Q&A_4_20_Dec.pdf

MTRS Inc II Q&A #4

QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Does the Government expect Offerors to price TADSS when the required analysis has not yet determined if they are required?

No. The contractor shall perform analysis to determine whether TADSS are required to support the training program of instruction and submit a report IAW C.14.3 and CDRL A071. C.14.3 will be updated to clarify the requirement in an amendment.

We believe the Government meant CLINs that start with 2 or 3 and CLIN 1001AB to be in the "after order" category" in paragraph (2). Will the Government revise Section F-8(a)

(1) and (2) so that it aligns with the intent explained in Question 25 from the 23 November 2016 Q&A posting to

FBO?

The Government will clarify the clause in an RFP amendment.The clause will be revised to align with the answer to Question 25.

103 Will the Government clarify/provide expected Delivery Order dates for the CLINs listed in Section F-8?

The Government anticipates awarding a Delivery Order for hardware CLINs 1001AA, 1002AA, and 1002AB at the time of contract award. Award dates of all subsequent Delivery Orders will be based on funding availability and cannot be provided at this time.

CDRL A087 requires submittal of an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), but also references submittal of an IMP in Block 16. Can the Government confirm that the Contractor is not required to update or submit an IMP?

The DID referenced in CDRL A087 (DI-MGMT-80507C -tailored in Block 16) details the requirements of the CDRL.

The tailoring of the DID in CDRL A087 is incorrect and will be updated in a future RFP amendment to remove the tailoring of the DID.

Many CDRLs and DIDs in Exhibits A, B, and C reference an "average 110 hours per response"; however, the work required to create a deliverable will, in almost all cases, exceed 110 hours. Is the Governemnt's intent to limit work under these CDRLs to 110 hours?

No. Offerors must assess what they feel will be the required effort to complete the CDRLs and propose their price(s) accordingly.

106 Will the Government allow video evidence for all sections of the proposal?

No. The Government will only allow video evidence as described in L.4.1 and L.4.2.

Many of the DID numbers referenced in the CDRLS in Exhibits A & B do not align with the tailored DID numbers provided in the Exhibit C. For example, CDRL A006 references authority DI-TMSS-80527B, COTS Manual;

however, the DID for COTS Manual in Exhibit C includes authority DI-TMSS-81816(T). Will the Government clarify the intent of Exhibit C and provide all DIDs referenced in Exhibits A and B?

All DIDs can be obtained from the Assist database.

Required DID tailoring is described in Block 16 of each CDRL. Exhibit C will be deleted in a future RFP amendment.

CDRL A075 titled “Test Package” subtitled “Test Administrative Guide (TAG)” specifies DID: DI-SESS- 81525B. This DID has been superseded by DID: DI-SESS- 81525C.

Q) Does the Government intend to require the updated DID:

DI-SESS-81525C to be used for development of this

CDRL?

CDRL A075 references DI-SESS-81525C. This reference is correct.

CDRL A079 and CDRL A090 are both titled: “Instructional Media Design Package” and appears to be a duplicate. Can the Government clarify the purpose of, and the difference between the expected products to be delivered for each of these CDRLs?

CDRL A079 is a duplicate. CDRL A079 will be removed and the current CDRL A079 references in C.15.2, C.15.6.1, C.15.6.2 will be updated in a future RFP amendment. The CDRL A079 reference in C.15.2 will be changed to CDRL A090 and the CDRL A079 references in C.15.6.1 and C.15.6.2 will be changed to CDRL A091.

In block 16 of CDRL A090 it states: “Block 13: The contractor shall deliver final IMI on 500 separate CD or DVD and installed on all MTRS Inc II Operator Control Unit IAW the Government approve IMI IMS.”

CDRL A090 is titled: “Instructional Media Design Package” and the specified DID (DI-SESS-81520B) has no requirement for delivering an IMI product, it is a “design” document that details how IMI will be developed and does not include the actual development of anything more than a “prototype” IMI lesson. CDRL A091 is titled: “Instructional Media Package” sub-titled: “Alpha Beta Courseware” and its specified DID: (DI-SESS-81526C) does require delivery of an IMI product. We believe CDRL A091 is the correct CDRL for all IMI product deliveries.

