Questions_and_Answers_-_M917A3_HDT_Solicitation_W56HZV-15-R-0026,_31_August_2017.pdf

Questions and Answers

M917A3 Heavy Dump Truck (HDT)

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

M917A3 Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRL) DD Form

In reference to the subject solicitation, please provide the Exhibit A, Contract Data Requirements

List (CDRL) DD Form 1423, as it does not appear to be posted on FedBizOpps.gov.

The Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) DD Form 1423 was posted to

FedBizOpps on 31 May 2017.

M917A3 Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRL) DD Form

Section J List of Attachments (Page 170 of 204) indicates that the CDRL DD Form 1423s are in

Exhibit A. Please direct offerors to the location of this exhibit. It does not appear to be in the list of items published on FBO.

The Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) DD Form 1423 was posted to

FedBizOpps on 31 May 2017.

Solicitation Paragraph A.4 and

Sections L&M

Paragraph A.4 and Sections L&M. Paragraph A.4 states: “The Government will conduct a best value evaluation of technical, past performance, price, and small business participation factors.”

There does not appear to be a Past performance evaluation section to which offerors would respond. Please clarify if Past Performance will be evaluated.

Past performance will not be evaluated and the solicitation will be revised to remove this statement.

Restricted Specification Annex (Joint

Certification Program) Can you please help me with the procedure of changing the POC in JCP?

Please see the FAQ section of the Joint Certification Program (JCP) website for information on how to correct the information on an existing certification.

5 Solicitation Section L.1.8.1

L.1.8.1 states that the Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 240 calendar days.

However, ATTACHMENT_0016_-_HDT_Milestone_Schedule_Chart shows an acceptance period of approximately 180 days followed by a contract award in early 1QFY18. Can you please reconcile the two conflicting acceptance periods and advise on a target award date?

Section L.1.8.1 represents the correct information regarding the required minimum acceptance period of 240 calendar days. Attachment 0016 will be removed from the solicitation as that information is inaccurate.

6 Solicitation Section C.1.14.4 This paragraph is missing. Please clarify if there is a requirement associated with this paragraph.

Section C.1.14.4 is reserved. Section C.1.14.5 discusses the Camouflage Line

Basis Drawings and the reference in CLIN A016 will be revised accordingly.

7 Solicitation Section A.8.2

In reference to the above subject RFP, on page 3, paragraph A.8.2, there is reference to a

Purchase Specification Annex and refers you to fbo web page for directions on obtaining the annex. I am not able to see any directions. Can you please provide information on how to obtain this annex?

The FBO link was revised to reference the FBO site for the M917A3 HDT

Solicitation page, which contains all of the attachments and exhibits associated with this action.

8 Solicitation Section C.2.11.3

As the M917A3 is a commercially based product, would the USG consider removing the requirement for IETM in exchange for a commercial electronic parts catalogue? Leveraging commercially available publications to the maximum extent possible will help reduce programs costs and time to FMR. The Government will not remove the IETM requirement.

9 Solicitation Section C.2.11.3 If the USG, maintains the requirement for an IETM, what Level of IETM of IETM is required? The solicitation states the IETM requirements.

Solicitation Section C.1.5.5 -

Technical Support

This paragraph essentially is scope for future undefined work. Per this paragraph, this work is to be communicated to the contractor by delivery order. Will each delivery order be separately funded outside of this contract? If not, how would the Government like offerors to propose to this requirement?

Yes, Section C.1.5.5, - Technical Support will be separately funded via delivery order.

Solicitation Sections C.1.5.3 and

C.1.5.4

Paragraph C.1.5.3 mentions a bi-weekly IPT that is required. Paragraph C.1.5.4 mentions a bi-weekly teleconference that is also required. Are these the same required meetings? How many bi-weekly meetings (IPT and Teleconference) is the Government expecting offerors to propose to?

Section C.1.5.4 will be renumbered to C.1.5.3.1 in order to clarify that the teleconference applies to IPT meetings.

Solicitation Section C.2.24 -

Packaging Data Development

Will the USG consider removing MIL-STD packaging requirements in lieu of "commercial pack" since the end item requirement is for a commercially based item? The Government will not remove the MIL-STD requirement.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

ATTACHMENT_0016_-

_HDT_Milestone_Schedule_Chart

This schedule shows a RFP release in March 2017. The actual RFP release was EOM May

2017. How are offerors to interpret subsequent milestones? Is it a one-for-one adjustment?

Recommend the USG publish an updated ATTACHMENT_0016_-

_HDT_Milestone_Schedule_Chart reflecting accurate program dates.

Attachment 0016 will be removed from the solicitation as that information is outdated.

P-SPEC paragraphs: 1.4.1.1.1.1 through 1.4.1.1.1.18

Considering P-SPEC paragraphs: 1.4.1.1.1.1 through 1.4.1.1.1.18, some requirements specify with and without armor, some specify with armor and some are silent. Please clarify which specifications are required on the armor capable truck, the armored truck or both.

PSPEC requirements 1.4.1.1.1.1 through 1.4.1.1.1.18 specify a commercial standard cab sized and outfitted with the required cab and crew features and equipment. For the "armor capable truck" a standard cab with the "all" specified cab and crew features and equipment is required IAW 1.4.1.1.1.1 through 1.4.1.1.1.18. For the "armored truck", a standard commercial cab modified with an LTAS A-cab and B-kit or a fully replaceable armored cab, are each acceptable in meeting the requirements, and shall include the specified cab and crew features and equipment, with the exception that PSPEC 2441, 251, 257, 258, 259, 2286, 260 and 261 may not be required, dependent on the offeror's armor solution.

