CL Consolidated QA Spreadsheet_31 March 2025.pdf

Question Government Response 1 Is it possible to get a two-week extension to the due date? Per revision 1, the Government extended the deadline.

On pages 6 and 7 there is reference to a price proposal / cost volume, however the formatting of the response requirements (pg. 8 - 10, 3.4

Prototype Proposal Approach) houses the Price response in with the technical. I understand a portion of the pricing (i.e. not the narrative) will be in the excel document.

Is it expected the cost narrative required with this proposal is a separate volume or is it considered in the technical volume?

Cost/price should be reflected in Enclosure 2, per the terms of 3.4(3)(Price)

On page 7, 3.2 Format of Prototype Proposal item 1. Number of Pages, it makes reference to formatting requirements for this response. In particular, that the document is a maximum of 10 pages. However, it also specifies that 1 page will be for vendor quals/experience, 1 page for milestone payment schedule, and 1 page for program schedule. I understand that the data assertions requirement (item O of Technical

Approach narrative) and the price narrative (item 3 under 3.4 Proposal

Approach) do not have a page limit.

Is the proposal response supposed to be a total of 10 pages including the following: technical approach, vendor quals/experience (1 pg), proposed payment milestone (1 page), and program schedule (1 page)? OR is it supposed to be the technical approach narrative and cover sheet is a total of 10 pages, with an additional 1 page for quals/experience, 1 page for proposed payment milestone, and 1 page for program schedule, totaling to 13 pages? Both of these would exclude pricing/data assertions that may take it over the page limit.

Per revision 1, RFPP page limit revised.

...respectfully request an extension of the submission deadline from 26-

MAR to 02-APR… Per revision 1, the Government extended the deadline.

On Page 10, Section 3.4.o of the government-provided document titled

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25, the solicitation states:

"Identify and assert any restrictions on the Government's use, release, or disclosure of technical data or computer software pertaining to its proposal submission IAW the instructions provided in Exhibit A below."

This reference suggests that Exhibit A is a data rights assertion table.

However, Exhibit A is not included in any of the documents provided by the Government.

Could you please confirm its availability and provide this document?

RFPP Revision 1 incorporates data rights assertion table as Exhibit A attachment.

Will the government please identify any prior requests for information, industry events, or other market research exchanges with industry related to the RFPP?

There are no prior events or requests in relation to this RFPP. However, RCCTO's HMIF

Program is the primary beneficiary for this project. Please see prior HMIF RFWPs, RFPs that have been posted on Sam.Gov and NAMC to advertise these HMIF efforts.

Since this is an OTA versus a FAR competition, will the government

Technical Points of Contact be available for industry exchanges prior to the RFPP submission date?

The Government will not host industry exchanges prior to RFPP submission date.

The RFPP references multiple awards but also states an expectation of only one (1) award (RFPP § 4.0). Can the government please clarify its preference to make a single award or, subject to the availability of funding, multiple awards?

The Government expects to make at most a single award, but retains the authority to make multiple awards if appropriate, based on mission and funding. In accordance with 10 U.S.C.

§ 4022, and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

SOW § 2.2 references a Security Classification Form DD254. Does the government anticipate a requirement to access classified information in the performance of the OTA, and sponsorship of awardee(s) that do not possess a facility security clearance?

The current requirement is CUI. If access to classified information or networks is ever required, the DD254 will be updated accordingly. However, it is not anticipated that access to classified information or networks will be required for this effort. RCCTO may sponsor a company for its FCL at its sole discretion.

The government issued this RFPP, including detailed SOW requirements for performance, with only a 16 day deadline for responses. Will the agency consider a 15 day extension of the proposal due date to enable non-traditional defense contractors to respond to this RFPP?

Per revision 1, the Government extended the deadline.

RFPP § 3(a)-(b) and the Cost/Price workbook require offerors to provide cost data at a level of detail that is not consistent with small nontraditional defense contractors’ standard record-keeping systems, which will unfortunately restrict competition from the non-traditional defense contractors contrary to the intent of OTA authority. For a firm fixed price contract type, as here, offerors are not typically required to provide cost data of any kind. For example, under FAR 15.404-1, price analysis is used to examine “a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit,” especially where “adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.” For this OTA

(not subject to the FAR) will the government allow non-traditional defense contractors to propose milestone-level fixed prices supported by a reasonable estimating approach, without the requirement for restrictive cost data?

RFPP Revision 1 incorporates Revised Cost/Price workbook.

OTAs are not required to follow FAR and DFARS Data Rights requirements and clauses, and are designed to more flexibly allocate data rights. Will the agency consider removing the FAR and DFARS based data rights from section 5 of the SOW or explain why those clauses are being included?

The FAR and DFARS Data rights requirements and clauses are most appropriate for this requirement.

RFPP § 3.4.1 anticipates deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) and use of Offerors' Commercially Licensed software products. Open-source and proprietary LLMs, and existing logistics software solutions, are Commercial Computer Software and subject to commercial license terms (addressed under the DFARS at DFARS 227.7202-3; and as anticipated for OTAs). Should offerors attach relevant commercial software terms to their RFPP responses and will the government negotiate commercial license terms for existing commercial computer software proposed for the RFPP requirement?