Can the Government please clarify this discrepancy?

CDRL A090 is a design document detailing the IMI product.

CDRL A091 is the delivery of the actual IMI product. CDRL A090, CDRL A091, C.15.2, C.15.6.1, and C.15.6.2 will be updated in a future RFP amendment.

SOW paragraph C.15.2 “General Requirements” states: The contractor shall develop the MTRS Inc II IMI course to be complete, stand-alone courseware that supports training Soldiers (Combat Engineers and Chemical Biological Radioactive and Nuclear (CBRN) to be MTRS Inc II operators IAW CDRL A079, Interactive Multi-Media Instruction.” CDRL A079 is titled: “Instructional Media Design Package” and sub-titled:

“Interactive Multi-Media Instruction. Shall CDRL A079 be used as the Instructional Media Design Package to which the Interactive Multi-Media Instruction is developed to? If yes, then what is the purpose of CDRL A090 also titled: “Instructional Media Design Package”?

Same answer as #109 above.

CDRL A079 is a duplicate. CDRL A079 will be removed and the current CDRL A079 references in C.15.2, C.15.6.1, C.15.6.2 will be updated in a future RFP amendment. The CDRL A079 reference in C.15.2 will be changed to CDRL A090 and the CDRL A079 references in C.15.6.1 and C.15.6.2 will be changed to CDRL A091.

SOW paragraph C.15.6.1 “Courseware” states: The contractor shall also provide applicable enterprise licenses for Government use IAW CDRL A079”. The DID specified for CDRL A079 (DI-SESS-81520B Instructional Media Design Package) has no requirement for delivery of enterprise licenses as part of the data required to be delivered. Will the Government please clarify the intent of SOW paragraph C.15.6.1 and the CDRL under which applicable enterprise licenses are to be delivered?

CDRL A079 is a duplicate and will be removed in a future RFP amendment. The CDRL A079 reference in C.15.6.1 will be changed to CDRL A091 and CDRL A091 will be updated to include the delivery of the licenses.

SOW paragraph C.15.6.2 Final Delivery states, “The contractor shall design, produce and deliver the final Government approved IMI IAW CDRL A079.” which is titled “Instructional Media Design Package” CDRL A090 titled: “Instructional Media Design Package” is referenced as the “design” document that IMI must be built to in SOW paragraph C.4.1.10.2.2 “IMI PDR” it states: “The contractor shall present and describe the training system design and program status. The contractor shall append IMI courseware design strategy, lesson strategy, and flow diagrams to the Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP) IAW CDRL A090, Instructional Media Design Package.” This appears to be a conflicting requirement. Can the Government please clarify which CDRL is to be delivered as the Instructional Media Design Package?

CDRL A079 is a duplicate and will be removed in a future RFP amendment. The CDRL A079 reference in C.15.6.2 will be changed to CDRL A091 and CDRL A091 will be updated to include the delivery of the IMI courseware.

SOW Paragraph C.15.4.1 “Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP) states: The contractor shall develop and provide an IMDP IAW CDRL A090, Instructional Media Design Package. The IMDP shall indicate the design interface, database structures, conventions, standards, and flow of the IMI Courseware. The contractor shall also provide sample display screens and an outline of instruction. Following the delivery and review of the IMDP, the contractor shall provide lesson specifications, which contain individual lesson content and graphical depictions of information contained in each lessons IAW CDRL A090.” CDRL A090 Block 16 Remarks states the following: “Block 13: The contractor shall deliver final IMI on 500 separate CD or DVD and installed on all MTRS Inc II Operator Control Unit IAW the Government approved IMI IMS.” The DID specified for CDRL A090 (DI-SESS- 81520B Instructional Media Design Package) has no requirement for delivery of an IMI product. That data is included in DID DI-SESS-81526C which is specified in CDRL A091. Will the Government rewrite Block 13 of CDRL A090 to clarify the delivery requirements for the Instructional Media Design Package?

CDRL A090 will be updated in a future RFP amendment to include the delivery requirements of the IMDP.

