USG Industry Feedback Responses Section C-CDRLs.pdf

Document PARA or Line Question or suggestion to GOV. Gov Response/Change implemented SOW C.3.2.9 Consider expanding the personnel numbers to better support this effort. SOW updated to allow for maximum 20 personnel onsite at YPG at any given time.

SOW C.5

Vendor requests associated timelines for all desired CDRLs in order to better assess their respective achievability in the projected timeline of this program.

Recommend vendors refer to CDRL attachments for each Data Item and timeline.

SOW C.5

In addition, corresponding DIDs would better assist vendor in determining scope and timing requirements for this effort.

Recommend vendors refer to CDRL attachments for each Data Item and timeline.

SOW C.5

Vendor looks forward to providing additional feedback regarding CDRLs, including any data required for submission, delivery timelines, and submission mechanism(s) once CDRL documentation including an Attachment 001 (as referenced in the Draft SOW) is provided for review. Recommend vendors refer to CDRL Attachment.

Overall Overall Provided a G2G contract list. No comment SOW C.3.2.9 (not specifically stated but provided a list over and beyond SCOPE personnel qty) SOW updated to allow for maximum 20 personnel onsite at YPG at any given time.

SOW C.3.2.8.3 More details requested on purpose and use of ported tube Removed requirement to provide a ported tube CDRL A001 A001 - Recommend 90 days CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL A005 A005 Recommend 90 days CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL A007 A007 no due date listed, suggest 60-90 days; CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL A010 A010 recommend 45-60 days CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL A013 A013 45-60days; A21 90 days CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL A022 A022 no date, recommend update post testing; CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL A023 A023 no date, recommend earlier; CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL A027 A027 no date but request optional CDRL. CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

Overall Overall Provide more information regarding Interior Ballistics, Cannon Pressure Cook-Off, and Projectile-Rammer Compatibility See updated Attachment 0006 Definitions

SOW C.3.2.9

Individually, the delivery timelines of the 30 CDRLs are achievable. However, given the volume of CDRLs due within 90 days of contract award, we suggest extending some of the due dates an additional 30-60 days after contract award to allow adequate time for submission.

Vendor requires additional time to provide an updated suggested timeline for CDRL deliveries.

We apologize if this represents any hardships as we understand the urgency of this requirement. CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

Overall Overall Please advise if a draft of the remaining sections will be released prior to the RPP (for example, Section B, Section L and Section M)? If yes, please advise timing? Drafts were released in December 2024.

SOW

Section 3.2.8.1 and Section 3.2.8.2

According to the Draft SOW, Section 3.2.8.1 and Section 3.2.8.2 indicate that the contractor shall bear the costs for shipping and providing the test article (SPHS system), System Support Package (SSP) and support parts available for the evaluation. What other costs, if any, will the contractor be responsible for during this phase?

Vendor is responsible for all personnel, tools, spares, hardware, ammunitnion, and anything else required to support the test assumptions.

Overall Overall Please advise on the contract type and if there will be a funding limit on the contract to support the 9-month effort. If yes, what is the anticipated limit? Draft sections L and M released December 2024. Contract type and Affordability cap are included.

Overall Overall Will there be a requirement for North Americanization of the vehicle? Not for this RFP Overall Overall Will there be a FAR requirement (i.e., Buy American Act)? Buy American Act does not apply to this RFP Overall Overall What is the intended contract mechanism (FAR or non-FAR based?) This action is FAR based.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

Section 2.1, Test Phase 1

Should Authorized Stockage List (ASL) be Additional Authorized List (AAL)? ASL is spare parts and are unlikely to be stored on platform.

Authorized Stockage List is correct. USG will defer to vendor determination on the appropriate system support package to maintain system operational capability for the duration of the test event.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

Section 2.1, Test Phase 2

Is it limited purely to the fire control aspect of the system or the automotive aspects as well? If it is both, 3 days will likely not be sufficient.

