).

The intent of SOW paragraph 3.3.32.2.2

"Response Time" was to identify a required timeline to respond to the Government and provide the failure analysis and corrective action via the Contractor’s FRACAS data system not a formal CDRL.

111 Section J - Attachment 2 N/A

3.8.1.1.1, 3.8.1.1.2, 3.8.1.1.3, 3.8.1.1.4, 3.8.1.2.3, 3.8.1.2.4, 3.8.1.3.1, 3.8.1.3.2

N/A

Within the System Performance Specifications, the verification criteria for MTBOMF requirements (ID 1025, 1026), the MTBF requirements (ID 4423, 4424), the

MTBMEFF requirements (ID 8808, 8809) and the Operational

Availability requirements (ID 8601, 8602) all refer to testing

"over a 3,700 hour RQT period".

Please clarify what type of hours are intended -

a) Is this 3,700 hours of "mission time" (as used in MTBOMF and MTBF metrics) per the definitions of paragraph 1.4.7.43 and the FD/SC;

b) or 3,700 hours of "mission profile time" (as used in

MTBMEFF and Ao metrics) per the definitions of paragraph

1.4.7.42 and the FD/SC; or

d) or 3,700 hours of "Mission Operating Time (MopT)" as defined on page 20 of the FD/SC.

Clarification is required.

It is 3,700 hours of "mission time" (as used in

MTBOMF and MTBF metrics) per the definitions of paragraph 1.4.7.43 and the

FD/SC.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

112 Section J - Attachment 10 N/A Att. 10.1 cell F5 (M153 Reliability) N/A

The reliability of the M153 RWS is listed as 3,331 Mean

Rounds Between Failures.

Background: If the four mission scenarios are averaged together to yield a conversion factor of 15.8 rounds per mission hours (0.5 x 1675 0.50 cal rounds plus 0.5 x 405

40mm rounds over 66 mission hours) then the average MTBF of the RWS would be 211 mission hours.

If the MRBF of 3,331 rounds includes the weapons and is converted at 15.8 rounds per mission hour, the MTBF of the

GFE would appear to be 114 mission hours, which is:

a) below the objective MTBF of 122 hours for the complete

ACV vehicle;

b) almost 37% of the threshold MTBF of 42 hours; and

c) 50% of the DT reliability goal of 55 hours.

Request for Clarification: Please confirm that the reliability of the M153 RWS, given as 3,331 Mean Rounds Between

Failures, includes the reliability of the weapons. Please confirm that the reliability of the M153 RWS is equivalent to an MTBF of 211 mission hours (or provide an alternate conversion rate).

The reliability of 3,331 mean rounds between failure for the M153 RWS includes both the M2 and MK19 weapons.

The Government considers the conversion from 3,331 MRBF to 211 MTBF acceptable.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

113 Section J - Attachment 10 Att. 10.1

Regarding Section J, Attachment 10.1 GFP Supplemental

Information.

Comment: GFP maintainability metrics for the individual items are not listed.

Request for Clarification: Please provide the MTTR, MTTRMEFF and MR values for the GFE (assuming that access for maintenance is not restricted by integration of the GFE into the vehicle). Alternatively, please provide the following assumptions for each item of GFE - average fault isolation time to identify a failed LRU; average test checkout time to confirm that the equipment is functioning properly after an

LRU replacement; frequency and typical duration of any GFE preventive maintenance tasks that are performed by field-level maintainers.

The Government's maintainenance strategy is remove and replace. The MTTR, MTTRMEFF and MR values for GFE are dependent on the

Contractor's vehicle design and integration.

114 Section J - Attachment 10 Att. 10.1

Regarding Section J, Attachment 10.1 GFP Supplemental

Information.

Comment: GFP mission reliability metrics for the individual items are not listed. No reliability metrics are listed for the

CREW counter IED system listed at P-Spec paragraph 3.6.3.1.

Request for Clarification: Please provide the MTBOMF values for the GFE, or an estimated percentage of GFE failures that are mission critical. Alternatively, please provide a breakdown of the GFE equipment-level failure rates to a lower (LRU) level that is suitable for modeling the loss of mission-critical functions and the implementation of redundancy within the GFE equipment. Please provide MTBF and MTBOMF values for the CREW system, or confirm that it is excluded from vehicle R&M requirements.