1. SOW paragraph C.15.4.2 “IMI Prototype” states: “The contractor shall develop and deliver a prototype scenario as part of the IMDP in accordance with CDRL A090, Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP) to validate the methods for page layout, Instructional Media Design Package (IMDP) to validate the methods for page layout, style, and general scenario structure. No touch screen or surrogate controller functionality is required with the IMDP prototype. This prototype simulation shall not exceed one instructional hour and shall demonstrate key design strategies identified in the IMDP Design Strategy Document and demonstrate all levels of interactivity through Level IV to include high-level graphics used in modules.” 2. Sow paragraph C.4.1.10.3.2 “IMI CDR” states: The contractor shall host and conduct the IMI CDR per the Government approved CDRL A087, Technical and conduct the IMI CDR per the Government approved CDRL A087, Technical and Management Work Plan at the contractors facility during a regularly scheduled IMI IPR. The contractor shall provide an Agenda IAW CDRL A001 (Conference Agenda) and minutes IAW CDRL (A002, Meeting Minutes).

The contractor shall present and describe the finalized training system design and program status, and address all design changes made since the IMI PDR. The contractor shall provide a prototype of the IMI training product. This prototype shall provide enough functionality to validate changes identified during IMDP and IMI PDR review while serving as the Alpha test.” 3. CDRL A091 Block 16 states: “Blocks 10, 12 and 13: The contractor shall deliver Alpha, Beta, and final courseware and associated data files in accordance with the Government approved Interactive Multi-media Instruction (IMI) Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).” CDRL A079 is also an Instructional Media Design Package who’s DID specifies the delivery of a prototype lesson. Does the Government expect the same “Alpha/Prototype IMI product” to be delivered three times as three different CDRLs?

The contractor is required to deliver separate alpha, beta, and final submissions for the IMI courseware as described in CDRL A091 (in accordance with the IMI IMS). The alpha and beta deliveries will be tested and reviewed for discrepancies and errors. This will ensure that the final delivery has been reviewed and tested prior to delivery.

SOW paragraph C.15.6.1 “Courseware” states: “The contractor shall produce courseware that shall be delivered IAW Government approved IMI IMS (CDRL A086) for testing and acceptance by the Government as defined in CDRL A090. The contractor shall develop content in a manner that will support incremental validation and fielding. The Joint Final Inspection (JFI) will serve as final testing of IMI. The contractor shall ensure that all software required to run the courseware is included on the Master CD or Digital Video Disc (DVD) along with the courseware (i.e.

any plug in software like flash) IAW CDRLA090, Instructional Media Design Package. The contractor shall also provide applicable enterprise licenses for Government use IAW CDRL A079. The contractor shall prepare a plan to transfer the software and licenses upon completion or termination of the contractor's performance IAW CDRL A091 Instructional Media Package.” The direction provided in this paragraph appears to contradict the direction provided by the CDRLS, and the DIDs specified on the CDRLS within the paragraph. It also appears to contradict or conflict with other paragraphs within SOW Section 15

“INTERACTIVE-MULTI-MEDIA-INSTRUCTION (IMI) COURSEWARE”.

Will the Government consider rewriting SOW Section 15 and its associated DIDs in order to provide clarity?

Same answer as Row 109 above.

CDRL A079 is a duplicate. CDRL A079 will be removed and the current CDRL A079 references in C.15.2, C.15.6.1, C.15.6.2 will be updated in a future RFP amendment. The CDRL A079 reference in C.15.2 will be changed to CDRL A090 and the CDRL A079 references in C.15.6.1 and C.15.6.2 will be changed to CDRL A091.

Section I-85 and Section K-2 reference the Dec 2015 versions of DFARS 252.204-7012 and 252.204-7008, respectively. Was this the Government’s intent or should the current version (Oct 2016) be referenced instead?

The Oct 2016 versions of DFARS 252.204-7008 and 252.204-7012 will be incorporated into the RFP in a subsequent RFP amendment. For the purposes of preparing the proposal, offerors should presume they will be required to adhere to the requirements of the Oct 2016 versions, not any predecessor versions of these clauses.