15 HDT PSPEC 1567 (1.3.1)

HDT PSPEC 1567 (1.3.1) states the vehicle will have a specified “single pass vehicle cone index” implying the use of the single pass VCI calculation method. However, Attachment 004, references an NRMM method of VCI calculation. Please clarify which method will be used to evaluate mobility per Section L.4.1.3

The offeror's proposed VCI will be evaluated in terms of the technical subfactor

"Mobility" as set forth in Sections L and M of the solicitation, where the NRMM method of VCI calculation will be used. Upon contract award and during

Production Verification Testing (PVT), conformance and verification of the vehicle's actual VCI will be IAW PS-M917A3, Section 4, PSPEC 1567.

HDT PSPECs 1800, 2559 and 2226

(4.1.7.6.2 through 4.1.7.6.2.2)

These paragraphs specify one type of cold start assist. There are other (more cost and logistically effective) cold start assists commercially in use. Recommend that the Government delete HDT

PSPECs 1800, 2559 and 2226 (4.1.7.6.2 through 4.1.7.6.2.2) and describe the performance required.

The Government will not be removing the cold start assist requirements for

PSPECs 1800, 2559 and 2226.

17 HDT PSPEC 249 (1.4.1.1.1.8)

This paragraph specifies a solution to driver side visibility. There are other (more operationally and cost effective) side visibility solutions commercially in use. Recommend that the Government delete HDT PSPEC 249 (1.4.1.1.1.8) and describe the performance required.

PSPEC 249 is revised as follows:

1.4.1.1.1.8 Provide Vehicle Side Visibility

Vehicle operators shall have unrestricted visibility to the upper and lower sides of the entire length of the M917A3 HDT (both sides from front to rear of vehicle, with and without armor solution installed) while seated in the operator’s seat inside the cab.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

18 HDT PSPEC 264 (1.4.1.1.1.18.1)

This paragraph specifies a solution to alert the operator to various vehicle operating conditions.

There are other (more operationally and cost effective) commercial solutions that alert the operator to various operating conditions that are currently in use. Recommend that the Government delete

HDT PSPEC 264 (1.4.1.1.1.18.1) and describe the performance required.

PSPEC 264 will be revised as follows:

PSPEC 264, 1.4.1.1.1.18.1 Provide Controls, Displays, Gauges, Meters, Indicators and Switches.

The vehicle shall be equipped with controls, displays, gauges, meters, indicators and switches that shall be visible to the driver and illuminated for night operation. Controls, displays, gauges, meters, and switches shall use coded indicators such as color, position, text and other approaches to indicate information type (desirable, cautionary, and dangerous operating levels). The visual displays, warnings, and cautions shall meet the requirements of MIL-

STD-1472 section 5.1.2.5 and 5.7.3. Controls and displays shall meet the requirements of FMVSS 101. Controls and displays not regulated by FMVSS

101 shall meet the size, spacing, labeling, and activation force requirements of

MIL-STD-1472 sections 5.1, 5.4, and 5.1.3.2.

Key Performance Parameters

(KPPs)

Does the USG anticipate restructuring the RFP to identify Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) or at a minimum establishing a list of Non-tradable requirements?

The Government will not be restructuring the RFP, nor identifying which requirements are specifically derived from the KPPs and KSAs. There are no tradable requirements. All threshold requirements must bet met.

20 Solicitation Section C.1

Reference C.1, the USG states the purpose is to “provide a commercially based M917A3”. Has the USG considered allowing disclosure of a contractor estimated cost savings for “not meeting” certain threshold requirements that are increasing costs and moving HDT away from the goal of obtaining a commercially based M917A3?

The Government's position is disclosure of a contractor estimated cost savings is outside the scope of the RFP and is not necessary at this time. A contractor prepared proposal which meets all the current contract requirements is required.

21 Solicitation Section C.1.11.5 What is the duration of the PDM Link Training? 3 hours or less per person.

22 PM-HTV Revision to PS-M917A3

HDT-PSPEC-1526, 3.1.10.3.2 Enable Vehicle Lifting. The revised requirement is needed to protect the Government from incurring costs for future vehicle changes in the event vehicle damage results during lift and tiedown evaluations.

PSPEC 1526 will be revised as follows:

3.1.10.3.2 Enable Vehicle Lifting

Vehicle (with and without armor) shall be capable of being lifted without damage to the vehicle and armor (T=O)

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

HDT PSPEC1709 and HDT-PSPEC-

These requirements are in different sections of the PSPEC. One (HDT PSPEC 1709 para

3.2.2.1.1) mandates that all but the primary tank be equipped with an automatic drain valve. The other (HDT-PSPEC-1272 para 5.1.6.13) mandates all air reservoirs be equipped with an automatic drain valve. Which should we meet?

3.2.2.1.1 Component Accessibility and Identification

All air reservoirs on the vehicle with the exception of the primary air reservoir shall each be equipped with an automatic drain valve. The primary reservoir shall be equipped with a manually operated drain valve to allow air to be quickly bled out prior to performing brake system maintenance tasks.

5.1.6.13 Equip Vehicle with Air Reservoir

All air reservoirs on the vehicle shall each be equipped with an automatic drain valve.

PSPEC 1709 remains unchanged:

Additionally, PSPEC 1272 will be revised as follows:

5.1.6.13 Equip Vehicle with Air Reservoir

With the exception of the primary air reservoir, all air reservoirs on the vehicle shall each be equipped with an automatic drain valve. (See PSPEC 1709).