The Government has provided the FD/SC which will allow the Offerors to determine which GFP is mission critial and the OMS/MP which will allow the Offerors to determine the appropriate duty cycles.

The Offeror is only responsible to include reliability of GFP items for which the

Government has provided MTBF.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

115 Section J - Attachment 9

Section J, Att#9: Both the FD/SC (at pg 6) and the OMS/MP

(at pg. 5) indicate that pre-operation checks and post-operation checks are included in mission time. However, the

FD/SC also indicates that some form of pre-operational and post-operational PMCS checks are conducted during Reset time (e.g., FD/SC page 22 - "Maintenance Time - Reset" definition).

Do the checks during Reset Time count against the P-Spec time limits? If so, please define how the times for the

Mission Time checks and the Reset Time checks are combined.

No, only the mission time pre and post operational checks will count against the P-

Spec requirements.

116 Section J - Attachment 9

If an MEFF failure occurs during the post-operational check at the end of a 16- or 18-hour mission scenario, will it be counted as an OMF?

Yes, it will be an OMF. The pre and post operational checks are part of mission time.

117 Section J - Attachment 9

If a failure of a mission essential function occurs during a mission scenario but does not prevent completion of the mission scenario(e.g., failure of a swim propulsion component during a scenario that does not include swim operations) will it be counted as an OMF, an MEFF or neither?

If a failure of a mission essential function occurs during a mission scenario but does not prevent completion of the mission scenario the failure will be charged as an OMF.

118 Section J - Attachment 9

Does the decision to designate an MEFF as an OMF depend on whether or not the vehicle is actually returned to a fully-operational condition within the 6- or 8-hour reset period following its occurrence?

The decision to charge the system with a MEFF or an OMF depends on whether or not you are in mission time (e.g. 66 hours out of the 96 hours) or reset time (e.g. 30 hours out of the

96 hours). If a mission essential function failure occurs during mission time it is an OMF; if it occurs during the reset time it is a MEFF.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

119 Section C - SOW N/A 3.6 N/A

ACV SOW 3.6 Logistics contains the following "During EMD the focus will (be) on Operator/Operator Maintenance support activities, during LRIP the focus will be on all Field

Level activities, and Depot will become the focus during FRP"

Comment: SOW 3.6.8.1 Depot Level Technical Information, defines and details the comprehensive list of Depot Products required for a CDRL A128 delivery date per Block 12: 90 calendar days after LRIP Option. This would be in conflict with the overarching direction of SOW 3.6. for Depot logistics products.

Request for Clarification: Should initial CDRL A128 delivery be changed to 90 calendar days after FRP1?

No. The inclusion of the focus language was included in the SOW to provide priortization and guidance for the development and delivery of Logistic Products. It is NOT a definitive seperation of activites for contract performance. The CDRL delivery is specifically scheduled to support Acquisition activities for pricing of Depot Level support.

Section J - Attachment 10

N/A N/A N/A

Attachment 10 does not include values for each GFP item.

Please provide the GFP values.

No. The cost column for Attachment 10.2 will not contain any value until contract award.

These values will be populated when GFP is delivered and are used in conjunction with other data fields to determine levels of monitoring and disposal. The government procurement and replacement costs of GFP may be significantly different than the vendors acquisition costs.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

122 Section B and Section H Section B CLINs 2001 - 2004, 3001 - 3003 and Section H-2

9-19 and 44 of

Section H-2 states that "Offerors shall be afforded the opportunity to re-price the LRIP and FRP options when responding to the solicitation for down-select."

Section B, FRP CLINs 4001 - 4004, 5001 - 5003 and 6001 -

6004 include the following statement: "This CLIN shall be priced as an NTE. Contractors will be allowed to adjust the price from the proposed NTE at downselect."

Section L does not appear to specifically address repricing

LRIP CLINs.

Will the Government please confirm that the offeror will be provided the opportunity to reprice all the LRIP CLINS prior to

LRIP exercise and that the above statements will be added to

LRIP CLINs 2001-2004 and CLINs 3001 - 3003 to correspond to repricing instruction in Section H-2?

The Government confirms that the offeror will be provided the opportunity to reprice all the

LRIP CLINS prior to LRIP exercise to reflect fact of life and design changes realized through

EMD (See H-2 of the Solicitation).

123 Attachment 10.1 and 10.2

Can the Government provide CREO-compatible 3D CAD models of the all GFP equipment, including internal and external components of the specified RWS.