The MTRS Inc II is entering the Defense Acquisition Lifecycle at a Combined Milestone B/C and there is significant uncertainty related to the accuracy of pricing for production units at this time. Will the Government consider incorporating FAR 52.216-5 into the solicitation to allow for prospective price redetermination on LRIP and FRP CLINs?

No.

1. It seems that there is no desire for a true thermal system (perhaps just a near-IR camera) for these robots, given the specifications.

Is this a good assumption?

2. Will there be a desire for EOD robots with longer range thermal systems in the future?

1. 3.5.4.1.3.1 of the Performance Specification details the Recognize Detected Person - Low Light and Night requirement for MTRS Inc II. The proposed design must meet the entire Performance Specification.

2. It is unknown whether the Government will desire EOD robots with longer range thermal systems in the future.

Non-separately priced CDRLs are in the SOW and assigned CLINs (#’s 1005, 2008, 3012, 4007, 5007, 6003, and 7003) but these CLINs are not in the contract price summary spreadsheet. Will these CLINs be added to the contract price summary spreadsheet or deleted from the SOW?

The non-separately priced CDRL CLINs are not included in Attachment 0014 because Attachment 0014 only includes priced CLINs and CDRLs. The non-separately priced CDRL CLINs will not be added to Attachment 0014 or deleted from the SOW. Allocation of costs is at the offeror's discretion.

The SOW and IMP show the Log Demo in Q2Y3, but the pricing sheet has weighted pricing for years 2, 3 and 4.

Should the same price with escalation be put in all 3 years or just put all work in year 3?

The Government anticipates ordering only one lot of Log Demo support. While the Government anticipates Log Demo to be conducted in Ordering Year 3, CLINs for Log Demo support in Ordering Years 2 and 4 are included to provide program flexibility if the schedule shifts to the left or right during execution. The Government anticipates the amount of support required to be the same whether Log Demo is conducted in Ordering Year 2, 3, or 4. However, proposed costs should be allocated at the offeror's discretion. The costs for the Log Demo support will be evaluated in accordance with Attachment 0014.

Verification support will be needed for years 2, 3 and 4.

Should the hours be spread across the expected 3 years of performance or estimated as a single unit of work and duplicated with escalation across those 3 years?

The Government anticipates ordering only one lot of Verification support. While the Government anticipates Verification to be conducted in Ordering Year 3, CLINs for Verification support in Ordering Years 2 and 4 are included to provide program flexibility if the schedule shifts to the left or right during execution. The Government anticipates the amount of support required to be the same whether Verification is conducted in Ordering Year 2, 3, or 4.

However, proposed costs should be allocated at the offeror's discretion. The costs for the Verification support will be evaluated in accordance with Attachment 0014.

Most CDRLs will be completed during the first two years of the contract. What costs are expected to be included in years 3 through 7? If no update is required for the CDRL, should this be marked as zero for years 3-7?

The Government anticipates ordering each CDRL only once. While the Government anticipates the CDRLs to be ordered in Ordering Years 1 and 2, CLINs for CDRLs are included in each ordering year to provide program flexibility if necessary due to available funding. The Government anticipates the level of effort required to develop the CDRL to be consistent whenever the CDRL is ordered. However, proposed costs should be allocated at the offeror's discretion. The costs for CDRLs will be evaluated in accordance with Attachment 0014.

1) Should we assume the unit price for a CDRL in any given ordering year is the price for the entire CDRL if it is ordered in that given year?

2) If the CDRL period of performance is greater than one year, we should put the entire unit price for that CDRL in each ordering year?

3) For example: Software Test Plan will be created in ordering year one, but we would provide unit pricing as if it is ordered in years two through seven. Is this correct?

The Government anticipates ordering each CDRL only once. CLINs for each ordering year will be established to provide contract flexibility to order CDRLs as funding is available.

1) Yes, each CDRL price should include all costs associated with delivering the entire CDRL.

2) Yes, each CDRL price should include all costs associated with delivering the entire CDRL, even if it is anticipated that the period of performance is greater than one year.

3) Yes, the example is correct.