24 HDT-PSPEC-1080 This PSPEC seems to be an incomplete sentence. Can the government please clarify?

No change is necessary. PSPEC 1080 currently reads as a complete sentence:

25 HDT-PSPEC-951 para4.1.8.1.1.1

Overall Width. There are two hyperlinks in this specification paragraph. The first one does not seem to work.

The hyperlink will be revised in the PSPEC as follows:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja

&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVs6L1jdnLAhVCSyYKHRzWBOkQFggiMAE&url=http s%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpo.gov%2Ffdsys%2Fgranule%2FCFR-2011-title23-vol1%2FCFR-2011-title23-vol1-sec658-15&usg=AFQjCNGG-n4cDJZeB1jo3FXQwYYs4CCPAw&bvm=bv.117604692,d.eWE"23 CFR 658.15

Solicitation Sections E.4, E.7, E.9 and H.1.4

Paragraphs E.4, E.7, E.9 and H.1.4 state that post-test events, the test vehicles are to returned to the contractor’s facility at contractor expense. Please clarify why, if this transportation is to satisfy a Government requirement, that it is at the contractor’s expense.

The transportation costs are the responsibility of the contractor IAW the solicitation.

Solicitation Section B and Section

C.4.1

In Section B and in Section C.4.1, CDRL A069 is referred to as “Item Unique Identification Device

(IUID) Marking Plan is IAW CDRL A069”. In the CDRL List, A069 is titled’ “List of Pass through

Warranties.” CDRL A009 is titled “Item Unique Identification Device (IUID) Marking Plan”. Please clarify.

The solicitation will be updated as follows:

Revise CLIN A069 from "IUID Marking Plan" to "List of Pass through

Warranties".

Revise Section C.4.1 to change the reference of CRDL A069 to CDRL A009.

Revise CDRL A009 from Item Unique Identification (IUID) to Item Unique

Identification (IUID) Marking Plan.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

HDT PSPEC-186 which references

FMVSS 126 and 136

FMVSS126: This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, exclusively hydraulic brakes. FMVSS136: This standard applies to tractors and buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds. Applies to air brakes and hydraulic brakes. Straight trucks (a.k.a. “rigids”) are not affected by the regulation.

Please consider the deletion of this requirement since the referenced FMVSS requirements are not applicable to the type of chassis utilized in dump truck applications.

PSPECs 185, 186, 2409, 187, 188, 189, 191 and 192 covering ESC have been revised from Threshold requirements to only Objective requirements.

29 P-SPEC-366

Most commercial vehicles do not have the ability to dim the dome and map lights. Please consider removing from the example map and dome lighting.

Dome and map lights' dimming will be revised from a threshold to an objective requirement.

30 P-SPEC-254

In reference to P-SPEC-254 has identified the interior upholstery color as black or olive drab green. Commercial dump trucks are not commonly available with upholstery colors of black or olive drab green. Request an addition of gray or dark muted color as acceptable upholstery color.

The PSPEC 254 will be revised as follows:

1.4.1.1.1.13 Upholstery Color

The cab interior (i.e., visors, floor, dash, doors, walls, etc.) and upholstery color shall be black, olive drab green, or dark gray, unless color is otherwise changed by delivery order or PCO.

P-SPEC-264 for Color Coded

Gauges

Standard instrumentation for Commercial Class 8 chassis are highly visible and are designed to maximize driver safety, reduce driver fatigue and minimize driver eye strain. In addition, there are numerous additional warning lights and/or driver messages to alert operator of any undesirable or ineffective usage. Request this requirement for color coded gauges be deleted from specification.

PSPEC 264 will be revised as follows:

1.4.1.1.1.18.1 Provide Controls, Displays, Gauges, Meters, Indicators and

Switches.

The vehicle shall be equipped with controls, displays, gauges, meters, indicators and switches that shall be visible to the driver and illuminated for night operation. Controls, displays, gauges, meters, and switches shall use coded indicators such as color, position, text and other approaches to indicate information type (desirable, cautionary, and dangerous operating levels). The visual displays, warnings, and cautions shall meet the requirements of MIL-

STD-1472 section 5.1.2.5 and 5.7.3. Controls and displays shall meet the requirements of FMVSS 101. Controls and displays not regulated by FMVSS

101 shall meet the size, spacing, labeling, and activation force requirements of

MIL-STD-1472 sections 5.1, 5.4, and 5.1.3.2.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

32 HDT-PSPEC-1800

In reference to HDT-PSPEC-1800 the specification requires a starting fluid system. As there are other performance requirements that mandate the cold start performance (PSPEC 1796, 1797, and

1798) the mandate for a specific type of cold starting system does allow industry to propose commercial solutions. A variety of proven commercial solutions exist for cold weather starting offering equal or better performance without the risk and cost of starting fluid. Please consider deletion of this requirement from the specification.

The Government will not revise PSPECs 1800, 2559 and 2226 as they establish the Government's proven method for reliable vehicle cold starting, with or without a separate arctic heater kit. For ambient temperatures below minus 25 degrees F, PSPEC 1797 and PSPEC 1978 specify the use of a contractor-developed arctic heater kit, which may or may not use a starter fluid injection system; however, for ambient temperatures at and above 25 degrees

F, the specified starter fluid injection system IAW PS-1800, 2559 and 2226 remains unchanged and is required.

33 Performance Specification

The Performance specification includes several references to electrical components required to be water resistant, waterproof, or protected against power wash/spraying (PSPEC 2694, 2696, 670).

It is our interpretation that all electrical components located inside the cab are protected by the cab and additional levels of water protection are not required. Waterproofing of electrical components within the cab is not a commercial industry standard. Please update the requirement to state electrical components and connectors inside the cab are not required to water resistant, water proof, or protected against power washing.