The Govt will consider licenses for commercial software. Vendors should clearly identify its prices for any software licenses.

RFPP § 4.1.1(a)(3) anticipates government purpose rights in technical data and software for “other than commercial products” / “other than commercial computer software.” How does the government plan to evaluate commercial computer software solutions ability to execute the proposed approach under this evaluation factor?

The Govt will consider licenses for commercial software. Vendors should clearly identify its prices for any software licenses.

RFPP § 3.4.1(a) requires that Offerors “must” comply with the SOW, but also that the SOW may be modified after evaluation of proposals. Are

Offerors permitted to propose exceptions to the SOW for innovative solutions?

Vendors must comply with the SOW, as stated. Any exceptions will be noted and reviewed, but may not be accepted. Failure to meet minimum requirements in the SOW may result in a technically unacceptable solution and may impact likelihood of selection.

How will the government fairly evaluate RFPP Evaluation Criteria #1:

Technical Approach if the SOW requirements may be modified after evaluation but before award?

Vendors must comply with the SOW, as stated. Any exceptions will be noted and reviewed, but may not be accepted. Failure to meet minimum requirements in the SOW may result in a technically unacceptable solution and may impact likelihood of selection.

How does the government intend to assess US business status and ability to process and store CUI data?

The Govt will assess business status based on Sam.Gov registration information.

Offerors will be assessed on their compliance with NIST SP 800-171, their CUI Security Plan outlining data handling procedures, and relevant past performance. The Government reserves the right to request additional information to verify an offeror's CUI security posture.

Is the italicized text at the top of RFPP page 12 intended to be qualification requirement 4(c)?

RFPP Revison 1 corrects this section. Italicized font is now 4(b).

...formally request a 14-day extension for the submission of our proposal...

Per revison 1, the Government extended the deadline.

Section 5.0 Data Rights All products, data, and software developed by the

Contractor in support of its proposal for this SOW shall be delivered with unlimited rights (UR) to the Government as delineated in the clause at

FAR 52.227-23 – Rights to Proposal Data (Technical). Additionally, Government data right requirements under this contract are regulated by

FAR clause 52.227-14, Rights in Data-General, Alternative III.

The Vendor must report any purported data rights assertions in their Proposal.

The Enhanced Contested Logistics Software Prototype Development project identifies 3 key gaps gleaned from the CL CFT A-CDD. Each of these gaps has its own unique constraints and requirements based on the

Class of Supply, but the page count does not provide a great deal of space to adequately address those unique aspects. Given the 15 sections (a thru o) in the Technical Approach as well as substantial detail in the SOW, is it required to submit a single proposal for all three target Classes of

Supply or is it possible to submit 1 proposal for each of the gaps (Class III, Class V, and Class IX) or can the length of the technical proposal be increased?

Per revision 1, RFPP page limit revised.

With respect to the use of an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), is there any specific membership required to receive an award on this

RFPP? Upon selection, can the award be made under a managed consortium of which the proposing company is a member such as NAMC, NAC or IWRP?

The selected vendors must have an active Sam.Gov registration. This will be a stand-alone

OTA and will not utilize a Consortium for the award. However, the Government does not believe that membership in any particular consortium will impact or prevent award.

In Section 3.2.1, the proposal instructions call out the requirement for 1 page on the proposed program schedule. However, there is subsequent guidance in Section 3.4 on what is required.

Per revision 1, RFPP page limit revised.

The RFPP introduction indicates an intent to award “one (1) or more” prototype agreements. Does the Government anticipate making a single award for this effort, or is there a possibility of multiple awards under this solicitation?

The Government expects to make at most a single award, but retains the authority to make multiple awards if approporiate, based on mission and funding. In accordance with 10

U.S.C. § 4022, and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

Is this Enhanced Contested Logistics effort a new initiative with no incumbent developer, or is it a follow-on to a previous project/prototype? In other words, is there an existing solution or prior work that this effort will build upon, or will it be developed from scratch?

This RFPP is for a new requirement.

Section 3.2.1 of the SOW calls for integrating the contested logistics (CL) software with Army logistics and command systems such as Army

Enterprise Business Systems (EBS), Global Command and Control System

– Army (GCCS-A), and the Command Post Computing Environment

(CPCE). Will the Government provide access to these systems, APIs, or interface control documents to support integration during prototype development? If direct access is not available, what level of information or support will be provided to facilitate integration with these systems?

Are there any other existing Army logistics systems, databases, or platforms with which the prototype should be designed to integrate (for example, current supply chain management or maintenance tracking systems)? If so, could you identify those systems or any relevant data standards/protocols that the solution should be compatible with? Given that the RFPP mentions a software solution “framework” intended for enterprise-wide use and extension by other developers, are there preferred architectural standards or open interface requirements (APIs, data formats, etc.) that XXXXX should follow to maximize interoperability and future integration potential?

Yes, the Govt may provide access to GCSS-A and other Army Logistics & Command Systems, as necessary. The product shall follow Govt architectures and standards to maintain compatibility.