For the RWS, see answer to Q54. For all other

GFP, the Government will accept basic space claim models for the GFP created by the

Offeror using the provided ICDs. Basic space claim models are models that accurately depict the overall shape and size of an object but omit detailed information such as control knobs, control switches, and mounting tabs.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Section L - L22.1 117

Reference:

The Offeror shall provide a DD Form 1921, Cost Data

Summary Report to align with the proposed CWBS elements identified in Attachment 6. Separate DD Form 1921 cost summaries shall be provided as follows:

1) EMD (CLINs 0001-0005)

2) EMD during PD (CLINs 1001-1008)

3) LRIP Lot 1 (CLINs 2001-2004)

4) LRIP Lot 2 (CLINs 3001-3003)

The Offeror shall provide a DD Form 1921-1, Functional Cost-

Hour Report for each CWBS element.

Question:

In Pre-RFP discussions, the use of the Flat File format instead of the DD Form 1921 and the DD Form 1921-1 to meet the

CSDR reporting requirement was considered as an acceptable alternate format to the DD Form 1921 & 1921-1. Please confirm that the use of the FLat File format to meet the CSDR requirements will still be acceptable.

Use of the flat file is acceptable to satisfy all requirements

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders Section L - L22.1 117

Reference:

The Offeror shall provide a DD Form 1921, Cost Data

Summary Report to align with the proposed CWBS elements identified in Attachment 6. Separate DD Form 1921 cost summaries shall be provided as follows:

1) EMD (CLINs 0001-0005)

2) EMD during PD (CLINs 1001-1008)

3) LRIP Lot 1 (CLINs 2001-2004)

4) LRIP Lot 2 (CLINs 3001-3003)

The Offeror shall provide a DD Form 1921-1, Functional Cost-

Hour Report for each CWBS element.

Question:

In Pre-RFP discussions, CSDR reporting requirements were to be provided at the Government provided Program WBS

(PWBS) structure that maps directly to the Defense Cost and

Resource Center (DCARC) approved ACV 1.1 Program CSDR

Plan in Section J, Attachment 6. Please confirm whether the

CSDR reporting for this proposal should be at the government provided PWBS structure, or the offeror developed Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS).

The Government provided a WBS dictionary at the PWBS level. Offerors are expected to expand upon that dictionary below the PWBS in the CWBS.

126 Section J - Attachment 11

Figure 2: LRIP Test Schedule

Table 4: LRIP Vehicle

Transportation

RFP indicates LRIP Lot 1 is 4 FUSL and 26 Production, total of

30 vehicles.

The Test Schedule (Att 11) indicates test activities for 25 LRIP

Lot 1 vehicles, which appears to be 4 FUSL and 21 Production vehicles.

It appears that there is are production vehicles unaccounted for. Is there contractor scope for these vehicles; e.g., transportation to multiple destinations, refurbishment, training, fielding for IOC, etc.? Please clarify.

All 30 vehicles are accounted for in Section F under CLIN 2001AA and CLIN 2001AB. Five of the 30 vehicles will remain at the Offerors facility for other efforts described in the SOW.

One (1) vehicle will be used for the Physical

Configuration Audit. One (1) vehicle will be used for the vehicle First Article Test. Three (3) vehicles will be ready reserve vehicles. All Lot 1 vehicles delivered to the government after

IOT&E shall be of the same configuration.

Document

Type

CDRL No

(if applicable)

Section No. Page No. Question Government Response

127 Section J - Attachment 5

Program Event ACV05;

Significant Accomplishmnet

RFP indicates LRIP Lot 1 is 4 FUSL and 26 Production, total of

30 vehicles.

The IMP indicates activities for a total of 26 LRIP Lot 1 vehicles, 4 FUSL and 22 Production.

It appears that there are production vehicles unaccounted for. Is there contractor scope for these vehicles; e.g., transportation to multiple destinations, refurbishment, training, fielding for IOC, etc.? Please clarify.

Reference Question 126 for additional information: Section J, Attachment 5 will be updated to reflect a production quantity of 30 vehicles as accounted for in Section F under

CLIN 2001AA and CLIN 2001AB.

132 N/A N/A N/A

Will the Government assist an offeror on obtaining

Government test reports or other substantiating data to support its proposal.

No, it is the Offeror's responsibility to obtain and provide the substantiating data as required in the Solicitation.

Section M - Evaluation Factors

N/A…