PSPECs 670 and 2696 will be revised from Threshold to only Objective requirements. PSPEC 2694 will remain a valid Threshold requirement and shall be met.

34 PSPEC-2577

In regard to PSPEC-2577, lubricity filters can be designed to have the same life cycle and service interval as the fuel filter. The use of lubricity filters extends the life of any diesel engine. As the PSPEC already defines the time allotment for Scheduled service (PSPEC-2237) we request the requirements be revised to allow lubricity filter and exclude lubricity liquid additive, as long as the filter service is included in the analysis of PSPEC-2237. The Government will not revise PSPEC-2577.

35 HDT- PSPEC-1564

In reference to HDT- PSPEC-1564 for European railcar deck height. As a result of the HDT requirements which include: 27ton payload, 18 cubic yard dump body, full width cab protector, and transfer case with all-wheel drive axles it is not possible to meet the Envelope M outline criteria with transport on a European railcar with a 50 inch (127 cm) flat deck height. Since other rail car options exist in Europe per STANAG 2175, we request the rail car deck requirement be modified to allow transport on drop deck rail cars.

PSPEC requirement 1564 will be deleted as PSPEC requirement 842 addresses the requirement for NATO rail transport.

HDT-PSPEC-245 refers to PSPEC-

Is the Protective Mask, MOPP Gear, and Body Armor identified in PSPEC-624 to be stowed in the

2 duffle bags identified in PSPEC-245? No, these are two separate storage requirements.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

37 Solicitation Section C.1.8.15

This requirement should be just for USG initiated ECPs. Any ECPs initiated and funded by the contractor should be owned by the contractor. USG is not buying the TDP. Why are they requiring the technical data for ECNs owned by the contractor? Recommend making this applicable only to

Government Directed Class I ECPs.

As part of the Government's review and approval/disapproval process for a contractor-initiated and funded ECP, these types of technical data and information (e.g., technical supporting documentation) shall be included as part of the contractor-initiated ECP submission IAW the contract. The purpose for this information is not to establish Government ownership but rather for the

Government to fully assess the contractor-initiated ECP. The contractor funded data and information submitted as part of a contractor-initiated ECP should be marked accordingly, in terms of rights, restrictions and assertions.

38 Solicitation Section C.1.8.18

This requirement should be just for USG initiated ECPs. Any ECPs initiated and funded by the contractor should be owned by the contractor. USG is not buying the TDP. Why are they requiring the technical data for ECNs owned by the contractor? Recommend making this applicable only to

Government Directed Class II ECPs.

As part of the Government's review and approval/disapproval process for a contractor-initiated and funded ECP, these types of technical data and information (e.g., technical supporting documentation) shall be included as part of the contractor-initiated ECP submission IAW the contract. The purpose for this information is not to establish Government ownership but rather for the

Government to fully assess the contractor-initiated ECP. The contractor funded data and information submitted as part of a contractor-initiated ECP should be marked accordingly, in terms of rights, restrictions and assertions.

39 Solicitation Section H.1.5

The Government has requested a 36-month warranty. Historically, the USG has not purchased vehicle warranties for commercially based vehicles or, for sole source contracts, had warranties removed by contracting officer during negotiations. Can the USG provide a sample program with a system warranty similar to the one described in H.1.5 that was purchased? How does the USG intend to manage due to geographic constraints?

The Government will not provide a sample. All warranty requirements are stated in Section H.1.5.

40 Solicitation Section C.1.8.7.1.2

This paragraph reads as if all of the documentation and configuration changes to the approved P-

BL as a result of the FAT2 and Live Fire are the contractors’ cost burden. Why would the contractor bear the cost of a Government-directed changes? Recommend differentiating between what the USG is responsible for and what the contractor is responsible for.

To meet the Government requirements during all Government testing and evaluations, including for the contract period of performance, it may be necessary at times for the contractor to make changes (e.g., corrective actions) to the approved P-BL in order to meet contractual requirements. The

Government is only responsible for costs resulting from Government-directed changes that are beyond the contract requirements.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

Blast tested using Engineered

Roadbed Soil (ERS)

In anticipation of the HDT RFP and knowing future vehicle development programs were to be blast tested using Engineered Roadbed Soil (ERS), offerors began efforts to gather information regarding the ERS. Offerors became aware of a set of blast panel tests using ERS, that was available to TARDEC and was used by TARDEC in a paper DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

OF EPH MATERIAL MODEL FOR ENGINEERED ROADWAY SOIL. Authors: Hsieh, Sheng, Akers and Korson. This paper was presented at GVSETS in August 2014. Before the HDT RFP, offerors were told they needed a contracting office to confirm the need for access to the models.

Now that the HDT is an active RFP, and considering HDT LFTE will be tested using Engineered

Roadbed Soil, can the contracting officer please confirm the need for access to this data so

TARDEC can release it? The information will not be provided.

42 General Question Do you have a price point that you can share with industry? No, a price point will not be provided.

43 General Question

Upon review of review of the solicitation, you all are very specific in your requirements. Do you still feel and plan to approach this as being as commercialized a truck as possible? Yes.

44 General Question What is biggest breakdown of dump truck you have seen or want to stay away from? No response provided, as this information is not relevant to the solicitation.

45 General Question What's the Op rate today for existing trucks? No response provided, as this information is not relevant to the solicitation.

46 General Question Is there anything you all want to make sure Industry understands? The solicitation includes all the information that is required for this effort.

47 General Question

Is the government considering an extension due to the classified portion getting out so late and the questions not being answered to date? Yes, the solicitation closing date will be revised to August 10, 2017.