For the Enhanced Contested Logistics Software Prototype Development effort, we would like to ask the Army to consider extending the response deadline….7-10 days if possible.

Per revison 1, the Government extended the deadline.

Will a 3 week extension be afforded to ensure enough time to get govt responses to questions and develop proposals and partnerships Per revison 1, the Government extended the deadline.

Will the Governmnet Accept COTS based (TRL 9) solutions for Predicitve

Maintenance that require software license agreements?

Yes. Clearly articulate your solution and software license agreements in your proposal.

Will the Government Accept SaaS agreements with contractors providing constant predictive model interation and enhancment

Yes. Clearly articulate your solution , SaaS agreements, and software license agreements in your proposal.

AI Predicitve Maintenance Models must be maintained to ensure high percision and recall. Additonally models will need to be tuned to accomidate different asset types. Should prospective bidders include this scope of work?

Yes, your solution must clearly articulate the scope of your work that will satisfy the SOW.

What make/models/types of Army ground vehicles are included in the predicitve Monitoring plan?

As this is an HMIF focused effort, AMPV, ISV, RCV, and XM-MUTT are some vehicles to include in the development.

Is there current hardware onboard vehciles to move data to the Army networks or should this be quoted?

Yes, existing equipment is on the vehicles to support Army network connectivity. Offerors do not need to quote this.

Should Ships and Generators be included in the Predicitve Maintenance

Suite?

Ships are excluded, but standard equipment used at Infantry and Heavy HMIF brigades' logistics tail are the primary focus, which may include power generators.

Can it be assumed that Army Maintainers will provide feeback via GCSS-A or other software to enable Machine Learning?

The Govt may provide access to GCSS-A and other Army Logistics & Command Systems. The product shall follow Govt HMIF architectures and evoloving standards to maintain compatibility with future HMIF brigade formations.

Can a bidder Chose any one of the 3 main requirements catagories or will the governmnet only accept bidders intending to complete 100% of the scope? Are partial Bids Acceptable?

Although the Government reserves the option to award pOTAs for partial solutions, the

Government discourages partial solutions for this requirement and does not anticipate awarding any at this time.

37 Will there be an Industry Day or Briefing? The Government will not host industry exchanges prior to RFPP submission date.

What technology level is the Army looking for to enable its internal stakeholders for model development? High Code, Low Code, No Code? Is the Army looking to leverage existing tools such as Advana?

The expected exit TRL is listed in the SOW/RFPP. The Army has no preconceived tools identified. Offerors shall clearly artiulate its solution against the SOW.

The Travel Locations and 5 Person minimum is noted, approximatley how many trips during the contract term are expected?

Offerors are to propose their planned travel to support the development, testing, and validation of their solution.

Does the govt wish to tain and devlope the LLM or is the intention that the contract makes a model available AND completes all training. Does the Contractor support the LLM into the future. Does the governmnet intend on a services style extension to this contract?

Govt desires for the offeror to provide a CL solution that fully complies with the SOW, which includes LLM and AI in the product. No, the Govt does not currently intend a service style extension to this contract.The Government may consider follow-on production or development of a successfully completed prototype project, utilizing appropriate contractual authorities.

Will there be multiple awardees for distinct components of this requirment? Is preference given to one firm or partnership that can complete all items?

The Government does not find this effort conducive to combining partial solutions and prefers a single, complete solution.

How will the government detrime the quality of proposed data science models? Is past performance the most important metric?

The weights of importance of the evaluation criteria is in para. 4.1. The quality of the technical approach will be evaluated to determine the overall quality of the proposed solution. The Govt is requesting one page of qualifications and experience in accordance with 4.1.3 that will be included in the Offeror's technical proposal.

Enclosure 1 - SOW 3.7.1; Page 12; During prototype development, when will Government users or evaluators require access to the prototype environment (e.g. month 1, 10, 20)?

Access to initial prototype environment will be required at PDR.

Enclosure 1 - SOW 3.7.1; Page 12; What is the expected number of concurrent Government users/evaluators?

The solution should be scalable and support a typical number of Army users making logistics decisions for U.S. Army HMIF Brigade; current anticipated required number of users is approximately 100, but this number is subject to change.

Enclosure 1 - SOW 3.7.1; Page 12; Is the deployment and training task part of the 20-month base PoP or part of the follow-on work?

Yes, the deployment and training will be part of the base POP, which is expected to be not longer than 20 months.

RFPP 3.2 (1), 3.4 (1-4); Page 7 and 9-12; Can the Government confirm if they want each section of the proposal to be incluced in one file or if each section identified in RFPP 3.2 (1) and 3.4 (1-4) should be in a separate file?

Each section should be separate files.

RFPP 3.2 (1), 3.4 (3); Page 7 and 11; Can the Government confirm if the

Cost/Price narrative information should be included as its own file or combined with the other sections of the proposal?

The cost/price narrative should be its own volume.