This is not operator training, it is to familiarize YTC personnel on how the vehicle is operated for their safety assessment and data collection

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

Section 2.1, Test Phase 2

What type of ammunition with the USG be providing for this portion of the test event (projectiles, charges, fuses, primers)? The USG will not be providing any ammunition for this test event.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 1.3

Will the USG be providing counterfire radar systems or UAV sensing systems to be used during firing vignettes? Test Center will supply all instrumentation.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 2.1.1.1 Will the USG provide the RSV, or will it be contractor provided?

The requirement in section 2.1.1.1 of the Test Support Assumptions for an RSV system subject matter expert and system operators has been removed.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 2.4.5

There are 15 days allotted for this test. Does that include the time it takes to get the chamber to temperature? Enviromental Chamber testing will no longer be conducted

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 2.5.1.3 Who is providing the hourly meteorological data, how often and in what format?

YTC will provide the weather data hourly or daily as needed based on test requirements. YTC will validate ballistic firing solutions.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 2.5.4

Is there an expected miles and hours of operation for this test? 20 days allotted - does this include scheduled maintenance?

The actual miles/rounds will be provided in the final RFP-Test Assumptions attachment. During RAM testing, maintenance will be conducted according to the technical manual for each vehicle. There will be time for maintenance both before and after the test in this paragraph.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 2.5.5.2.1

Assumption is that the disassembly would take place with the weapon installed on the vehicle, but accessible to the test site personnel. Is that an accurate statement?

The Cannon parts would be removed and inspected according to the technical manual for each system. The inspections will be in a separate area from the maintenance bays.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 2.8.1.5.2.1

This scenario requires a second vehicle and a tow bar. Will the USG be providing the necessary equipment to support? A dedicated towing test will not be conducted. This test was removed from the test assumptions attachment.

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

OPSEC #

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Section 2.9.2.1.2.1

What will the safety release include? Driving and dry run fire missions? This will likely require more than the 5 training days allotted for this effort.

The Safety Release will allow Soldiers to be present in the vehicle while it is operational (not firing), to observe actions.

Limited use of the fire control is desired, e.g. dry cycle ramming and viewing FC screens. Limited driving may also be requested (TBD)

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Overall Will the USG be providing the firing tables? When will they be provided?

Firing tables are to be provided by each vendor for each ammunition combination. For all firing tests, YTC ballistic firing solutions will be used.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Overall

Will there be time allotted for a Contractor Shakedown prior to initiation of the formal test event?

Time will be allowed for an initial inspection, fixing any issues stemming from transport. A typical contractor shakedown test is not part of the test plan.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions Overall Will the USG be providing instrumentation for testing, or will it be contractor provided? All instrumentation will be US provided.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

Section 2.1, Test Phase 5 The Test Firing duration could be a concern if weather conditions are uncooperative. Test center will adjust schedule based on weather conditions

SOW C.3.2.8.1 Would this be applicable if two howitzer platforms are chosen from same vendor? Affordability cap is applicable to each system selected for award.

SOW C.3.2.8.1

Would the USG consider utilizing any Government-to-Government / Military-to-Military shipping methods to expedite deliveries? All shipping will be the responsibility of individual vendors.

SOW C.3.2.8.3

Yes, but this request will take additional time from contract signing to procure long lead item and machine to US specifications. Removed requirement to provide a ported tube

SOW C.4

Does this apply to US munitions if the USG wants to check compatibility or would previous test data (if made available by user nation) suffice?

No government furnished property including ammunition will be provided as part of the Competitive Evaluation contract.

The OEM's must make arrangements to provide any ammunition they intend to use.

CDRL

A012

Health Hazard Assessment Report (HHAR) is to be conducted by Defense Center for Public Health – Aberdeen (DCPH- A), formerly Army Public Health Center, upon request from program offices.