48 HDT-PSPEC-759

HDT-PSPEC-759 calls out the C4ISR Integration Kit, 57K7274 and Annex H identifies the parts in this kit. How do offerors obtain these part drawings or at a minimum some overall dimensions to assure the space claim and attachment requirements identified in the PSPEC?

Attachment 0001 (Annex H) contains part numbers which have been provisioned by the Army.

49 Solicitation Section E.1

Section E.1 states “The contractor shall deliver a quality manual that shall follow the guidelines of

ISO 9004:2009.” Some offerors may be registered to ISO 9000:2015 which does not require a quality manual. Please indicate how you would like offerors who are ISO 9000:2015 registered to respond to the requirement for a quality manual per ISO 9004:2009.

Section E.1 will be revised to include the following:

If the offeror is ISO 9001:2015 registered a Quality Manual is not required.

50 HDT-PSPEC-417

Are bags “A” & “B”, seen in HDT-PSPEC-417, the “two (2) GI duffle bags” described in HDT-

PSPEC-245?

No. PSPEC 245 will be revised as follows:

1.4.1.1.1.5 Cab Interior Stowage

Vehicle shall provide a separate single interior cab stowage with dimensions of

2.0 ft. X 1.0 ft. x 3.0 ft. (6 cubic feet).

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

51 Solicitation Section L.4.1.3 b

Section L.4.1.3 b. asks offerors to fill out the VCI data requirements matrix (Attachment 0004) for the proposed M917A3 in “unarmored and armored” configurations. Attachment 0004 only asks for the VCI data in the vehicle load configuration “GVW with full payload and unarmored” and HDT-

PSPEC 1567 only stipulates VCI requirements for a vehicle “without armor”. Please clarify what configuration the Government would like offerors to reflect in Attachment 0004.

Section L.4.1.3.b is revised as follows:

b. Completely fill out the VCI Data Requirements Matrix (Attachment 0004) for the proposed M917A3 HDT at GVW in unarmored configuration.

52 Solicitation Section C.2.11.3.3

Section C.2.11.3.3 mentions that offerors are to deliver a Preliminary Draft IETM at the “4 th

Logistics In Process Review (IPR)”. Please clarify when Logistics IPRs 1-3 are. Refer to section C.1.6.6. In Process Review.

53 General Question

Based on the Government’s delay in answering questions and the late release of the Classified

Annex, is the Government considering an extension on the proposal submittal date? Yes, the solicitation closing date will be revised to August 10, 2017.

54 Solicitation Section M.1.2 b

USG state that one of the conditions under which price becomes controlling is when an otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable. Please explain how the USG is determining affordability.

Unaffordability is determined if there is insufficient funding available. Once proposals are received, the Government will evaluate and if proposals are determined unaffordable, Offeror's will be notified prior to contract award.

CLINs 1001-1003,2001-2003, 3008,3009,4005-4008, 5005-5008, 6005-6008, 7005-7008

The CLINs direct the offerors to paint specifications in C.1.7.3. the cited para, C.1.7.3 does not contain any paint information. Please clarify. The CLIN narratives have been revised to reference Section C.1.7.2(b).

56 CLINs 4010, 5010, 6010 and 7010

CLINs 4010, 5010, 6010 and 7010 refer to a Maintenance Control System Tailgate (MCS). Please clarify if the USG means Material Control System Tailgate (MCS).

The CLINs have been revised from Maintenance Control System Tailgate

(MCS) to Material Control System Tailgate (MCS).

57 Solicitation Section C.1.7.4.1

Paragraph C.1.7.4.1 is referred to multiple times in the Section B and Section C. Please clarify the contents of C.1.7.4.1. It does not appear to be in Section C. The references have been revised to reflect C.1.7.4.

58 Solicitation Section L.5

This section mentions that there is a classified volume to be submitted. This section also states that there is classified information to be requested by offerors. It has been over 1 week since some offerors’ requests have been submitted with no acknowledgment or response from the

Government. When will the Government send the classified information to offerors?

The Government was experiencing issues with mailbox usarmy.detroit.peo-cs-css.mbx.pm-ts-htv@mail.mil with regards to offeror requests for Classified

Annex C. The issue has been resolved and all pending offeror requests are in process. This update was also posted to FBO.

59 Solicitation Section L.5

This section mentions that there is a classified volume to be submitted. Section M does not describe how this information will be evaluated. Please clarify.

Section L.4.1.2 for Technical Subfactor 2 - Force Protection identifies the substantiating data that the offeror may submit in response to this requirement.

Section M.4.1.2 Subfactor (2) Force Protection identifies how this information will be evaluated for this requirement.

60 Solicitation Section L

Clause 52.215-20 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA AND DATA

OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA (OCT 2010) -- ALTERNATE I (OCT 2010)

implies that offerors will have to certify to the pricing data submitted. FAR 15.403-1, outlines how adequate price competition is an exception for submitting certified cost and pricing data. Why, if this is a competitively solicited contract, does the Government require certified cost and pricing data? Recommend deleting this clause.

Clause 52.215-20 references both Certified and Other Than Certified Cost or

Pricing Data. Section (a)(1)(ii) Commercial item exception details the Other

Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data that shall be submitted for commercial items. As such, this clause will not be removed from the solicitation.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

61 Solicitation Section L.4.2.1

Section L.4.2.1 states that supporting documentation is to be submitted per L.4.2.1 through

L.4.2.1.4 to enable the Government to evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s total price.