RFPP 3.2 (1), 3.4 (2); Page 7 and 10; In RFPP 3.2 (1) the Government includes page allocations for two schedules: "1 page for the proposed milestone payment schedule, and 1 page for the proposed program schedule." However, in RFPP 3.4 (2) the Government combines the requirements for the Schedule and Milestone Payment Plan and it reads as if they could potentially be one. Can the Government confirm if

Offerors should submit two different schedules: one schedule for the

Proposed Program Schedule and one schedule for the Milestone Payment

Plan Schedule?

The one page schedule and one page milestone payment plan will be separate files.

RFPP 2.4; Page 6; Can the Government provide an estimated Period of

Performance (PoP) start?

Estimated period of performance start is Q3/Q4 FY2025.

Enclosure 2 - Cost Price Workbook; N/A; Can Offerors adjust Enclosure 2 to follow company cost accounting standards (i.e., add rows and columns)?

RFPP Revison 1 incorporates Revised Cost/Price workbook.

Enclosure 2 - Cost Price Workbook; N/A; Can Offerors modify and correct the hidden columns, formula references, etc. in Enclosure 2?

RFPP Revison 1 incorporates Revised Cost/Price workbook.

Enclosure 2 - Cost Price Workbook; N/A; Enclosure 2 has tabs for Tasks

1a, 1b, and Tasks 2 - 5 however it is unclear how they align to the SOW tasks. Can the Government confirm the Task mapping between Enclosure

2 and the SOW so that Offerors can properly price the tasks?

RFPP Revison 1 incorporates Revised Cost/Price workbook.

Enclosure 2 - Cost Price Workbook; N/A; Where should Offerors price in

Project Management and Human Machine Interface Formations (HMIF)

Logistical Requirements costs? Offerors may modify the pricing spreadsheeet to price project managment and HMIF costs.

RFPP 3.2 (1), 3.4 (2); Page 7 and 10; In order to properly address program tasks, milestones, timelines, and critical paths, etc. Offerors will need more than 1 page for the Schedule and Milestone Payment

Plan/Schedule. Can the Government make the Schedule and Milestone

Payment Plan/Schedule unlimited page count?

Per revision 1, RFPP page limit revised.

Enclosure 1 - SOW 2.4; Page 7; SOW 2.4 states "the software will be provided in M365 GCCH Azure Cloud Environment." Does the

Government expect the vendor to leverage Government owned infrastructure or price in their own environments for the 20-month prototype PoP?

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the completed solution shall be provided in the greater set of Army Cloud Environments, as opposed to only the M365 GCCH Azure Cloud

Environment. The Government will make a decision on whether to host the HMIF CL SW solution on the Army Cloud Environment at the CDR, or at a time otherwise agreed by the

Parties. Final HMIF CL SW prototype must be deployed to Army Cloud infrastructure with functionality.

Enclosure 1 - SOW 2.4; Page 7; For the target environment, can Offerors provide the software in another Army accredited hosting option (cArmy, CAAG IL5, etc.) instead of Azure GCCH?

No

Enclosure 1 - SOW 1.0; Page 3; What does the Goverment mean about

"Framework" within the context of the final solution/prototype?

Framework refers to the general SW architecture of the offeror's solution.

Enclosure 1 - SOW 2.3; Page 5-7; Is there a consolidated list of units, exercises, and events Offerors can harvest to guide our development plan or will that be provided upon award?

See para. 3.5.1 in SOW and additional units and users will be identified post award.

Enclosure 1 - SOW 4.0, RFPP 2.5; SOW Page 13, RFPP Page 6; Will the four

(4) Design Review Events be to each of the four locations listed in RFPP

2.5?

Travel is dependent on the offeror's proposed solution and travel will be updated in the

SOW at time of award.

RFPP 3.2 (2); Page 7; Can Offerors submit the Schedule and Milestone

Payment Plan in Microsoft Project Format or Microsoft Excel?

Yes. Either MS Project or Excel, limited to one page each.

RFPP 3.2 (2); Page 7; Will the Government accept the RFPP written response in PDF format?

Yes.

The SOW specifies deployment to Microsoft Azure Cloud. Can you accept

Google Cloud Platform delivery if delivered under ATO connectivity to

DOD network?

No

Do you expect to own the IP and/or have ability to develop the source code independently at the end of the contract?

The Government would like to own the source code and to be able to independantly develop the source code at the end of the project.

Are there any constraints on the use of AI or ML models, specifically, their location and connectivity, or do we need to use AI or ML services that are delivered to DOD network, or are we able to use any public internet connected service?

No constraints on the use of AI/ML models.

Can you provide further details on how you will evaluate a 3.4.1.j.

“Demonstrated capability of predictive accuracy of logistic disruption

85% or higher.”?

The offeror is responsible to outline the predictive accuracy of their CL solution.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 1.3 - Procedures; Would the

Government please extend the RFP response due date by 2 weeks to allow industry opportunity to address the extensive pricing requirements and provide the most effective solution/RFPP response that meet mission needs?

Per revison 1, the Government extended the deadline.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 3.2 - Format of Prototype

Proposals 3.4 - Prototype Proposal Approach; Can the Government please confirm that the page count of the "proposal cover sheet" is separate from the "Company information coversheet"?

