Q&A_3_16_Dec.pdf

MTRS Inc II Q&A #3

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

53 Will the Government provide drawings for the current RDS Kits? No.

54 Will the Government provide RDS Interface Control Drawings?

Attachment 0005 contains the solid model describing the dimensions and space inside the RDS. There are no power or data interfaces in the RDS. The requirement for the RDS Mounting Kit is described in C.3.2.2 of the RFP.

55 What type of GPS is required to provide localization?

The MTRS Inc II MBU shall report location to the OCU as described in

3.5.3.3.2 and 3.5.3.7 of the Performance Specification. Use of GPS is not required, however, if the offeror chooses to provide a GPS in its design, the GPS shall be SAASM compliant as stated in 3.5.3.7.1 of the Performance Specification. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify this in an amendment.

Is it anticipated that data will be stored on the OCU or only on the external recording device?

The video data should be stored on the external recording device and not stored on the OCU. The requirement for Digital video is described in 3.5.4.1.4.2.10 of the Performance Specification.

The IOP instantiation document (2.2.1-High Degree of Freedom Arm)states that the base system payload is an arm which has 'ability to control a gripper. The P-Spec (3.5.2.8 Manipulate Objects) states that the arm has an 'integrated gripper attachment'. Please confirm that the gripper is an integral part of the arm and there does not need to be a separate IOP connector between the arm and the gripper.

The gripper is an integrated attachment and is modular, as described in 3.5.2.9.2 of the Performance Specification. The vendor may select IOP or non-IOP connectors for the gripper to arm connection.

Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify this in an amendment.

Will the hand controller have to meet the same environmental requirements as the rest of the system?

The MTRS Inc II system includes the MTRS Inc II Mobile Base Unit (MBU) and the MTRS Inc II Operator Control Unit (OCU). The MBU and OCU have the same environmental requirements as described in 3.7.2 of the Performance Specification.

Is MTRS Inc II expected or required to be tethered as mentioned in the brief?

The MTRS Inc II is required to include a removable communications tether as described in 3.5.6.2.3.5 of the Performance Specification.

The operator will be able to control the MTRS Inc II over a wireless connection, or control the MTRS Inc II using a tethered communication system, both over the ranges listed in the P-Spec.

60 Will there be specific technical requirements for the remote on/off?

3.5.5.2 of the Performance Specification describes the requirement to conserve power while being transported in the RDS. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify this in an amendment.

61 Is CATNAP (Remote On/Off) a requirement for the RDS kit?

The MTRS Inc II is required to have a method to conserve power while being transported in the RDS as described in 3.5.5.2 of the Performance Specification. If the provided remote on/off solution requires components to function, then those components shall be included in the RDS Mounting Kit as described in C.3.2.2 of the RFP.

Does the end effector change have to be electro-mechanical or can it just be mechanical (i.e. gripper fingers)?

The gripper modularity requirements are defined in 3.5.2.9.1 and

3.5.2.9.2 and require electro-mechanical interfaces. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify this in an amendment.

The RDS example on slide 91 provides very precise dimensions, but appears to be an example for reference only...

1) Will the Government please clarify the precise dimensions / restrictions of the RDS?

2) Are there any other limitations pertaining to the RDS and the mounting kit of which contractors must be aware??

Attachment 0001 - Attach A contains the RDS Space Claim ICD with dimensions and Attachment 0001 - Attach B contains the CAD solid model of the RDS envelope. Precise dimensions and restrictions can be ascertained from those attachments. The CAD model is able to describe any irregular shapes of the RDS.

Subfactor 2 clearly allows for video files to be submitted as substantiating information, but the other subfactors make no mention of it...To aid evaluation, will the Government permit offerors to provide video files as substantiating information in all subfactors in Volume I and in Volume II too?

The examples of substantiating information provided in L.4.1.1, L.4.1.2, and L.4.1.3 are only examples of what may be provided. The offeror should submit any information it deems appropriate to demonstrate that the offered configuration will attain the proposed level of performance. Videos are acceptable forms of substantiating information for all subfactors in Volume I and Volume II.