125 What measures are current taken to ensure robot survivability in the RDS? Answered in Question #65 (Q&A #3).

126 Can we add inserts to the RDS to better secure the robot for travel? Yes.

1. What is the interface for the existing remote on/off (CATNAP) system?

2. Can we assume certain components will already be installed on the vehicle with the RDS?

1. 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. The proposed solution shall include the technology required to meet the Performance Specification and is not required to interface with any particular system.

2. No. 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.

128 Is illumination required with the chassis rear facing camera? Answered in Question #69 (Q&A #3).

129 Can existing designs use imperial measure? Requirement 248 Answered in Question #70 (Q&A #3).

"The MTRS Inc II MA Gripper shall be modular with respect to platform and require no more than 5 min (T), 3 min (O), to install without the use of tools." Does removing the gripper require removing the mechanical gripper fingers or the entire electro-mechanical end effector assembly (comprised of gripper fingers, motors, and electronics)?

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 in an amendment.

The SOW requires FISMA Compliance.

1) Is FISMA compliance required for the operational system which already has requirements allocated from NIST

53?

2) Is FISMA compliance required for the development environment at contractor and relevant subcontractor levels?

3) Is FISMA compliance required for development environments delivered to the government?

4) Has the government identifed a compliance document for FISMA, or defined the appliable set of requirements for FISMA compliance?

The Government will remove the reference to FISMA in a future RFP amendment.

132 Has the Government identified any critical technology requiring an Anti

Tamper plan?

Critical technology is dependent upon the selected contractor's design and will be assessed after contract award.

Can the Government clarify the tests that are not measured for latency as defined by the payloads, the video and sensors?

The MTRS Inc II latency requirement is described in

3.5.6.2.3.1 of the Performance Specification, and excludes external payloads.

1. What is the concept of operations for the reference after man transport?

2. What is the preference for personnel in deploying the

MBU?

3. Is the time reference for 1 person or 2 persons?

1. The concept of operations is to put the platform into operation after man transport.

2. This shall be performed by the operator (1 person) as defined in 3.6.1.5.3 of the Performance Specification.

3. 1 person.

Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify in an amendment.

135 When changing radio frequencies, does the Government intend to change radio bands on an MBU?

The Government does not specify whether the capability to change radio frequencies resides on the OCU or the MBU.

136 Does the Government want the system to switch over to wireless radios if the tether connection is broken? No.

In addition to the identification of communications status is about to drop (whether caused by an obstruction or interference), would the Government want a CONOPS where the unit backs up to last known spot of communications, to stop, or to allow for a return to the starting point to reestablish comms and then to identify a location and have the robot to move through a communications dead spot and go to a location where it is likely to reestablish communications?

The MTRS Inc II RFP does not have a requirement for this capability.

Does the Government prefer a percentage indicator slide or color coded icon on the MOCU display to identify the levels for communications connection strength?

The Government does not have a specific design preference, as long as the requirements defined in the Performance Specification are met.

Is the CONOPS for a dismounted operator to have the ability to move (walk) with the robot or to remain stationary at the vehicle?

The system shall be used by a mounted operator (inside the vehicle) as described in 3.5.6.2.3.9.1.1 of the Performance Specificatiion and a dismounted operator (outside the vehicle) as described in 3.5.6.2.3.9.1.2 of the Performance Specification. There is no specific RFP requirement to walk while operating the system, although a system that can be operated while walking would meet 3.5.6.2.3.9.1.2 of the Performance Specification.

What is the preferred option for mounting the antennas for a mounted system? Does the Medium Mine Protected Vehicle Type 2 have a protrusion point for a permanently mounted antenna or magnetic antenna?

Section C.5.7 describes the co-site mitigation and antenna optimization that will occur for the MMPV Type II vehicle.

The study will determine the optimized mounting location.

The MMPV Type 2 has protrusion points that will be utilized if the study deems appropriate.

141 Does the transportable package include chargers? In reference to 3.6.1.2 of the Performance Specification, the chargers do not apply.

Is the Government willing to accept a new internal RDS design with the same size and mounting (new internal form)? Can new MBU bracketing be installed in the existing RDS to support an alternative configuration?