Per FAR 15.403-3 (b), outlines how adequate price competition is an exception for submitting other than certified cost and pricing data. FAR 15.403-3(b) also outlines that if additional data is needed, the contracting officer should obtain data from sources other than the offeror. Given that this is a competitively solicited contract and that it is for a commercially based item (per Section

C.1), why is the Government requesting the data outlined in Section L.4.2.? Recommend deleting the requirement for the data requested in Section L.4.2.1. This information will not be removed as it is applicable to this requirement.

62 Administrative

When will the USG get the mailbox fixed so that potential vendors can get access to the classified

Annex?

The issue with mailbox usarmy.detroit.peo-cs-css.mbx.pm-ts-htv@mail.mil has been resolved and all pending offeror requests are in process. This update was also posted to FBO

63 Administrative When will the USG begin answering potential vendor questions?

Responses to questions regarding the HDT solicitation will be posted publically to FBO once they are available.

64 Contract Structure

If the award is a base period of 5 years with two one year options, some of the CDRL requirements such as C.1.6.4 may span across multiple years that include direct and indirect rate differences. Is the Government requesting the price for each CDRL be a cumulative price that spans the entire 5 years plus two one year options or price on a per year basis?

The price for each CDRL should be cumulative. The Government will review the total price for each CDRL.

65 Transportation Costs

Solicitation References: M.4.2.5 states transportation costs will not be evaluated, but the following references state the intent to evaluate.

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS JUL/1990

52.247-47 EVALUATION--F.O.B. ORIGIN JUN/2003

52.216-4006 METHOD OF PRICE EVALUATION NOV/2007 (TACOM)

E.3.3.5.2 Shipping Criteria

12 52.247-4011 FOB POINT SEP/1978

How does the Government intend to evaluate transportation costs for best value or lowest evaluated price as outlined in the solicitation? Will Section M be modified?

The solicitation will be revised to remove the following clauses:

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS JUL/1990

52.247-47 EVALUATION--F.O.B. ORIGIN JUN/2003

52.216-4006 METHOD OF PRICE EVALUATION NOV/2007 (TACOM)

E.3.3.5.2 Shipping Criteria

12 52.247-4011 FOB POINT SEP/1978

Section E.3.3.5.2 Shipping Criteria will not be removed as it applies to shipment of PVT vehicles, not the evaluation of transportation costs.

66 HDT M917A3 PSPEC Annex C

When looking through the Attachment C (force protection) for it, the only pages on that was the header page and nothing behind it. Contacting you to see if there was something I was missing for that attachment or I might have messed up and not looking at other attachments that I should instead of the main Attachment C.

In accordance with Section L.5, the Classified Annex C must be requested via mailbox usarmy.detroit.peo-cs-css.mbx.pm-ts-htv@mail.mil.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

67 Annex C Classified Section

Annex C Classified Section only contains the classified specification. Section L.5.1 in the RFP discusses the procedure for submitting classified information. However, nowhere in the classified section or in the unclassified Section L, does the Government tell offerors what to submit in

VOLUME V – CLASSIFIED PORTIONS OF DESIGN, BUILD, AND PERFORMANCE. Also, neither Annex C nor Section discuss how classified data will be evaluated. Please clarify what the

Government wants offerors to submit in VOLUME V – CLASSIFIED PORTIONS OF DESIGN, BUILD, AND PERFORMANCE and how it will be evaluated.

Section L.4.1.2 for Technical Subfactor 2 - Force Protection identifies the substantiating data that the offeror may submit in response to this requirement.

Section M.4.1.2 Subfactor (2) Force Protection identifies how this information will be evaluated for this requirement.

CLIN 2014 CORROSION AND

RUST INHIBITOR

CLIN 2014 CORROSION AND RUST INHIBITOR asks offerors to quote a quantity of 1 EA. Does this mean that only one truck on OY2 will have the CORROSION AND RUST INHIBITOR applied to it? Or is every truck in OY2 to have CORROSION AND RUST INHIBITOR applied? If it is for every truck, recommend changing 1 EA to the actual number of trucks that the Government wants to have CORROSION AND RUST INHIBITOR applied. Please note, this question also applies to

CLINs 3013, 4011, 5011, 6011 and 7011. Additionally, CLIN 4011 expresses the UNIT of the

CORROSION AND RUST INHIBITOR as LO. Please clarify.

The Corrosion and Rust Inhibitor requirements are not yet determined as the need for overseas shipment is currently unknown. The 1 EA quantity provides the price for one-to-one ratio so that the Government has an established price when there is a need.

Solicitation Section A.3.1 & PSPEC

Paragraph A.3.1 specifies that Offerors must meet all threshold requirements. Per HDT PSPEC definition of threshold requirements (page 18 of PSEC), all requirements without a specified designation of either threshold or objective are considered threshold requirements.

It follows that all requirements are of equal value to the customer and all requirements must be met. This will drive solutions further from a commercial base (offerors having less flexibility to provide more cost effective, commercially available options) that increase costs with no quantifiable relative value added. How does the Government plan to mitigate the effects of every requirement having the same weight and driving unnecessary costs into offerors’ solutions?

The Government does consider those requirements to have value, which is why the Government made them mandatory requirements. Since these are mandatory requirements the costs associated with achieving them are necessary. In regards to your use of the terms "equal value" and "weight" the only requirements that will be evaluated and thus will have "weight" in the source selection decision are listed (along with their order of importance) in

M.4.1. However, all threshold requirements must still be met in the resulting contract.

70 HDT-PSPEC-1522

The horsepower required for 20% grade at GCVW is far in excess of standard commercial dump truck horsepower ratings. All of the other grade-ability requirements in the P-spec are consistent with commercial dump truck power ratings. Please consider removing the reference to GCVW in the PSPEC-1522. PSPEC 1522 is no longer required and will be deleted.