-Reframe CDRL to request required inputs to the HHAR from contractors such as:

Blast Overpressure – If available, provide blast overpressure test data collected IAW the guidance in TIP 88- 001-0411, ITOP 04-2-822, and TOP 04- 2-831 Impulse Noise – If available, provide impulse noise test data collected IAW MIL-STD-1474D, TOP 01-2-608A, and ITOP 04-2-822 Steady State Noise - If available, provide steady-state noise data collected IAW MIL-STD-1474E and TOP 01-2- 608A Musculoskeletal Trauma - provide system description, including the weights and dimensions of all items over 31 lbs. that will be lifted and a detailed use scenario. CDRL language [paragraph 4.b.(3)] was updated and due date evaluated.

CDRL

A015

Cyber Survivability Attributes Assessment Report (CSAAR) with CSAs tailored to the capability need of the system and its Cyber Survivability Risk Category

-Specify Cyber Resiliency techniques and approaches appropriate for the CSAs and reference specific standards (i.e., DoDI 8510.01).

This will enable vendor to map achievable controls to the provided CSAs.

The USG will not be providing appropriate approaches to achieve the CSAs. This is not a developmental effort. The objective is to understand what approaches have already been used. The USG is looking for an assessment of the current system where they are provided a description of which CSAs are met and which are not.

Refer to the CSA Developmental Threshold table under Section 10.0 of the CSEIG. Map the appropriate capability needs, techniques, and approaches to specific CSAs. If there is uncertainty if a CSA is met, note it anyway and be as detailed as possible so that the USG can determine if it is or not.

CDRL A004

Verification that the Product Level TDP consists of elements necessary to provide the design, engineering, manufacturing, inspection, packaging and quality assurance provisions necessary to enable the procurement or manufacture of an item.”

-Change “Provide all applicable standards and specifications in which the TDP is derived” to “Provide a list of applicable standards and specifications in which the TDP is derived”

- Under contract, [vendor] would support a thorough Production Readiness Review to achieve this task.

CDRL A004 subparagraph b. updated as follows, "The Contractor shall provide a list of all commercially available standards and specifications in which the TDP is derived as well as a list and copy of all other unique standards and specifications.

(e.g. Internationally accepted standards/specification, Government standards/specifications, Industry standards, for hardware, cables, schematics, and software.)"

CDRL A013

Section 5, “A conclusions and recommendations section” is not consistent with AD184-295 Guide for the Development of Safety Assessment report. It is instead consistent with the needs of a Toxicity Review Board, which would be supported further in the acquisition process.

-Remove Section 5 of CDRL A012. Specify AD184-295 to guide the SAR development. The USG does not agree with this proposed change. While helpful, AD184-295 is outdated (1987).

CDRL A025/A026/A027

Remove or reduce scope

-Complete release of extensive test data, failure reports and full TDP would be supported further in the acquisition process. The information and data requested is needed to completely assess non-US munitions for safety, reliability and producibility.

SOW C.6

The vendor understands the USG’s desire to begin in October 2025, but importing platform(s) and munitions into the US is a lengthy process that historically taken on average of 12 months from the time a contract was signed. Industry is not going to initiate shipping of goods until under contract, so the availability date for platforms and munitions will be predicated on when contracts are awarded and if any assistance is provided to reduce some of the “red tape” required to import explosive materials into the US. Vendor is responsible for meeting all contractual requirements.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

If there are specific portions / test objectives the USG is willing to accept historical test data on (even if done by user nation standards), please inform the vendors, so that they may provide specific test data once under contract Vendors may submit any test data they deem relevant to fully respond as part of their proposal.

Attachment B - Ported Tube Interface Control Document (ICD) The vendor does not produce the tubes . Removed requirement to provide a ported tube

Attachment B - Ported Tube Interface Control Document (ICD)

Foreign Nation and US standards for ported cannon tubes are different and machining it to US specs could add additional time of up to 2 months for 13–14 months from the time of contract award. Tubes are a long lead item. Removed requirement to provide a ported tube

Attachment C - MATCE Input Datasheet Tracked Vehicles Releasable with Contract No Comment

Attachment D - MATCE Input Datasheet Wheeled Vehicles Releasable with Contract No Comment

Attachment E - Cyber Survivability Endorsement Releasable with Contract No comment

Attachment F - PM SPHS Round by Round Template No issues supporting during evaluation No comment

Overall

System testing across environmental conditions specified Army Regulation 70-

The vendor requests more guidance/clarification specified environmental conditions.