65 What measures are taken to ensure robot survivability in the RDS?

The MTRS Inc II is required to withstand exposure in accordance with MIL-STD-810 while being transported in the RDS as described in

3.6.1.1 of the Performance Specification. The contractor shall develop an RDS Mounting Kit as described in C.3.2.2 of the RFP to ensure that the system can survive while being transported in the RDS.

66 Can an insert be used in the RDS kit to improve robot survivability? Yes.

Is the gripper required to be usable while the 1st Defender probe is attached?

Yes.

68 Are encoders required for the motor drivers?

The only encoders that are specifically required are rotational encoders for the wheels, as described in 3.7.3.3.8 of the Performance Specification. The contractor may utilize encoders to meet other requirements outlined in the Performance Specification.

69 Is illumination required for the chassis rear facing camera?

Section 3.5.4.1.5 of the performance specification requires illumination sources that ensure effective camera operation in daylight, low light, and night conditions. The offeror shall design its system appropriately to meet this requirement.

70 Can existing designs use imerial (sic? Imperial, perhaps?) measure?

The MTRS Inc II system shall be metric based for parts, tools, and fasteners at the Field Level, as described in 3.6.2.2.2.1 of the Performance Specification.

Is MOCU 4 considered an upgrade to MOCU3.x? Is there any advantage or requirement to have both?

MTRS Inc II requirement is to use MOCU 3.x, as described in 3.5.3.5.6 of the Performance Specification. There is no requirement to integrate

MOCU 4.

In the context of the MTRS Inc II requirements, how is a Mud, Snow or Grass environment/surface defined?

There is no specific definition of mud, snow, or grass. The system will be expected to travel over many types of mud, snow, and grass.

How is the removable gripper defined? Are removable fingers only an accetpable solution? Would fingers plus mechanical linkages meet the requirement, or must the removable assembly include the motor and drive electronics? Please define what comprises electronics as related to the gripper? The intent of the removable gripper is not clear.

The removable gripper is defined as the mechanical and electrical components of the gripper end effector, which includes any electronics and actuator components necessary for the gripper to function. The intent of the removable gripper is to allow the user to replace the entire end effector with devices that would allow the user to perform activities other than grasping. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify this in an amendment.

74 What problem or situation is the removable gripper intended to solve?

The removable gripper will allow the user to replace the entire end effector with devices that would allow the user to perform activities other than grasping.

75 What is the use case scenario for the removable gripper?

The removable gripper will allow the user to replace the entire end effector with devices that would allow the user to perform activities other than grasping.

Under what conditions would the removable gripper be removed-field, motor pool, or Depot?

Field Level or Higher

How close to the manipulator gripper end must the CBRN sensors be mounted?

3.7.3.3.3 of the Performance Specification describes the requirement for payload location. The offeror shall determine location to ensure that the sensor and the gripper remain functional.

What is the maximum total weight of the CBRN-E sensors that (1) must or (2) may be mounted to the manipulator arm at one time?

The requirement for Simultaneous CBRN payloads is described in

3.7.3.4 of the Performance Specification. The individual weights of the sensors can be found in the Attachments provided with the RFP but are listed below:

UDR 14 - 9.5 oz.

MultiRae - 31 oz.

JCAD M4A1 - 24 oz.

FirstDefender RMX - 32 oz.

Fido XT - 38.5 oz.

What is the security accrediation boundary of the MTRS Inc II? Does the system connect to other networks or is it a standalone platform IT system?

The system accreditation boundary includes the OCU and platform.

The system does not connect to any external networks and is a PIT system. Under RMF, PIT systems are required to complete the assess & authorize process, which is described in DoDI 8510.01 Risk Management Framework for DoD Information Technology.

Offerors do not have all the test facilities the Government may use nor has the Government provided a detailed test plan that completely covers every line of the Performance Specification. Therefore, offerors may fail some set of Government testing requiring NRE or other fixes to the selected product.

Will the Government consider adding a Cost Plus CLIN for the EMD phase to cover any costs or NRE incurred as a result of Government testing?

An additional CLIN will not be added.