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. The RDS Mounting Kit shall be developed by the contractor and shall be specific to the contractor's MTRS Inc II design.

Can the Government please define the conditions and CONOPS for securing the robot outside of the shipping container (Are the sensors, arm, cameras removed)?

The CONOPS for securing the MTRS Inc II outside of the shipping container would be to transport the MTRS Inc II in a vehicle while not in the RDS for EOD and CBRN operations. The MTRS Inc II shall be placed into operation within the time limits, as required in 3.6.1.5.3 of the Performance Specification, and does not preclude the removal of any specific components. However, if any components are removed, they shall be secured as they are part of the MTRS Inc II System.

Can the Government define man portable CONOPS for deployment (e.g. two man lift of container that is carried to a deployment location, removed from a case, and the MBU put in service)?

Performance Specification section 3.6.1.5.3 describes the time to put the system into operation after being carried by the required number of operators. (The number of operators is determined by the weight of the system and MIL-STD- 1472).

Is this assigned to the shipping case or the MBU? Is the shipping and storage container the same? See 3.6.1.4.7.

3.6.1.5.4 section 3 uses Storage Container and Section 4 uses Shipping Container.

3.6.1.5.1 of the Performance Specification applies to the cable attachment for the MBU. The "storage container" and the "shipping container" are the same. Attachment 0001 references to storage container and shipping container will be clarified in an amendment.

Can the Government differentiate between storage and shipping containers and provide a definition of each?

_Attachment 0001, 9 March 2016, 221 (3.6.1.5.2) Section 3.• References to shipping and storage terms in same context: • 175 (3.5.6.2.3.2), (3.6.1.4.7), • References to shipping or storage terms in same context: • 209 (3.5.7.1.1.2), 221 (3.6.1.5.2) Section 3, 224 (3.6.1.3.1), 227 (3.6.1.4.1) Section 4, 319 (3.7.2.2.3.1), 320 (3.7.2.2.3.2), 321 (3.7.2.2.3.3), (3.6.1.4.6), • References to Shipping only: • 221 (3.6.1.5.2) Section 4, 225 (3.6.1.3.2), 227 (3.6.1.4.1) Section 3, 232 (3.6.1.5.4) Section 4, 466 (3.6.1.3.4), 474 (3.6.1.4.2), (3.6.1.4.3), (3.6.1.4.4), (3.6.1.4.5), • References to storage “containers” only: 227 (3.6.1.4.1) Section 3 storage and transport, 232 (3.6.1.5.4) Section 3, 329 (3.7.2.2.5.22), 5.2 Terms = Environment, The "storage container" and the "shipping container" are the same. Attachment 0001 references to storage container and shipping container will be clarified in an amendment.

147 Can the Government identify if the set-up time includes mounting of the CBRN payload sensors?

3.6.1.5.3 of the Performance Specification refers to the base system, which does not include the CBRN sensors.

Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify in an amendment.

Does the man portable requirement assume the mounting of the arm, cameras, CBRN payloads, and antennas (What is the starting configuration)?

3.6.1.5.3 of the Performance Specification refers to the base system, which includes the MBU and common payload arm, common payload radio(s), and the common payload cameras.

Can the Government describe the difference in being put in to operation, placed into operation, and prepare the operation (starting condition and ending condition)?

There is no difference between "put into operation", "placed into operation", and "prepare the platform for operation".

The starting configuration depends on the individual requirement. The ending condition is a system that is powered on and able to be used to perform the mission.

150 Can the Government identify the cold weather gear? Cold weather gear includes gloves, hats, and other gear typically worn in cold weather.

What specific operation and maintenance tasks are conducted during verification? And what do the time limits refer to? What are the starting and stopping points for each activity?

3.6.1.5.4.1 of the Performance Specification is related to placing the MTRS Inc II System into operation from a storage container while wearing the gear described in the requirement.

152 Can the Government define their intention of Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) and is it restricted by cost?

The LRU is the point at which the maintenance task takes place, and defines the components that will be replaced if failure occurs. The contractor shall define the LRU when performing the Maintenance Analysis and Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) as defined in C.11.2.1 and C.11.2.3 of the RFP. The LORA includes economic analysis in the determination.