Vendor has user nations that operate in Arctic and desert conditions, but in general most testing data would be releasable with contract. Vendors may submit any test data they deem relevant to fully respond as part of their proposal.

Overall What the estimated value of the contract award could be for the system evaluation (per howitzer platform) for each vendor. Draft Sections L and M were released in December 2024, affordability cap was included.

Overall

What are the requirements or specified characteristics of need for the Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC) are in order to adjust design or conduct a proper claim-space analysis prior to the evaluation. No specific requirements or characteristics will be provided as part of the Competitive Evaluation.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

What is the estimated number and type of projectiles, propellants, and fuzes that would be required to import in order to execute the live-fire portions of the SPH Modernization Evaluation. Refer to the updated Test Support Assumptions attachment.

Overall What is important to the government in making a selection for the competitive evaluation? These factors can be found in Section L. Draft of Section L was released in December 2024.

Overall What is important to the government in making a follow-on selection for limited production? This RFP only covers the Evaluation testing.

Overall What is the addressable capability gap and projected quantities the government expects? This RFP only covers the Evaluation testing.

Overall What is the target Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC/AUMP)? This RFP only covers the Evaluation testing. AUMC/AUMP for potential production award is TBD

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

By comparing this test schedule to similar test schedules, we believe the schedule could be cut by approximately 50% by reducing phases 3 (Phys Char - 5 days), 4 (NF testing - 15 days), 6 (US Ammo - 2 days), 8 (Mob/Trans - 12 days), and phase 7 by ~2/3rd (Ammo Qual - 30 days). To mitigate or substantiate these reductions we would provide the XXX 2021 ONS shoot off report, the Performance Demonstration Report, and vendor internal testing reports. This would allow the testing to focus on what has changed since the shoot off, Perf Demo, or what needs to be supplemented from those tests. By focusing on the supplemental testing this should allow for an even larger reduction which we would determine as we go through the details with you. We also believe that the environmental tests could be deferred to a later date/phase (further 20-day or ~10% reduction). To mitigate or substantiate this reduction we could provide fielded performance data from [various] Armies. These recommendations would allow Competitive Evaluation to concentrate on characterizing system fire control, range, and vehicle mobility. This would get this back into a typical 3-4 month test window for systems in production

The test support assumptions have been revised and the updates will be released as part of the final RFP release. Vendors may submit any desired test data to support their proposal.

SOW C.4.1

The draft documents state, “The USG will not provide any GFE in support of this Evaluation.”

Ammunition, in particular precision ammunition, have significant costs and lead times associated with them.

Will the government be providing any ammunition? What is the government’s total ammunition requirements for this Evaluation? The government would likely have an easier ability to acquire precision ammunition (Excalibur) than industry and at a lower cost.

No Government Furnished Property including ammunition will be provided as part of the Competitive Evaluation contract. The OEM's must make arrangements to provide any ammunition they intend to use. Reference the Test Support Attachment for ammunition requirements.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

2.5.5.2.1

RAM/OMSMP

“The testing will we be based on a USG PdM SPH-M determined operational mode summary and mission profile.”

When will the OMSMP be provided? The OMS/MP is still under development.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions RAM / OMSMP

“The SPH and RSV will undergo limited RAM testing which includes firing and mobility operations.”

How many miles and rounds fired are to be expected during RAM testing? The OMS/MP is still under development. Reference the Test Support Attachment for ammunition requirements.

SOW C.3.2.3

“The contractor shall deliver a Failure Analysis Report (FAR) for every Major or System Abort test incident during the evaluation as defined in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allied Dependability Management Publication-03, Edition A, Version 1,May 2022. The contractor shall deliver the FAR in accordance with CDRL A024. The FAR will assist in understanding each incident’s cause of events (e.g. inherent to the items design or induced by external influences).