Video evidence is explicitly listed in L.4.1.2, but not included in L.4.1.1, L.4.1.3, L.4.1.4, and L.4.2.1(b). This is a compelling form of evidence.

Will the government allow video evidence for all Factors?

Yes, any information the offeror deems appropriate to demonstrate that the offered configuration will attain the proposed level of performance is acceptable. The items listed in L.4.1, L.4.2, and L.4.3 are examples of information that may be provided.

In order to properly design a mounting kit for the RDS, contractors need the TDP for the RDS. Because the mounting kits are firm-fixed-price items, contractors will need to raise their prices for these kits to account for the risk of their mounting kits not conforming to the RDS.

Will the Government provide the TDP for the RDS?

Attachments A and B to Attachment 0001 provide sufficient information to propose the RDS mounting kits.

Will the Government provide a CLIN for project management to capture those costs not covered by separately ordered CDRLs for each order year of the contract?

A Project Management CLIN will not be added.

Paragraph L.2.1.1 requires 3 copies of each of the six (6) volumes.

Paragraph L.2.2.3 mandates electronic submission. Does the Government want offerors to submit the proposal response 3 separate times?

One electronic submission is all that is required. The reference to three copies will be removed in a subsequent RFP amendment.

Please confirm that the NAICS code for this solicitation # W56HZV-15-R- 0086 is 334511. The RFP states 334551, which does not appear to be a valid code, however the FBO posting reflects “334 -- Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing/334511 -- Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing”, which is a valid code.

The NAICS code is 334511. Clause 52.204-8 will be corrected in an upcoming amendment

Please confirm the proposal submission delivery is via e-mail submission. RFP para L.22 Hand Carried Offers, states that paper copies will not be accepted, however provides instructions for hand carried delivery. RFP para L.2.1.1 Proposal Content, states the quantity required per proposal Volume. RFP para L.2.2.3 Proposal Submission Instructions, states Electronic submission is mandatory. Paper offers will not be accepted. Proposals shall be submitted electronically through the Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE).

Proposals are required to be delivered electronically through the ARMDEC SAFE website.

If an offer provides three recent and relevant contracts for past performance that demonstrates many, but not all of the considerations listed in L.4.4.2.(a) and (b), will the Government automatically rate this as “Neutral Confidence”?

The overall rating an offeror will receive for Past Performance will depend upon the information provided. Submitting Past Performance that demonstrates many of the considerations listed in L.4.4.2 (a) and

(b) will not necessarily result in a rating of 'Neutral Confidence'.

Acoustic Signals requirement requires a large (studio-like) microphone...

1) Will the Government provide additional clarification on the requirement, including whether the signal source level is in dBA sound pressure level?

2) Will it be acceptable for the microphone to be externally connected to the platform and not embedded?

The requirement for detecting acoustic signals is described in 3.5.4.2.3 of the Performance Specification. The Government does not agree that the requirement must be met by use of a large studio-like microphone. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify this in an amendment.

1) The acoustic levels is dBA.

2) Yes.

Rotational encoders accuracy...Will the Government accept a way to present the location of the manipulator in the main GUI without the use of rotational encoders?

Rotational encoders are only required on the drive system on the tracks or wheels as specified in 3.7.3.3.8 of the Performance Specification. The offeror is free to select any method of reporting the manipulator location. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify this in an amendment.

Embedded training...Does the Government mean that the controller must include a training capability mode?

Is the MOCU going to include training mode capabilities in the future?

The OCU must include an embedded training mode. If the contractor requires updates to MOCU software, they can request through the MOCU IPT as described in C.4.1.7 and C.8.1.1.

Fiberoptic spooler...Does the fiberoptic spooler need to be remotely operated electronically from the controller?

The MTRS Inc II tether-spooler shall be reusable, as specified in

3.5.3.4.1.1 of the Performance Specification. The tether shall also meet all other requirements specified in the Performance Specification. The Performance Specification does not require or prohibit this capability to be provided remotely from the controller.