The proposal coversheet is separate from the company information coversheet.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 3.2 - Format of Prototype

Proposals 3.4 - Prototype Proposal Approach; Can the Government please confirm the proposal submission composition and page count allotments?

• Proposal Cover Sheet (1 page, does not count towards the 9-page

Technical Approach volume page count)

• Company Information Coversheet (1 page, does not count towards the 9-page Technical Approach volume page count)

• Technical Approach (allotted 9 pages)

• Data Rights Assertions (no page limit, does not count against the 9-page

Technical Approach volume page limit)

• Summary of Vendor Qualifications and Experience History (1 page, does not count towards the 9-page Technical Approach volume page count)

• Proposed Milestone Payment Schedule (1 page, does not count towards the 9-page Technical Approach volume page count)

• Proposed Program Schedule (1 page, does not count towards the 9-page

Technical Approach volume page count)

• Cost Volume (Pages not counted)

Per revision 1, RFPP page limit revised.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 3.2 - Format of Prototype

Proposals 3.4 - Prototype Proposal Approach; Would the Government consider increasing the Technical Approach page count from 9 pages to

15 pages, to allow vendors to thoroughly demonstrate how specific solutions will meet requirements?

Per revision 1, RFPP page limit revised.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 1.1 - Introduction

4.0 - Evaluation Information; Section 1.1 - Introduction of the RFPP states that "U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office

(RCCTO) is issuing a competitive Request for Prototype Proposals (RFPPs) with the intent of awarding one (1) or more Other Transaction

Agreement for Prototype (OTAP) in accordance with (IAW) 10 U.S.C. §

4022."

However, Section 4.0 Evaluation Information of the RFPP states "The

Government expects and plans to award one (1) OTAP for this CL requirement."

Can the Government clarify if they intend to make one or multiple OTAP awards (and if so, how many) for this effort?

The Government expects to make at most a single award, but retains the authority to make multiple awards if approporiate, based on mission and funding. In accordance with 10

U.S.C. § 4022, and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 1.1 - Introduction

4.0 - Evaluation Information; If the Government intends to award more than 1 OTAP, how will the Government down select to the vendor and associated software suite that will be deployed into production?

The Government expects to make at most a single award, but retains the authority to make multiple awards if approporiate, based on mission and funding. In accordance with 10

U.S.C. § 4022, and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 3.4 - Prototype Proposal

Approach (Price); Can the Government please provide additional details on the number of data interfaces, volume, and file size of known data sources, so that vendors can most accurately price development and software/license costs for the Government?

Data sources to be identified post award and dependent on proposed solution format.

Enclosure+1_+SOW+for+Contested+Logistics; 2.4 - Hardware and

Software Deliverables; Please confirm that the pilot software suite will be entirely hosted on the vendor’s cloud instance that is suitable for hosting

CUI and the pilot software suite will be developed within the contractor's environment and then transitioned to an Army environment upon completion of the 20-month prototype period.

If not, what hosting facilities and services will the Government provide to contractors to develop the prototype software suite within the 20-month prototype period?

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the completed solution shall be provided in the greater set of Army Cloud Environments, as opposed to only the M365 GCCH Azure Cloud

Environment. The Government will make a decision on whether to host the HMIF CL SW solution on the Army Cloud Environment at the CDR, or at a time otherwise agreed by the

Parties. Final HMIF CL SW prototype must be deployed to Army Cloud infrastructure with functionality.

Enclosure+1_+SOW+for+Contested+Logistics; 2.4 - Hardware and

Software Deliverables; How will the field data be provided by the

Government (e.g., JSON files using SAFE, etc.)?

Data files will be provided in GCSS-A data format and provided through DoD SAFE or other encrytped means.

Enclosure+1_+SOW+for+Contested+Logistics; 3.2.1 – System Integration and Customization; For the system integration requirement, does the government envision that the vendor will develop direct/real time interfaces with Army logistics and command systems (example, GCSS-A) in the vendor’s hosting environment? Will the Government facilitate certification of, connectivity to, and testing with, Army/DoD systems?

Yes, the Govt will facilitate with Army/DoD systems.

Enclosure+1_+SOW+for+Contested+Logistics; 2.4 - Hardware and

Software Deliverables; When is the prototype software suit integration with, and testing of, live DoD/Army system interfaces (e.g., GCSS-A, TAMIS, etc.) expected within the 20-month prototype timeline?

Integration will be dependent on maturity of proposed solution.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 3.4 - Prototype Proposal

Approach; Can the Government specify what “performance data” is required, as it relates to "c. Proposed current and projected capabilities of the Offeror’s CL software products and competencies to include performance data."

The offeror must identify the capabilities of their proposed CL SW solution to include perfomance data characteristics.

Enclosure+1_+SOW+for+Contested+Logistics; 2.4 - Hardware and

Software Deliverables; The period of performance of the anticipated

OTAP is 20 months after contract award...How is the 6-month support period contracted?

As stated in Para. 2.4 SOW any reach back support will be contracted for separately at the end of the POP.