Discussions between the USG and contractor’s Subject Matter Expert (SME) may be required to ensure full technical understanding of the FAR.”

Will a Reliability Score part of this assessment? Is it anticipated that scoring and assessment conferences will be conducted? Yes, scoring conferences will occur.

CDRL

A001 Reliability Report

“7. Describe how System Reliability Data, such as Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF), Mean Miles Between Failure (MMBF), Mean Round Between Failure (MRBF)) and Maintainability data (Maintenance Ratio (MR)/Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) from conducted tests is determined. Provide current Reliability Data estimates.”

Will Performance Specification (PSPEC) requirements for these metrics be provided?

No, a Performance Specification (PSPEC) will not be provided by the US Government for this RFP.

CDRL

A025 Ammunition Safety and Reliability Report

“k. Provide past test results of the ammunition component combination reliability independent of the weapon system reliability. The contractor shall identify the standard and verification method that was used to conduct testing.”

We interpret this to mean contractor supplied munitions only. Correct

SOW

C.3.2.8.1 Full Combat Load

Make available and bear cost of shipping one system and equipment for a full combat load.

Define full combat load. Does this include communication equipment (if so what radio), full stowage, MREs, etcetera. Or can ballast be used for items that are non-operational/onboard maintenance stowage items?

Communication equipment is not included in the Combat Load. Full stowage is required, however items that are not used during testing can be swapped with ballast, as long as the physical characteristics (weight, CG) are the same as the production system.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

1.2 Test Objectives

2.4.6 SPH Operation

on Longitudinal Grades and Side Slopes

2.8.1.4 Longitudinal

Grades and Side Slopes

Test Phase 4 has grades and side slope testing for 1 day, but then Test Phase 8 has grades and side slope testing for 3 days. Why are these performance criteria being tested twice and for different durations?

Suggest that the Test Phase 4 grades and side slope testing is redundant and can be eliminated. Phase 4 is for weapons systems functionality on slopes, and phase 8 is for automotive testing.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

1.2 Test Objectives

2.8 Phase 8 –

Mobility / Transportability Testing

Test Phase 8 for Mobility does not include any max absorbed power over various RMS courses. Is this on purpose or an oversight?

Confirm the omission of a typical mobility ride quality performance test was on purpose. This was deemed not necessary for this evaluation

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

1.2 Test Objectives

2.8 Phase 8 –

Mobility / Transportability Testing

Test Phase 8 for Mobility does not include any braking tests, e.g., stopping distance, brake fade, hill hold, ability to brake while towing a like vehicle, etc.

Confirm the omission of typical mobility braking performance tests was on purpose. This was deemed not necessary for this evaluation. We will conduct braking on slopes (hill hold) per the ITOP.

CDRL A021

Clarification Needed: This section talks about Chemical Biological Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN), High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Initial Nuclear Weapon Effects (INWE) in the initial paragraph, but when it goes into further details on what to include as part of this effort, it only talks about CBRN (Contamination/Decontamination) and HEMP.

Confirm this effort does not require this platform to meet the Initial Nuclear Weapon Effects (INWE) requirements of Nuclear Air Blast, Nuclear Thermal and Initial Nuclear Radiation (Gamma Dose Rate, Total Gamma Dose and Neutron Fluence)..

The intent of this report is to characterize the offered systems current NBC capabilities. The CDRL language has been updated to reflect this intent.

SOW C.3.2.2

The USG will provide test ranges, and common USG consumable items such as fuel and nitrogen.

Suggest change to - The USG will provide test ranges, and common USG consumable items such as fuel, oil, coolant, and nitrogen as specified by the contractor. The USG has added CDRL A031 to ask vendors what consummables they would require.

SOW C.3.2.7

The contractor shall support Test Readiness Reviews (TRR) prior to the beginning of test.