The RFP (Section L.4.4.2 and Attachment 0032) states relevant past performance is limited to UGV software (development, delivery, testing, integration etc.). This is only a very small part of the overall scope of MTRS2, which is to engineer, develop, test, build and support FRP units of MTRS2.....1. We strongly recommend that UGV hardware design, development, engineering, testing, G11 manufacturing and support also be considered as relevant past performance. Will the Government please amend the Section L instructions and Section M evaluation criteria accordingly?

2. Will non-UGV hardware and software development also be considered relevant past performance?

The Government has thoughtfully considered the request to broaden the areas of Past Performance that will be evaluated. However, the criteria will not be amended.

Non-UGV Hardware and Software Development may be applicable to the information contained in L.4.4.2 (b). No amendment will be made for non-UGV software for L.4.4.2 (a).

The past performance questionnaire also focuses to a great extent on software development, which is only one small part of the scope of the MTRS Increment 2 contract...Will the Government consider revising the past performance questionnaire to align the questions more closely to the full scope of the MTRS 2 solicitation?

No.

L.4.4.1 currently states that the Government will not consider past performance of a proposed subcontractor. The design, testing, production of the MTRS2 system is a complex program that requires the involvement of multiple subcontractors to produce the best product for the Government. The government itself defines in RFP L.4.3.2.10 major subcontractors as companies that will have subcontracts valued at more than $20M, which clearly indicates the importance of subcontractors to overall program success....Is the Government consider allowing one or more past performance contracts to be submitted by significant subcontractors, to support a more meaningful confidence rating as part of its past performance evaluation. Will the Government amend the RFP instructions to accommodate this recommendation?

No.

L.2.2.3 says Offerors must submit proposals electronically but L.2.1.1 says to submit 3 copies of each of the 6 volumes….Will the Government confirm that the proposals should be submitted electronically only, via SAFE, and not in hard copy?

Electronic submission is the only required method of submission. The reference to 3 copies will be removed in a subsequent RFP amendment.

Subfactors 1 through 3 of Volume 1 require offerors to submit substantiating information, and an additional 15-page narrative...Is there a page limit to the substantiating information itself? Is this separate from the additional 15 page narrative?

There is no page limit to substantiating information.

The RFP states: “There is no "expected" or "target" length of time for proposal submission; size and content may be factors, therefore offerors are strongly cautioned when submitting proposals to allow adequate time for submission” This implies that the size of ubmitted files may hamper efficient upload to SAFE....Will the Government confirm if there is a file size limit for files being uploaded to SAFE?

SAFE submissions are limited to 25 files per transmission and an individual file size of 2GB. Multiple submissions may be made if additional files are required. Offeror's will have to break files into multiple parts if the file size exceeds 2GB.

Exclusions to the page count. Considering the limitations in page count (for Volume I, in particular), will the Government please exclude the following from stated page counts in the proposal:

• Covers / Cover Pages

• Tables of Contents / List of Figures

• Compliance/Cross-Reference Matrices

• Resumes / Lists of Acronyms / Glossaries

The page limitations only apply to the sepcific sections identified in Section L and will not be amended.

Use of technical attachments...Are offerors permitted to submit attachments, containing relevant substantiating information, in addition to the 15-page narrative?

Yes. The page limit only applies to the 15 page narrative. There are no page limits on the substantiating information.

Line three requires Past Performance Questionnaires be sent to The "….appropriate PCO and, if applicable, COR or other appropriate technical and contracting individuals". The contractor is unsure of the Government's intent. Contractor evaluations are produced through a single pipeline resulting in a CPAR. It is the contractor's understanding the CPAR includes all of the inputs from the Government stakeholders.

There may be several "Technical" and/or "Contracting" individuals involved in a single contract.

1. Does the Government want offerors to submit Past Performance Questionaires to all government personnel overseeing a contract used as a Past Performance contract citation?

2) Who adjudicates the number of Government Personnel to receive the Past Performance Questionnaire?

Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted to a Government POC familiar with the requirement and who has the ability to draw information from other Government personnel familiar with the requirement, if necessary to provide an accurate and complete response to the questionnaire. The offeror determines who receives the Past Performance Questionnaires.

Q&A #3