71 Section C.2.24.2.4.1

Section C.2.24.2.4.1 asks offerors to provide Special Packaging Instructions (SPI) “for the cab of the HDT”. Please clarify to which “cab” the Government is referring. The cab of the armor capable truck or the cab of the armored truck.

Special Packaging Instructions are required for both the unarmored cab and armored replaceable cab. Section C.2.24.2.4.1 will be revised.

72 Section C.5

Section C.5 states that “products purchased or obtained shall not be identified as being destined for inclusion in a Government system”. Please clarify to what “products” is the Government referring. Also, please clarify the intent of this paragraph.

When contractors buy components for the HDT system, such as ECUs, they should not tell their distributors that these components are destined for a

Government military system. Doing so provide "bad actors" the opportunity to compromise the parts (overseas produced sub-components) because they know they are going to be in the Army's HDTs.

73 Annex C

Annex C Artillery Fragment protection specification deviates from artillery fragment specifications from current programs (JLTV, FMTVA2 and MRAP) as well as the draft HDT classified specification (MRAP CPD 1.1). Prior to Annex C release, offerors were told that the classified specification from draft to final would not change. Please clarify.

Annex C has been revised and updated accordingly. The Government reserves the right to change/update its specifications. Contractors shall submit a new request for Annex C IAW Section L.5.1 in order to receive the updated document.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

74 Annex C PSE-18 and PSE-21

Annex C PSE-18 and PSE-21 appear to be the exact same specification tested at different velocities. Which is correct? Please clarify.

Annex C has been revised and updated accordingly. Contractors shall submit a new request for Annex C IAW Section L.5.1 in order to receive the updated document.

75 Annex C PSE-15

Annex C PSE-15 has undefined velocities. Please either define velocities or provide access to referenced ATEC or ARL guidelines.

Annex C has been revised and updated accordingly. Contractors shall submit a new request for Annex C IAW Section L.5.1 in order to receive the updated document.

76 Annex C PSE-22

Annex C PSE-22 title in the verification section implies that A-Structures on Armor capable trucks are to have transparent armor. Please clarify if armor capable trucks must have transparent armor. Also, please clarify if there are any force protection requirements applicable to armor capable trucks.

Armor capable trucks do not have transparent armor. Only after the armor capable truck is fitted with its armor solution (armored truck configuration) does it receive transparent armor. The requirements for the armor solution specify both opaque and transparent armor.

77 Annex C

Annex C lists a series of test operating procedures. All are available except ITOP 2-2-713. The website from which we download USG ITOPs states we are to contact our contracting officer for this reference. By way of this question, please make this reference available to offerors. ITOP 2-2-713 will be added as an attachment to the Classified Annex C.

78 HDT-PSPEC-2780

HDT-PSPEC-2780 states, “Armor solution integration shall permit the crew cab protection and underbody protection to operate both together on the vehicle and be changed out (e.g., installed and removed) (T) or each to operate separately (one without the other) on the vehicle and be independently changed out for changing missions, without compromising the function and threat protection provided by each (O).” The objective requirement implies that Soldiers’ mission conditions will dictate, based on threat, whether to be fully protected or partially protected (crew cab or underbody) without compromising the protection provided by each. How will the USG test the partial protection scenarios of offerors claiming they meet the objective requirement? Will there be a live-fire test on the partially protected truck of offerors that claim objective level of performance?

Testing will verify that cab protection and underbody protection are each capable of operation together and operated with the underbody protection removed. The operationally realistic configuration (cab with underbody protections) will be evaluated during Live Fire testing. The Government does not foresee conducting an underbody blast test with just the underbody protection and no cab protection. Depending on the armor solution design, the

Government reserves the right to blast test the cab protection (i.e., A-cab with

B-kit). The Government also reserves the right to test the small-arms and fragment protection of the cab protection without underbody protection depending on the final armor solution design.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

Annex C and HDT PSPEC-1111

(5.1.4.5.15 and sub paragraphs and

Annex F)

After reviewing the classified (Annex C) and unclassified sections (HDT PSPEC-1111 (5.1.4.5.15 and sub paragraphs and Annex F) of the PS M917A3 with regards to the Fuel Tank Protection strategy:

• Is the fuel tank fire suppression system required on all armored vehicles?

• Is the fuel tank protection strategy required on all armored-capable vehicles?

• Is the fuel tank fire suppression system required on all armored-capable vehicles?

As part of the offeror's armor solution, fuel tank protection is required for only

"armored" M917A3 vehicles IAW PSPEC 20. The form this fuel tank protection takes is left to the offeror to select IAW PSPEC 1631. Of the three

(3) types of fuel tank protections identified in PSPEC 1631, the offeror is required to propose no less than one type of fuel tank protection, with a fuel tank fire suppression system (FTFS) being one of the three types of acceptable fuel tank protections. In addition, PSPEC 1631 has bee revised.

As a result, PSPEC 1631, 5.1.4.5.15.1 Fuel Tank Location is revised as follows:

Vehicle fuel tank(s) shall be located on the vehicle in a protected zone away from the line of sight of snipers or shall be protected with an armored material shielding kit or other material jacket (e.g., fuel tank fire suppression system).

80 PSPEC #5.1.4.5.15

PSPEC #5.1.4.5.15 – Fuel Tank Location states four potential methods for providing fuel tank protection. Annex F echoes three of the four items in PSPEC #5.1.4.5.15, but does not list self-sealing fuel tanks as an option. Classified Annex C devotes a section to fuel tank fire suppression performance and defines a test for performance assessment. Given the Classified Annex C requirements, is a fuel tank fire suppression system required for all armored vehicles, or is a fuel tank fire suppression system optional if one of the other methods for fuel tank protection listed in

PSPEC #5.1.4.5.15 is utilized? Please clarify. See response to question 79.