Where will the TRRs be held, at Contractor Site or YPG? The contractor shall support each TRR and have requisite personnel attend the meeting remotely via teleconference

SOW C.3.2.8.2

The contractor shall make available and bear cost of shipping for quantity one system support package (Tools, Line Replaceable Spares Units, and spare parts) to be used to maintain the Self-Propelled Howitzer System and resupply system during test.

Confirm USG will cover the cost of procuring the SSP as it’s not called out under Vendor Supplied Equipment in Attachment A 1.3 Materials for Testing Vendor Supplied Equipment nor stated in C.3.2.8.2?

Vendor is responsible for all personnel, tools, spares, hardware, ammunitnion, and anything else required to support the test assumptions.

SOW C.3.2.14

The contractor shall allow access to the system of systems for USG evaluation of fire control integration, space claims, and operation for the duration of the period of performance at YTC.

Clarify what access means in this context.

The purpose of this section is to state that the USG must be allowed to access the vehicle during the demonstration to assess the topics listed. This is included to prevent an offeror from restricting access to the contractor-owned vehicle. The intent is to be able to see the physical space, take low-fidelity measurements (tape measure), to be able to observe how the contractor crews operate the vehicle, and to conduct a limited inspection of the electronics. For the fire control integration, expect the USG to assess cabling, routing, computer types, modularity, etc.

SOW

Between C.5.8 & C.5.9

No SOW statement for CDRL A009 Technical Manuals.

Recommend addition SOW statement for CDRL A009 Technical Manuals. CDRL A009 is referenced in paragraph C.3.2.11.

SOW C.7.5

This training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of contract award and within 30 calendar days of new employees commencing performance with the results reported to the COR NLT 60 calendar days after contract award. (CDRL A030)

Recommend changing CDRL A030 to COR NLT 60 calendar days after contract award or change this statement to 40 days after contract award to be aligned. CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL

A005 Supportability and Maintainability Report

The report shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

Confirm no Level of Repair (LORA) nor Logistics Management Information (LMI) required. CDRL updated to require additional information.

CDRL

A007 Cannon & Ammo Handling Safety Summary There is no due date specified; When is this CDRL due? CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL

A017Fire Control Report

Format says Contractor format is acceptable while sections indicated per DIDs.

Confirm contractor format is acceptable? Contractor format is acceptable, reference DID for required information.

CDRL

A020 Quality Assurance Program Plan Confirm the intent is to deliver at 90 DACA and 120 DACA. CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

CDRL

A021 Technical Report for Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Compliance

Blocks 10-13: Contractor shall submit a draft CDRL 60 days after contract award.

Recommend changing Contractor shall submit a draft CDRL 150 days after contract award. To allow sufficient time as this is a time consuming activity. CDRL due dates have been evaluated and adjusted as needed.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

1.2 Test Objectives-

Test Phase 7

PM CAS Limited Ammunition Qualification Test (Duration: To Be Determined (TBD))

Confirm – Available (i.e. – fielded) or Nearly Available (i.e. – Nearly Fielded). This test was removed from the Test Support Assumptions

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

1.3 Materials for

Testing – US Government Supplied Ammunition

Fuzes, Projectiles, Propelling Charges, & Primers - TBDs

Need TBDs specified. The OMS/MP is still under development. Reference the Test Support Attachment for ammunition requirements.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

2.5 Phase 5 – Test

Firing

The SPH will undergo precision/accuracy testing which consists of firing conventional, near precision, and precision ammunition at various target ranges.

Recommend defining near precision. The test plan has been updated to remove the near precision category.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions

2.7 Phase 7 – PM

CAS Limited Ammunition Qualification Testing

Can you elaborate on these?:

2.7.1. Propellant Safety Testing

2.7.2. Sequential Environmental Test For Safety

2.7.3. Sequential Environmental Test For Performance These tests have been removed from the Test Support Assumptions document.

Attachment A - Test Support Assumptions 2.8.1.3.2.1

Both SPH and RSV will conduct a limited standard obstacles course. Can you clarify limited standard obstacles? Refer to updated Test Support Assumptions attachment.