153 Can the Government define the information required for status and system health?

The requirement for report health and performance is defined in 3.6.2.3.1 of the Performance Specification.

154 Is it the Government’s intent to use magnetic North headings or true North headings?

3.5.3.7 of the Performance Specification describes the Navigation requirements. The Government does not specify whether true North or magnetic North headings are required but the contractor shall indicate which is provided.

Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify in an amendment.

Does the Government have the expectation to run diagnostics outside of MOCU and is this initiated by the user?

3.7.3.1 of the Performance Specification requires the use of an external data interface to run diagnostics. These tests will be initiated by the user.

156 Will the Government prefer service checks and BIT checks be performed and reported to the OCU using a utility?

MOCU displays BIT data and health status. The data log is only available at run time, it is not saved to the hard disk.

The operator can initiate BIT on the UGV as specified in the IOP Instantiation via the diagnostics screen. Health status and BIT results are displayed on the diagnostics screen.

Any required capabilities outside MOCU's current capabilities can be worked through the MOCU IPT or implemented through a utility, if necessary.

Does the MOCU capture and report (display) BIT test data/health status on the display and to the data log? Can an operator initiate a test utilities or log updates from

MOCU?

MOCU displays BIT data and health status. The data log is only available at run time, it is not saved to the hard disk.

The operator can initiate BIT on the UGV as specified in the IOP Instantiation via the diagnostics screen. Health status and BIT results are displayed on the diagnostics screen.

1. Does the Government intend to use a trainer outside of the embedded training on the MOCU/OCU?

2. Does the Government intend to use varying terrains and environments in the embedded trainer?

3. Is it the intent of the Government to use the embedded training for basic system operation or multi operator and multi MBU training scenarios?

1. The Government will utilize a trainer when conducting New Equipment Training, along with system hand-off.

2. There is no RFP requirement for varying terrains or environments in the embedded training.

3. The embedded training will be used for basic system operation.

159 What is the definition of man-made obscurants? (MIL-STD- 810 defines natural but not man-made).

As described in 3.7.2.1.1.10 of the Performance Specification, man-made obscurants includes smoke and any other artifically generated forms of the natural obscurants. This does not include visibility through IR and RF obsurant clouds. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify in an amendment.

160 Can the Government define the requirement or standard for corrosion prevention and control?

The corrosion prevention and control requirements are described in 3.7.2.2.4.1 and 3.7.2.2.4.2 of the Performance Specification and C.5.8 of the RFP.

161 Can the Government define 10% degradation?

As described in 3.7.2.2.4.2, 10% degradation is defined in terms of total surface area when measuring corrosion degradation. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify in an amendment.

Can the Government provide details including weight, size, power, and mounting of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) configuration proposed for use on MTRS?

The Government will not provide additional detail on the MILES, as the system does not require data or power interfaces. The mounting will be determined based on the design of the system selected. The weight of the MILES does not exceed the payload limits defined in 3.7.3.3.7 of the Performance Specification.

If power or communications is required, can the Government provide the IOP, interface, and connection method for Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) related to the interface requirements?

The MILES does not require data or power interfaces. The mounting will be determined based on the design of the system selected. The weight of the MILES does not exceed the payload limits defined in 3.7.3.3.7 of the Performance Specification.

164 Can the Government provide weight, size, power, and mounting for the modular payloads?

The information for the modular payloads has been provided in Attachments 0038-0045, 0054-0063, and 0065 to the RFP.

165 Can the Government provide the interface standards (e.g., RS-232, RS-485, Ethernet, etc.) for each payload?

The information for the modular payloads has been provided in Attachments 0038-0045, 0054-0063, and 0065 to the RFP.

166 Can the Government weight, size, power, and mounting for the type classified non-embedded sensor payloads?

The information for the modular payloads has been provided in Attachments 0038-0045, 0054-0063, and 0065 to the RFP.

Does the Government intend to have the Autonomous Mine Detection System (AMDS) mounting bracket redesigned by the contractor or to interface an existing bracket?

