USG Industry Feedback Responses Section L-M.pdf

Document PARA or Line Question or suggestion to GOV. Gov Response/Change implemented

Section L L.2.1

L.2.1 Proposal Content. While we agree and understand the importance of small business participation considering the value added to industry as a whole, the required work scope as part of the modernization evaluation demonstration draft request for proposal (RFP) does not support such participation as the overall scope entails a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solution delivered for demonstration. Request the US Government (USG) clarify expectations for partner/subcontracting arrangements such as logistical service or testing support?

The USG has included the small business participation goals in an effort to encourage partner/subcontracting arrangements. It is up to the prime contract to determine what those arragemenets are.

Section L L.2.2.3 Recommend allowing 11 inch x 17 inch dimensions for substantiating data at a minimum. Section L.2.2.3 updated to allow for larger submissions when needed to maintain readabilty.

Section L L.2.3.1

L.2.3.1 Submission Instructions. Given that the response to the proposed RFP is unclassified, is it necessary to hand deliver volumes via CD-ROMs? Is there an alternative, approved digital record transfer method available to the USG and vendors for submission?

At this time, the Governmet is not intending to revise the acceptable method of transmission of proposals in Section L.2.3.1.1

Section L L.2.3.1.1/ L.2.2.1

Section L.2.3.1.1 states the offerors submission shall be submitted on CD-ROMs or DVD.

Section L.2.2.1 implies that an electronic means of submission is allowable.

RECOMENDATION:

Clarify the means of submission allowable. If electronic submission is allowable, state the means of electronic submission in section L.2.2.1 ESA prefers electronic file submission as the means for file submission

At this time, the Governmet is not intending to revise the acceptable method of transmission of proposals in Section L.2.3.1.1. Section L.2.2.1 refers to the requirements for naming the files that are delivered via CD-ROM or DVD.

Section L L.2.4 Under the provisions of L.2.4, could an offeror receive multiple awards if multiple proposals were submitted? Yes, it is possible to receive multiple awards for different proposed solutions.

Section L L.4 Will USG provide a detailed Self Propelled Howitzer(SPH) test plan for the Test Phases? The test support assumptions will be provided in the RFP.

Section L L.4 How many rounds are required to support Test Fire Phase?

The number of rounds for each test will be included in the test support assumptions provided with the

RFP.

Section L L.4.1.1

Related to the submission of substantiating data across all section L requests. Many of the test reports and results of testing of vehicle and ammunition testing for a respective Army and/or Ministry of Defense are unavailable to the prime contractors for submission and use in other proposal efforts. This data is traditionally requested via a government to government request, where the prime offeror provides an appropriate point of contact to the US Government to request test reports and results relating to testing. Will the USG require vendors to have the substantiating data submitted as part of their proposals or will a point of contact and link up regarding test reports be acceptable?

The USG will not execute government to government requests. Only information provided in the proposal will be evaluated.

Section L L.4.1.2.2 What equivalent testing standards (aside from AR 70-38) are accepted by the USG for the EMI, Sand and Dust, durability, and reliability scoring testing? Will the USG provide a list of equivalent commercial and/or defense testing standards as reference?

The referenced section states that "any completed testing" will be considered if provided. The USG will not provide a list of equivalent commercial or defense standards as reference. When assessing, the USG will compare the provided information against established US testing standards and protocol and assess the risk of if the completed testing demonstrates system maturity.

Section L L.4.1.2.3 Can the USG verify that TM procedures are not required to be in MIL STD 40051 format, and that technical manual procedures in other formats (e.g. COTS, S1000D) are acceptable?

Correct, there is no expectation for the purpose of this evaluation that TM procedures be in MIL-STD- 40051 format. Other formats are acceptable.

Section L L.4.1.2.5

L.4.1.2.5 Ammunition-Cannon Compatibility. Due to differences between test requirements and the standards used in testing by the USG and the Government of XXXX, there might not be readily available tech data as listed in this draft RFP as examples. Would the USG be able to provide a complete list of required tech data that will be requested under the RFP?