Enclosure+2_Cost+Price+Workbook; Travel Estimates; To provide more accurate travel estimates across all potential work locations, could you please indicate where the different stakeholders (including their roles) are located?

Travel is dependent on the offeror's proposed solution and travel will be updated in the

SOW at time of award.

Enclosure+1_+SOW+for+Contested+Logistics; 2.3 Data Item Descriptions

(DIDs) Deliverables CDRL A011; What is the anticipated number of users of the prototype? In addition to training material, is the vendor expected to deliver actual training? Does this include in-person training? What locations?

The deployment and training will be part of the base POP. Training requirements are also outlined in CDRL A011 and para 3.7.1. The number of users of the prototype cannot be determined at this time. Offerors training methods are based on its proposed solution, and training may include in person training. The location of the training site(s) cannot be determined at this time.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 4.1 Prototype Proposal

Evaluation Criteria; Should "4. RFPP Evaluation Criteria #3 – Price" be labeled as "Criteria #4" instead?

Numbering corrected in RFPP Revision 1.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 6.1 Follow-On Production; Can the Government please provide details on the funding profile for this effort, both for the prototype effort and for the production solution?

The Government expects to make at most a single award, but retains the authority to make multiple awards if approporiate, based on mission and funding. In accordance with 10

U.S.C. § 4022, and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.

Enclosure+1_+SOW+for+Contested+Logistics; 2.3 Data Item Descriptions

(DIDs) Deliverables CDRL A009; Demonstration/Test Reports, including actual lab/field demonstrations (CDRL A009): Does this include deployment of the solution? Which locations, how many instances and how many iterations?

Please propose to the HMIF events and locations decribed in the revised SOW. Otherwise, testing locations, instances, and iterations are dependent on each Offeror's proposed solution. Deployment of the solution is not a demoonstration and is not subject to A009.

Enclosure+2_Cost+Price+Workbook; Workbook; Can the contractor amend Enclosure 2 – Price Book to accommodate their accounting practices?

RFPP Revison 1 incorporates Revised Cost/Price workbook.

RFPP+Contested+Logistics_10+Mar+25; 3. Price; If the contractor does not have rates that are based on Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) or Department of Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) negotiated rates can we provide fully loaded price rates vs a cost buildup?

The proposal must include a detailed breakout of how the money will be spent and how prices and rates were determined. Direct and indirect rates must be justified based on past commercial or Government rates, or by providing examples of equivalent rates for equivalent talent. If rates are based on Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or

Department of Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) negotiated rates, the rate agreements shall be provided.

Please define further “in-transit-assets” beyond Maritime (Ships, Barges etc), Aero, Land (pipelines), Land ( transport), Rail, etc.

o Will RCCTO supply or does RCCTO wish for the contractor to recommend, design, or install the following hardware to fill in the gaps for in transit assets

Please refer to the SOW for further information on "in-transit assets". While RCCTO is not requesting hardware solutions at this stage, we are interested in collaborating with contractors to obtain data to train the models. Details on data sharing and security protocols will be provided later in the procurement process.

Class III (Fuel Sources ) POL – Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants (POL)

(package and bulk): Petroleum, fuels, lubricants, hydraulic and insulating oils, preservatives, liquids and gases, bulk chemical products, coolants, deicer and antifreeze compounds, components, and additives of petroleum and chemical products, and coal oWill RCCTO supply or does RCCTO wish for the contractor to recommend, design, or install the following hardware to fill in the gaps for Class III for both in fix assets and in transit ?

oAre mechanisms in place to measure fuel quality?

oAnd to convert analog to digital data?

· Sensor & Gateway Deployment

· Obtaining Data

· Connectivity and Data Transmission

Offeror's proposed CL solution will recommend design, or install hardware to fulfill the requirements of the SOW for Class III.

Class V – Ammunition of all types, bombs, explosives, mines, fuses, detonators, pyrotechnics, missiles, rockets, propellants, and associated items o Will RCCTO supply or does RCCTO wish for the contractor to recommend, design, or install the following hardware to fill in the gaps for Class V in transit?

o And to convert analog to digital data?

§ Sensor & Gateway Deployment

§ Obtaining Data

§ Connectivity and Data Transmission

Offeror's proposed CL solution will recommend design, or install hardware to fulfill the requirements of the SOW for Class V.

Expeditionary Fuel Systems (EFS) – Will EFS be part of the SOW? Will the

EFS storage bags, tanks, gauges, pumps and etc have its own communication links and systems?

o Will RCCTO supply or does RCCTO wish for the contractor to recommend, design, or install the following hardware to fill in the gaps for Class V in transit?

o And to convert analog to digital data?

· Sensor & Gateway Deployment

· Obtaining Data

· Connectivity and Data Transmission

EFS is not in the SOW and not currently anticipated to be added to the SOW.

For the overall RCCTO COP Enterprise, what data communication systems

– satellite, 4G/5G, private (MIL) systems and/or public that are used today? Will the contractor need to recommend and/or provide comms solutions and add redundant infrastructure and or systems?

The solution will reside on existing Army networks. A standalone COP is not needed.