The AMDS requirement is described in 3.7.3.3.1.1 of the Performance Specification. The AMDS program will redesign and reconfigure the AMDS payload to best fit the MTRS Inc II system.

Can the Government provide a drawing of the redesigned Autonomous Mine Detection System (AMDS) bracket that the MTRS will need to interface?

The AMDS requirement is described in 3.7.3.3.1.1 of the Performance Specification. The AMDS program will redesign and reconfigure the AMDS payload to best fit the MTRS Inc II system.

Can the Government provide data on the optimal operating height of non-embedded sensors for deployment during a mission?

The Government does not have any data related to the optimal operating height of the sensors beyond what is provided in Attachments 0038-0045, 0054-0063, and 0065 to the RFP. 3.7.3.3.3 of the Performance Specification describes the payload location requirements. The offeror shall determine mounting points based on its design to meet the requirements of the Performance Specification.

Can the Government provide data on the proximity of the payload sensors for optimal use? This is to help identify the optimal positioning on the MBU.

The Government does not have any data related to the optimal positioning of the sensors beyond what is provided in Attachments 0038-0045, 0054-0063, and 0065 to the RFP. 3.7.3.3.3 of the Performance Specification describes the payload location requirements. The offeror shall determine mounting points based on its design to meet the requirements of the Performance Specification.

Can the Government provide data on the sensitivity of the sensors relating to RF communications and the OCU? Are there lessons learned?

The Government does not have any data related to the sensitivity of the sensors beyond what is provided in Attachments 0038-0045, 0054-0063, and 0065 to the RFP.

Can the Government clarify which of the 4 sensors that will be arm mounted? The Government provided five sensors and will the FIDO XT Explosive Trace Detector be mounted on the MBU arm?

The Canberra AN/UDR 14 Radiac Sensor does not need to be arm mounted, as described in 3.7.3.3.1.3 of the Performance Specification.

173 Does the Government intend to use interfaces on the MBU chassis or on the arm and are any cables provided as GFE?

The interface location is at the discretion of the contractor.

The cables will not be provided as GFE.

Will the Government require a radio to be changed to another band or will units with specific deployed with a set radio band?

The unit will be provided frequency bands and channels and the unit will be able to adjust as needed in the field.

3.5.3.5.3 of the Performance Specification allows for IOP compliant radios, and 3.5.6.3.3 of the Performance Specification requires that the MTRS Inc II radio system be capable of changing channels in the frequency spectrum.

Is shoulder rotation equal to shoulder yaw in the requirement? Is rotation equal to horizontal arm movement or twist of arm movement?

As described in 3.5.2.1.1 of the Performance Specification, shoulder rotation is equivalent to sholder yaw and is defined as rotation about a verticle axis. Attachment 0001 will be updated to clarify in an amendment.

Can the Government provide the connector types for the CBNRE sensors and the sensors that will be used for a CBNRE mission?

The Government will provide sensors to the selected contractor after contract award.

177 What are the tools the Government will use to validate reliability?

The Government plans to utilize Test Incident Reports and test data generated during DT, LUT #1 & #2, and RQT to validate reliability.

Does the reliability data have to include the non-embedded payloads reliability? If so, can the Government provide the payload reliability for each non-embedded payloads?

The RFP reliability requirements described in 3.6.2.1 of the Performance Specification do not include the CBRN sensors, provided that the failure of the sensors is not caused by the robot (For example: E3, vibration, poor mounting condition, etc.)

Concerning the Mission Reliability, System Abort and Essential Function Failure, does the Government anticipate this metric across storage, training, and deployed units across all missions and configurations or just field deployed systems?

The Mission Reliability, System Abort, and Essential Function Failure requirements, as defined in the Performance Specification (3.6.2.1.1 and 3.6.2.1.2), apply at all times. Attachment 0019 defines the Operational Summary.

180 Can the Government indicate the number of mission hours per day, week, month, and by year per robot? Attachment 0019 defines the Operational Summary.

Does the Government intend to have the availability factor in the spares, repair depot services, preventative and corrective maintenance?

The MTRS Inc II Performance Specification does not include a requirement for availability.

Q&A #4