If the USG is able to provide such information in advance, we would be able to compare the list with the current [GOV] required list and make an assessment on what needs to be done for us to properly prepare for the required test data submission. Therefore, we would like to kindly ask the USG to grant additional time if possible. This would also ensure and create a full, fair, and open competitive environment for the overall System Evaluation

No, the USG will not prepare a list of required technical data for L.4.1.2.5 beyond providing a reference to NATO STANAG 4224. The USG will not provide this STANAG. The Offeror is encouraged to provide currently available technical data to be considered during evaluation. The USG is expecting to see what data was used to show the cannon and ammunition are safe, survivable, and suitable for service to current customers.

Section L L.4.2.1 “The overview shall include system selections."-What is meant by this? Is this meant that the offeror should define the systems included vs excluded from the system of systems? That statement was erroneously left in the document, and will be removed from the final RFP

Section L L.4.2.1

Change the language in paragraph L.4.2.1 to read: As part of Volume 1, the offeror shall provide a detailed overview of the proposed solution. At a minimum the proposed solution shall include a self-propelled howitzer vehicle and, if offered, artillery ammunition as its proposed system of systems. The proposed solution may also include other systems such as a resupply vehicle or system and any other systems necessary to operate and maintain the system of system. For the proposed artillery ammunition, the Government is primarily interested in the high explosive and/or precision projectile types proposed by the offeror. The offeror may include text, photos, illustrations, and model/drawing extracts. The overview shall include system selections.

The USG does not accept the proposed change. The Offeror will need to provide at a minimum a self-propelled howitzer vehicle and artillery ammunition.

Section L L.4.2.1/L.4.1.1

L.4.2.1 states that Volume 1 should include “a detailed overview of the proposed solution.” L.4.1.1 requests detailed descriptions of “each system” of the proposed solution specifically addressing each of 5 maturity elements. Is there an expectation that the “detailed overview” is more than the system descriptions addressing the maturity elements described in L.4.1.1?

The USG's expectation is that the detailed overview requested in L.4.2.1 provides a technical description of all material that will be provided as part of the proposal. The adjective "detailed" is meant to suggest that the proposal will specifically describe relevant technical details that enable the assessment of the performance metrics described in L.4.2.3.

In contrast, the "detailed descriptions" requested in L.4.1.1 should focus on providing substantiating data addressing each of the 5 maturity sub-factors ("elements") for the material offered in the proposal.

Section L L.4.2.2 Will USG program office establish Government to Government (G2G) information exchange channel with Foreign Country to streamline technical data transfer, ammunition import, System import?

The USG will not execute government to government requests. Only information provided in the proposal will be evaluated.

Section L L.4.2.2 L.4.2.2 refers to paragraph L.4.1.3 which doesn’t exist … expected to provide the ‘Technical Performance Requirements of this Factor’. Is the reference intended to be L.4.2.3? The reference has been updated in paragraph L.4.2.2.

Section L L.4.2.2 Will the USG accept cover pages or references to test reports requiring a government to government request for data as a substitute for substantiating data as referenced in section L.4.1.1?

The USG will accept references or cover pages but would consider this data incomplete during an evaluation. The USG will not execute government to government requests. Only information provided in the proposal will be evaluated.

Section L L.4.2.3

Will the USG consider releasing a classified specification specific to the threats referenced to ensure compliance to the requested level of protection?

The USG should provide a security classification guide to ensure that all data submitted in the unclassified volume (including Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)) is adequately vetted as unclassified and any data per the guide that is classified is marked and submitted appropriately – some NATO nations have different data classifications...There is a concern that the U.S. lacks a matching classification, and a security classification guide would ensure data is appropriately marked and transmitted.

The USG will not be releasing a classified specification for desired threat protection levels. The intent of this solicitation is to understand what performance exists without modification. The USG will not be providing the existing Security Classification Guide, but advises industry that updates are expected in the future. Material provided will be handled according to the data markings provided on that document. If NATO standard-NATO restricted is required, USG shall meet NATO requirements.

Section L L.4.2.3.3 How much artillery ammunition needs to be provided? The number of rounds for each test will be included in the test plan provided with the RFP

Section L L.4.2.3.3 Change the language in paragraph L.4.2.3.3 to read: The system of systems shall include, at minimum, a self-propelled howitzer vehicle and, if offered, artillery ammunition. Vendor will need to provide at a minimum a self-propelled howitzer vehicle and artillery ammunition.