81 HDT-PSPEC-1522 (1.3.4.3.3)

HDT-PSPEC-1522 (1.3.4.3.3) Maintain Speed states: “Vehicle at GVW and GCVW shall be capable of ascending a paved surface with 20% grade (11.5°) in forward direction while maintaining a minimum speed of 6 MPH (10 km/h).” Question: Is this requirement for an armor capable vehicle or an armored vehicle? PSPEC 1522 is no longer required and will be deleted.

82 Section C.1

Per C.1, the purpose of this effort is to provide a commercially based M917A3 HDT. Commercial items and commercially based items have their own commercially supported reliability and maintainability requirements. Failure to meet these requirements typically results in unfavorable business results. HDT-PSPEC-862 through HDT PSPEC 869 (Reliability requirements) and HDT-

PSPEC-874 through HDT-PSPEC-878 (Maintainability requirements) may or may not be equal to or better than the commercially inherent R&M. Commercial companies may not see the value of re-engineering a commercially based product to meet USG R&M requirements for a fraction of the vehicles that it produces each year. Recommend deleting these R&M requirements and holding vendors to the commercially accepted R&M attributes which the vendor can present at the

SOWM. These would be the R&M standards measured during PVT and DT/OT. PSPECs will not be revised.

83 CLINs 3013 and 6011

CLINs 3013 and 6011 refer to Section C Paragraph C.14.2. which does not exist. It is assumed to be C.1.14.2 like the other similar CLINs. Please clarify. The CLIN narratives will be revised to reference Section C.1.14.2.

84 Attachment 0016

In reference to answer to Question #5 from the 15 June 2017 posting of Q&A, will the Government consider redoing Attachment 0016 so it reflects the accurate timings outlined in the solicitation?

Attachment 0016 has been removed from the solicitation as that information is outdated.

W56HZV-15-R-0026

# REFERENCE INQUIRY RESPONSE

85 CLIN Reference of C.1.7.4.1

Several CLINS (including 3008, 3009, 3012, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008) reference SOW section

C.1.7.4.1; however, the section C.1.7.4.1 does not appear in the solicitation. Please provide SOW section C.1.7.4.1. The references have been revised to reflect C.1.7.4.

86 CDRL A073

The HDT solicitation references CDRL A073 in SOW section C.4.2.6; however, there is no mention of this in pricing Attachment 24, nor is it itemized in the RFP CLINs. Can the government please provide guidance? CLIN A073 will be added to incorporate the requirement for CDRL A073.

87 Restricted Documents

I am trying to access some of the documents listed as "SAM Validation Required" in FedBizOpps.

I am logged into FedBizOpps and have a validated SAM account. Are there instructions on how to access these documents that you can share? Are the documents stored somewhere else, or can they be accessed via FedBizOpps?

Please reference Sections A.8 and L.5 for information on accessing all restricted documents associated with the M917A3 HDT Solicitation.

88 Restricted Documents

There are some locked documents that we cannot download. We filled and completed the required forms for access; but have not received any feedback yet. Could you please, advise.

Please reference Sections A.8 and L.5 for information on accessing all restricted documents associated with the M917A3 HDT Solicitation.

Access to Export Controlled

Attachments

We are having issues figuring out how to access the restricted documents associated with the solicitation. Can you please provide additional information on the process for accessing these documents?

Please reference Sections A.8 and L.5 for information on accessing all restricted documents associated with the M917A3 HDT Solicitation.

Offerors are required to be certified in the Joint Certification Program (JCP) and the System for Award Management (SAM) in order to receive access to export controlled or restricted documents. Only those individuals who are registered in

JCP as the Facility Security Officer (FSO) will be granted access to the restricted documents associated with this solicitation.

Requests for access to the restricted documents shall be submitted through

FBO.

90 H.1.5.4.a - Warranty

H.1.5.4.a defines, the warranty as starting after “acceptance” which is further defined by when the units are handed off to the user via DA Form 2062 (whether or not the trucks or kits have been in storage). Per Section B (CLINs) All of the trucks and kits are FOB Origin. It is commercial practice to begin warranty when the customer takes title (DD250) of the trucks and kits. Since these trucks are commercially based and the Government owns the vehicles before they leave the assembly plant, warranty risk to offerors when defining acceptance as currently written in H.1.5.4a.

is extraordinary. This potentially adds redundant costs to the Government and contractor that can be avoided. Recommend defining “acceptance” in H.1.5.4.a as upon successful Inspection and

Acceptance at FOB Origin (DD250) for all warranted items.

Paragraph H.1.5.4 (a) - Warranty will be revised as follows:

The word "acceptance," as used herein means the execution of the Acceptance

Block and signing of a DD Form 250 by the authorized Government representative.

ATTACHMENT_0002 Performance

Requirement Matrix

ATTACHMENT_0002_-_Performance_Requirement_Matrix in Subfactor 1 Payload references

HDT-PSPEC-408. The verbiage in the box labeled PSPEC Requirement in the

ATTACHMENT_0002_-_Performance_Requirement_Matrix does not match the verbiage in

ATTACHMENT_0001_-_M917A3_Performance_Specification_(PS-M917A3) to which it is referring

(HDT-PSPEC-408). The threshold and objective requirement descriptions are different. Please clarify how offerors are to respond in ATTACHMENT_0002_-_Performance_Requirement_Matrix.

Attachment 0002, Tab 1 and Tab 2 will be revised…