Will the U.S. Army CORP of Engineers maritime data be available as a resource for sea conditions data for marine in-transport or will the contractor need to pull maritime data from readily available public sources? i.e. Data that impacts sea conditions can have on ships, barges and etc. that affect delivery of Class III, Class V and Class IX supplies?

The Govt does not plan to provide COE maritime data.

How much of the COP system will need to work “offline” or autonomously in case of weather conditions, sabotage, etc.?

Solution will integrate onto existing Army COP systems according to SOW Para. 3.2.3.

Due to the complexity of the RFPP and the short timeframe of submittal and the need for further clarification, will the RCCTO COP be willing to provide a two-week extension to the submittal deadline?

Per revison 1, the Government extended the deadline.

Will there be any preference points given to Native owned or Tribal owned businesses?

There will be no preference applied to this requirement.

...respectfully requests an extension to the current response due date of

March 26, 2025, 1400 Eastern for the above referenced Request for

Prototype Proposal…14-day extension…

Per revison 1, the Government extended the deadline.

Can RCCTO clarify how the Government intends to handle the integration of commercial software tools, AI/ML models, and proprietary data within the Enhanced Contested Logistics Software Prototype Development effort without jeopardizing or forcing Unlimited Rights claims on pre-existing commercial IP?

The offeror shall articulate its solution including how the software will be integrated and the data rights asserted/claimed.

Specifically, if a vendor leverages existing commercial capabilities or proprietary AI/ML tools to meet technical requirements, how does

RCCTO intend to protect those pre-existing assets while still meeting the

Government’s need for technical data and deliverables under this effort?

The offeror shall articulate its solution including how the software will be integrated and the data rights asserted/claimed.

Would RCCTO consider alternative delivery models (e.g., API-based access, modular integration) to enable Government access to capability without requiring full source code or Unlimited Rights in proprietary commercial tools?

Alternative delivery models are not desired nor acceptable. Offerors must propose solutions that fully meet the requirements in the SOW.

In light of Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s recent directive to rapidly field emerging technologies and prioritize commercial solutions to address near-term operational challenges, can RCCTO clarify how this Other

Transaction Authority (OTA) solicitation aligns with that policy, particularly regarding data rights and source code delivery expectations?

This is a competitive Request for Prototype Proposals (RFPPs), with the intent to award an

OTA under 10 USC 4022.

How does RCCTO envision balancing the requirement for Unlimited

Rights and full source code delivery with the need to leverage commercially developed AI/ML and logistics software platforms, in line with the Department’s push to integrate mature commercial solutions without disincentivizing industry participation?

This is a competitive Request for Prototype Proposals (RFPPs), with the intent to award an

OTA under 10 USC 4022

Should labor rates reflect current actual salaries or fully burdened wrap rates? If fully burdened, what components (OH, G&A, Fee) should be included in the rate versus shown separately?

Labor rates should reflect fully burdened rates to include OH, G&A, & Fee.

Are there specific indirect rates (Fringe, Overhead, G&A) the government expects us to apply, or should we propose based on our disclosed rates?

The Govt does not mandate or specify direct or indirect rates. Offereors should propose their most competitive rates and factors.

Can you clarify whether facilities cost of money (COM) applies to this procurement? If so, should we apply any specific guidance/rate?

While facilities cost of money might arguably be an allowable cost in similar development efforts, the Government cannot make a blanket statement as to its allowability as to any proposed solution without seeing the cost volume and breakdown. However, Offerors are encouraged to be mindful of cost/price in their proposal and to seek opportunities to offer the Government the best value practical.

What classification level (IL4, IL5, IL6) is this solution expected to live at?

Do all workflows need to be completed at all classification levels?

a. Will ATO sponsorship be available through this contract?

This effort is CUI and no access to classified systems or networks is anticipated. If access is required to classified systems/networks, the DD254 will be updated. RCCTO may support or sponsor an offeror's ATO application at its sole descretion.

Where will the solution be hosted?

a. If in the cloud

i. Will it be in an Army cloud or contractor-owned cloud?

b. If on hardware

i. Who owns, operates, and deploys to the hardware?

1. If government-owned and operated, will virtualization and container orchestration technologies be available?

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the completed solution shall be provided in the greater set of Army Cloud Environments, as opposed to only the M365 GCCH Azure Cloud

Environment. The Government will make a decision on whether to host the HMIF CL SW solution on the Army Cloud Environment at the CDR, or at a time otherwise agreed by the

Parties. Final HMIF CL SW prototype must be deployed to Army Cloud infrastructure with functionality.

The CDRL suggests a waterfall software delivery model with months dedicated to design, and the first field demo at month 15. Would RCCTO consider a solution with an alternative delivery model, with demo occuring earlier than 12 months, with regular demonstrations and feedback?

Yes, the Government will consider the approach.

The SOW does not mention capabilities ensuring data is flowing from the echelons with the supply, such as LOGSTAT reporting and resupply planning. Would RCCTO consider LOGSTAT, convoy building, and resupply forecasting capabilities essential to the success of this contract?

Yes, LOGSTAT, convoy building, and resupply forecasting may be elements of a successful CL software solution, but they are not part of the current requirements for this effort.