Section L L.4.2.3.5 Is the government’s intention to only fire unguided, unassisted, conventional artillery ammunition as part of the conventional ammunition firing? There are rounds available that are assisted that are still conventional.

The Government intends to shoot whatever ammunition the vendor provides to support the Test Support Assumptions document. It is up to the vendors to decide which ammnunition types to test.

Section L L.4.2.3.6

L.4.2.3.6 Mission Cycle Time (MCT). The MCT as proscribed in Attachment 002 is rudimentary and does not sufficiently challenge modern self-propelled howitzer (SPHs) and ammunition resupply vehicles (ARVs) to meet the demands of a future battlefield. The number of rounds fired (x), the number of movements, and the amount of ammunition to be transferred should be increased by 4x or 6x to enable differentiation of the currently available COTS SPHs and ARVs

The scenario is written that way with the intention of defining a threshold performance for the purposes of this evaluation, only.

Section L L.4.3 Will a foreign system safety report be adequate to support this request as long as equivalent to DD-882E?

For the purposes of proposal evaluation only, yes, a foreign system safety report would be an acceptable substantiating document. The document must be provided in English and it's recommended that the proposal include a summary highlighting how the foreign report translates to typical USG documents (typically based on MIL-STD-882E).

Section L L.4.4

The USG should consider two CLINs in order to achieve a successful demonstration program that both mitigates industry and USG risk while providing execution flexibility to ACC-DTA and PM SPHS.

We recommend the following CLIN structure based upon an estimated number of activities to support the 9-month testing and evaluation:

CLIN 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

• Shipment of self-propelled howitzer, resupply vehicle, and any supporting materials (spares, ammunition etc) to the USG testing site at Yuma. The CLIN include a shipment to and from the test site with return to home station. The reason for the time and material is that expediting shipment of ammunition and platform shipment significantly scales the cost, this would allow the USG to min

• test support during testing. This CLIN should cover the field support, training support, maintenance, and support activities throughout USG testing period. The reason for the cost-plus fixed fee is that in the event the USG needs to extend testing, it can be accommodated without a lengthy proposal.

• contract support. This CLIN includes all the additional contracting, engineering, quality, and other functional support required to support the requested training and generation of test reports and final reports for submission to the USG.

CLIN 2: Firm Fixed Price

• Self-propelled howitzer system and resupply vehicle. This CLIN should cover both a return to 10/20 status in the event of a non-select by the USG after down-select are made, and a purchase of the platform and optional resupply vehicle in the event of a down-select to the next phase.

• Spares and support package that is delivered with the vehicle. This includes a standard system support package for testing support. If the USG requests additional support beyond the 9-month testing window, spare items

• Ammunition. This CLIN would include the number of rounds, propellant, and primers required to complete all firing missions by the USG, with shipping to the USG test facility.

Additionally, within the Draft RFP documents the USG references a single CLIN for $5M USD per competitor. Based upon Attachment A: Demonstration Pricing Estimate, vendor recommends the USG consider a higher funding amount per competitor based upon the following rough order of magnitude developed from the CDRLs and estimated testing to be performed. The USG will not be providing opprotunity beyond the one FFP CLIN.

Section L L.4.4.3 When will the USG make Attachment 003 available for viewing by interested vendors? Attachment will be released with the final RFP.

Section L L.4.4.4 Will FAR 15.403-1, Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data and FAR 15.403-3 Requiring data other than certified cost or pricing data apply?

As stated in L.4.4.1, certified cost or pricing data is not required for initial proposal submission. For initial proposal submission, the offeror is instructed to provide the data listed in Section L.4 which is other than certified cost and price data. For additional data requested pursuant to L.4.4.4, unless specifically stated otherwise in the request, the additional data requsted would also be other than certified cost and price data. The USG does not anticipate need to request certified cost/price data as long as there is adequate competition.

Section L L.4.5

Remove Small Business Participation and SBSP requirements from this RFP with the understanding that this volume and the DFARS clauses will be included in any follow-on production orders. This requirement will not be removed.

