QAs_batch_4v2_MTV_PCO_Revised.docx

Program

87. Question and Answer #58 under Program says that "The Government anticipates a quantity of approximately 3,000 vehicles may be called up each year via delivery orders." Question and Answer #85 from the same lot of questions (003) states, "The Government anticipates an approximately monthly rate of 48 A2 vehicles based on the program's current projected budget.' The former statement implies a 5-year anticipated quantity of 15,000 vehicles, and the latter statement implies a 5-year quantity of 2880 vehicles. As this makes a significant difference in business cases, can you please reconcile?

Answer: For clarification to Program QA#58; the government anticipates a quantity of approximately three thousand vehicles total for the duration of the contract including option years, if executed. These vehicles may be called up in smaller quantities, each year, via delivery orders. For clarification to Program QA#85; the government anticipates a quantity of approximately 22 vehicles during FY17 [reference Industry Day "Production Verification Test (PVT)" slide], 10 vehicles during FY19 [reference "Live Fire Testing" and "Operational Testing (OT)" slides], 354 vehicles during FY20 (full rate production ramp up), 576 vehicles during FY21, and 576 vehicles each year thereafter If the contract option years are executed [reference "Notional First & Sustained Production"]. This implies a quantity of 2,690 vehicles, based on current notional estimates.

88. Slide 34 of the power point indicates that the government furnished materials component will include the FTFS kit [reference the Industry Day Brief “Kits with the Solicitation” slide].

· If the Army is re-competing the broader assembly of A2 upgrades, will that include the FTFS kit?

· If the FTFS kit is re-competed, will there it be a best value standard with objective and threshold requirements?

· Will the FTFS kit procurement simply be a lowest price/technically feasible scenario?

Answer: The Fuel Tank Fire Suppression (FTFS) kits that are currently part of the armor “B-kit”, will be Government Furnished Materials (GFM). FMTV A2 vehicles are required to be compatible with armor “B-kit”, as identified in the PSPEC Annex M. Re-competing of the armor “B-kit” is outside the scope of this effort.

89. [Reference “Industry Day #1 Questions and Answers” Question 38] is the FTFS kit considered part of the legacy b-kit? If the USG is re-competing material aspects of the truck to reach improved performance goals, why not conduct a competitive bid for improved FTFS kits?

Answer: Yes, the FTFS kit is part of the armor “B-kit”, which will be GFM. Re-competing of the armor “B-kit” is outside the scope of this effort.

90. [Reference “Industry Day #1 Questions and Answers” Question 20] If the FTFS kit is being procured as part of the b-kit armor package, will it be procured directly though TACOM procurement (omitting truck OEM intermediary and mark-up)?

Answer: To restate the answer to question 20 more clearly: re-competing of the armor “B-kit” is outside the scope of this effort. The Fuel Tank Fire Suppression (FTFS) kits that are currently part of the armor “B-kit”, will be Government Furnished Materials (GFM).

91. [Reference “Industry Day #1 Questions and Answers” Questions 12 & 41] Does the USG’s response to this question apply to the FTFS kit? If there have been innovations and improvements to FTFS kits that reduce weight and cost, will the USG seek that via competitive and open bid, directly with FTFS kit manufacturers?

Answer: Not specifically; design changes are at the discretion of the offeror. The FTFS kit is part of the armor “B-kit”, which will be GFM. Re-competing of the armor “B-kit” is outside the scope of this effort.

92. [Reference “Industry Day #1 Questions and Answers” Questions 62 & 67] if the government is allowing the winning bidder to submit ECP for the upgrades, will the USG allow for new performance specifications on the FTFS kit, compete it directly without OEM intermediary, and allow vendors to submit new designs that provide the same function as currently qualified products?

o If the FTFS kit is competed under a best value standard, will the USG seek new solutions and allow for trade-offs between such items as weight, coverage ratio, durability, price, etc.?

Answer: No, developing new performance specifications for the FTFS kit is outside the scope of this effort. The FTFS kit is part of the armor “B-kit”, which will be GFM. Re-competing of the armor “B-kit” is outside the scope of this effort.

Engineering/Technical

50. Slide 34 of the power point indicates that the government furnished materials component will include the FTFS kit [reference the Industry Day Brief “Kits with the Solicitation” slide].

· Will the FMTV A2 have the same tank sizes as the A1P2 (58g and 78g)?

· Will the fuel tanks on the A2 be the same NSN as the A1P2?

Answer: The Government anticipates that the fuel tanks will not change; however, the winning bidder is responsible to determine whether the A2 variants utilize existing A1P2 components or whether design changes are necessary in order to meet the Performance Specification (PSPEC) and contractual requirements. If the winning bidder determines that A2 fuel tanks need to be changed, than the Government would issue a new part number when the ECP is submitted.

51. [Reference “Industry Day #1 Questions and Answers” Questions 32] will the increased underbody protection sought impact the wench and/or FTFS kit in terms of space claims?

Answer: It is the responsibility of the winning bidder to resolve any space claim issues in order to meet PSPEC and contractual requirements.

Quality

2. Section “Quality”, question 1: does a vendor manufacturing the FTFS kits have to be ISO certified? [reference “Industry Day #1 Questions and Answers”].

Answer: The Fuel Tank Fire Suppression (FTFS) kits are currently part of the armor “B-kit”, which will be GFM. FMTV A2 vehicles are required to be compatible with armor “B-kit”, as identified in the PSPEC Annex M. Re-competing of the armor “B-kit” is outside the scope of this effort.