The SOW mentions the COP shall integrate with existing Army COPs.

What are the capabilities of the current COPs, where are they hosted, and who are the users of those COPs?

Offerors solution will be required to integrate onto existing Army COP systems (Command

Post Computing Environment (CPCE)) in accordance with SOW Para. 3.2.3. CPCE users operate from Platoon up to Division.

109 Who is the targeted echelon/user for the software? The targeted echelons for use of the solution is Division and below.

Section 3.5.2 states that predictive models for predicting maintenance requirements for platforms is a requirement. However, in Section 3.7.3

Class IX data seems optionally included (i.e., not a requirement). Is predictive maintenance benchmarked to operational field data a requirement for the operation prototype?

Govt is interested in predictive maintenance capabilities as outlined in Para. 3.5.2.4, and it is not optional. Yes, the predictive maintenance features of the HMIF CL software solution shall be developed and prototyped IAW SOW Para.. 3.5.2.

Regarding sustainment: Should we assume the availability of a real-time data feed for monitoring supply levels, with no requirement to model or recommend adjustments to the supply chain?

Availability of logistics data to be limited to GCSS-A availability. Offeror may use synthetic data to show efficacy of their CL solution.

Regarding HMIF: we understand we will be required to "...Conduct scenario-based testing for HMIF logistics and perform field tests and simulations to validate the effectiveness of CL software in managing

HMIF logistics."

a. Does this refer to an experimental evaluation of hardware maintenance requirements by the contractor, or is it intended as an assessment based on live or ongoing data sources? In other words, are we expected to generate data through hands-on experimentation with

HMIF prototypes, or is the task limited to analyzing data provided by external sources?

Please see revised SOW for HMIF clarifications.

Regarding Past Performance: The RFP states “Limited to the past three

(3) years, related prior or current work, identify Offeror’s roles and responsibilities: "Limited to the past three (3) years, related prior or current work, identify Offeror’s roles and responsibilities:”

a. We just want to clarify the interpretation of the dates.... We view this as 40 months of continuous contested logistics performance. Does this meet the intent of past performance as stated in the RFPP?

The Government will NOT evaluate past performance. RFPP paragraph 3.4(3) requests work

(experience) examples from within the previous three years. The Evaluation Team will NOT consider experience which predated the 3 year period. However, substantial performance which overlaps with the three year period, even if the contract started before the three year period, could be considered. For instance, if a Vendor submitted an example of a four year iterative development effort which began January 30, 2021 and ends on January 29, 2025, the Government will consider the last three years of performance for similarity to this requirement. The Government will not give credit for "extra months" of work which exceed the requirement or are outside the three year period."

Regarding Sofware: "The Contractor shall provide the Government with the Technical Data Package (TDP) and Source Code for the delivered CL software".

a. As a SBIR company, are we correct to presume the intellectual property developed under the SBIR and brought into this effort is protected under SBIR data rights law?

b. As part of the negotiation for this proposal, we understand a discussion of shared or government owned IP will be addressed as part of the Technical Data Package (TDP).

a. yes. b. That is correct.

This SOW outlines the tasks, services, and work planned to achieve the CL project objectives. The tasks involve the application of LLM(s), other

Deep Learning ML models, and knowledge graphs to contractor-identified and government-provided datasets to address the identified gaps in CL operations.

The Government does not see a quesiton with this submission, but the summary is generally correct.

Are we correct in understanding that upon award, the government will provide a list of data systems and access to those data systems to facilitate development of LLMs and ML models. and further that any delay in access to representative date will result in delays to delays and milestones associated with timely delivery?

Synthetic data may be used to demonstrate the CL capabiliies. The Govt will identify the data and data systems to be used to test/validate the software solution. The operational field data and data systems will be identified on or before PDR, and will be aligned with evolving standards for HMIF formations.

Data Sources for Operational Field Data: The document mentions the use of operational field data for testing and demonstrating the CL software suite but does not specify the exact sources or types of data that will be provided by the government. Will more information on the specific datasets and their availability be provided?

Synthetic data may be used to demonstrate the CL capabiliies. The Govt will identify the data and data systems to be used to test/validate the software solution. The operational field data and data systems will be identified on or before PDR.

The RFPP mentions regular meetings with Army stakeholders to gather requirements and feedback but does not specify the frequency, format, or key stakeholders involved. Will the government provide access to the appropriate users for feedback?

Meetings and TIMs are dependent upon each offerors unique solution. The Govt will have the key stakeholders involved in the post award phase of this effort. The timing, format, and personel/stakeholders required will be determined during contrcat performance. Yes, the

Govt will provide access to the appropriate stakeholders for technical feedback.

Are the page constraints for experience and key personnel correct; one page? Recommend the government provide at least one page for experience, one page for key personnel and one page for quality control process. Also, recommend the government publish a template for this section for offerors to complete.

Per revision 1, RFPP page limit revised.

What is the Government’s expectation for the ability to integrate with classified data and interfaces as part of a mature TRL6+ capability?

Project effort is CUI, and access to classified…