Section L L.5.7.2 Can we view Attachment 0005 early?

Can the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be on a contractor format?

This attachment will be released with the final RFP. The small business subcontracting plan shall comply with the requirments of 52.219-9 and other stated requirements of the RFP.

Section L L.5.8

Will the USG provide a template for data rights assertions ahead of the RFP release so interested bidders are able to adequately fill out and provide the appropriate data rights for hardware and software provided during this demonstration?

Will the USG include language requiring the identification of all commercial and non-commercial technical data and computer software that is proposed to be delivered or otherwise provided including with unlimited rights?

Data rights assertions will need to be submitted in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7017.

Relative to the second question, the RFP will outline the required submission.

Section M M.1.1 M.1.1. Understand Firm Fixed Price, but the USG will need to clarify the amount and type of munitions requested to successfully conduct evaluation to ensure sufficient time and resources to procure and ship said projectiles and propellants The number of rounds for each test will be included in the test plan provided with the RFP.

Section M M.1.3

Initial ammunition cost estimates significantly exceed the $5M affordability. Will the government consider providing ammunition, allowing test reports to augment some of the firing tests, or other scope reductions. In it’s current form, all of the government affordability will be consumed by ammunition leaving no room for spare parts, labor, travel, or management of testing. The USG will not be providing any ammunition or allowing test reporting in lieu of firing.

Section M M.2.1.f

M.2.1.f. Will the USG clarify the expected and feasible time period from awarding of contract to the beginning of the proposed evaluation period? Importing a complete “system-of-systems” solution for this RFP (to include SPH[s], ARV[s], and ammunitions) is a lengthy bureaucratic process that could take from 9 to 12 months to be imported into the US Vendors must be able to meet the timeline outlined in the RFP.

Section M M.3.5

M.3.5. If the USG rejects an offer on the basis of M.2.1.f. (not meeting the USG requirement minimum acceptance period), would a discussion be warranted if said proposal meets all other requirements and technical merits? Industry cannot be expected to navigate and expedite multiple government organizations to import munitions and explosive material without assistance and priority from the offeror.

No, vendors must be able to meet the timeline outlined in the RFP. Proposals that offer LESS THAN the required minimum proposal validity date may be rejected, which can happen at any time after proposal receipt. Offerors should not assume that the Government will conduct Discussions.

Section M M.4 General. Will the USG be providing more specific relative weighting mechanisms such as a numeric rating scale in addition to the relative order of importance of evaluation factors listed in the current draft RFP?

Pursuant to AFARS 5115.304(b)(2)(B), Numerical weighting (i.e., assigning points or percentages to evaluation factors and subfactors) is not an authorized method of expressing the relative importance of the factors and subfactors.

Section M M.4.2.1.1 M.4.2.1.1. What are the technical requirements that the USG are evaluating for? Industry cannot know if further development of a COTS system is needed to meet the USG’s Technical Performance Factor if there is/are not clearly defined requirements for the “system of systems.”

The USG is not requesting that Industry conduct further development on their "COTS" systems in this solicitation. Only the technical performance described in L.4.2 will be used as selection criteria. The intent of this solicitation is to only evaluate those systems that already exist, as designed for their current end user's (non-USG) requirements. The intent of section M.4.2.1.1 is to reinforce this idea.

Section M M.4.2.1.3.1 M.4.2.1.3.1. Given that multiple vendors from the SPHS Performance Demonstration were foreign companies that designed, tested, and/or fielded SPHs in accordance with user-nation standards, will the USG provide references for acceptable and credible test data (as was done in M.3.4.1. Safety Standards)?

No, the USG will not be providing a list of acceptable or credible test data. M.3.4.1 references processes for safety certification; a similar document does not exist covering system or system-of-system test processes, so a reference cannot be provided. The USG anticipates receiving data as described by the question, however, and would consider that substantiating data. Note that the data discussed in M.4.2.1.3.1 is the substantiating data for L.4.2.3.

Section M M.4.5

M.4.5. Factor 5: Small Business Participation (SBP) Factor. Related to the question on small business participation content deliverable outlined in Section L, would the USG further clarify relevant scope criteria assigned to Small Business Participation Factor? Our assumption is that the USG’s intention is for the offeror to bring a COTS system for the System Evaluation

Offerors are to propose a mature and available system for the evaluation. Development is not desired.

Small business participation can be from any scope, however, at the Offeror’s discretion but could include things like consumables purchase, transportation, etc.

NA NA

If an offeror submits more than one proposal and is potentially awarded multiple contracts, does the offeror need to deliver more than one system of their proposed solution and all other material along with it (i.e., spare parts, tooling, etc.)?

A complete system and required material for each system shall be provided for each awarded contract.

Section L NA Other than the “Proposal Executive Summary” and the “Operational Use” narrative portion in Volume 1, are there page count limitations on any of the other volumes or sections? No there are no page count limitations.

NA NA Can the USG provide a schedule for the release of the Draft and Final Production RFP? Not at this time.

NA NA

It will be difficult for industry to respond confidently to many of the proposed RFP’s Technical Performance Factors on whether or not our proposed solution(s) meet the USG requirements if there is not an established document (e.g., CDD, A-CDD) that lists the various performance characteristics the USG is analyzing during the System Evaluation.

Only the technical performance factors listed in L.4.2.3 will be used for evaluation. The USG believes these are sufficiently detailed such that an Offeror may provide accurate substantiating data.

NA NA

Given the totality of the proposed RFP’s data requirements and the significant investment of internal resources to complete the proposal, it is believed that vendors should have a minimum of 90 days to formulate and submit a proposal

Comment noted. The USG will consider this feedback but the final RFP requirements will outline the proposal reseponse time

NA NA

Given the significant lead times in acquiring material, spare parts, shipping costs, and bureaucratic hurdles required to support this System Evaluation, there needs to be sufficient time from the contracting date to the expected arrival/beginning of the evaluation period. The USG should not expect vendors to ship materials or munitions to the Continental United States (CONUS) without assurances of selection due to the cost/loss of revenue if not selected. Historical case studies from [vendor] indicate that it takes, on average, 9 to 12 months to obtain documentation, approvals, and ship munitions to Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG) / CONUS

Comment noted. The USG will consider this feedback but the final RFP requirements will outline the requried delivery schedule

NA NA

If there are no formally established requirements by the time of the evaluation, can the USG provide more information, such as a scoring and weighting matrix, on how it is hoping to evaluate the different systems—SPH (wheeled and/or tracked) and ARV—as part of the proposed RFP’s System Evaluation demonstration The USG will not be providing information on scoring or weighting.

NA NA

Regarding the Spare and Ported Barrel – what is the USG intent for these items? Would a ported and spare barrel already used in firings be acceptable for use?

Utilizing “new” build assets increases cost that may be unnecessary, depending on the USGs intended use of these items. The requirements for a ported tube will be removed from the scope.

NA NA

Regarding program award and start time – when is the USG estimating award and system firing? Shipment of an artillery system, RSV, and ammunition may take up to 75 days after contract award to arrival at Yuma Proving Grounds, unless expedited via air freight, significantly increasing the overall cost. The evaluation period is outlined in the scope.

NA NA

Will the USG consider pre-award authorization for shipment of materials (ammunition, vehicles) to Yuma in preparation to support this demonstration and test effort? No this is not under consideration.

NA NA What are the safety requirements for shooting at Yuma? These include but are not limited to ammunition handling, ammunition driving/transport, and range safety?

The safety documents and TMs listed as CDRLs must be provided for review prior to testing. In addition, YTC will conduct an initial inspection of the vehicles prior to conduct of the remaining tests. Specifically for Ammunition, the SAR with the FHC and IHC for ammunition must be provided as requested.

NA NA Will the USG provide classes to certify personnel to meet YUMA safety requirements? No

NA NA

Will the USG consider a letter of support to all interested primes to support export and import requests with the US Department of State and respective international partners export/import organizations? No this is not under consideration.

NA NA Will the USG provide appropriate POL throughout all of testing or will this need to be provided by the prime offeror to support testing?

If the vendors provide their POL types in the requested CDRL 30 days ACA, YTC will attempt to purchase those types not already provided at YTC.