LEUT_Type_II_RFP_W56HV-16-R-0210_Questions_Set_3,_Question_30.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Light Engineer Utility Trailer (LEUT) Type II
- Solicitation number
- W56HZV-16-R-0210
About this file
Questions Set 3, Question 30
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 78 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| DISTRUBUTION STATEMENT "A": Approved for public release; distribution unlimited | ||||||
| LIGHT ENGINEER UTILITY TRAILER (LEUT) - TYPE II | ||||||
| Question Number | Phase | Questions | Answers | Date Received | Date Answered | Posted FEDBIZOPS |
| 1 | PRESOL | I am trying to find out if the Light Engineer Utility Trailer (LEUT) program has any logistics deliverables? | Yes, CDRL A001 Obsolescence Alert Notice, CDRL A010 LORA Report, CDRL A011 Tools and Test Equipment, CDRL A012 -13&P Operator & Field Maintenance TM including RPSTL, A014 Product Support Analysis Package List, CDRL A028 Critical Stockage List, CDRL A037 Authorized Stockage List, CDRL A039 Provisioning Parts List, A040 Provisioning and Procurement Screening Data, A042 Validation Plan, A048 Provisioning Performance Schedule, A049 Validation Report, A050 Validation Certificate. | 7-Feb-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 |
| 2 | SOL | Regarding the Light Engineer Utility Trailer (LEUT) Type II, Solicitation Number: W56HZV-16-R-0210, is there an incumbent on this effort? | Thank you for your inquiry. There is not an incumbent for this requirement. | 27-Feb-18 | 27-Feb-18 | 22-Mar-18 |
| 3 | SOL | ...would like to ask if there is a Technical Manual Contracts Requirement (TMCR) for this project? | The Technical Manual Requirement for the LEUT Type II is CDRL A012. | 6-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 |
| 4 | SOL | Per CDRL A012 Technical Manual - Will the Government provide a TMCR or 40051-2C Tailored Table for Technical Manual requirements specifics? | Within MIL-STD 40051-2C there is a matrix that will give you an idea of what is going to be in the manual. Upon the Start of Work Meeting, the Publications Manager will have a matrix filled out and it will be given to the contractor as GFI. | 7-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 |
| 5 | SOL | Per CDRL A012 Technical Manual - Please confirm contractor format “Maintenance Task List” due at the SOWM – is for format review only and not content. | This requirement is for content and format. The contractor shall provide an initial list of the maintenance tasks which they intend to include in the TM. This will give the USG an opportunity to make sure that we are not over- simplifying, or complicating the TM. | 7-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 |
| 6 | SOL | Per CDRL A012 Technical Manual - Please confirm the “Maintenance Task list” identified in CDRL is the MAC | The Maintenance Task List is not the same as the Maintenance Allocation Chart, although much of the information requested below will be included in the MAC. The maintenance task list also includes PMCS and lubrication requirements: |
| "The Maintenance task list shall contain at a minimum, parts requiring maintenance, the task title, the task procedures, maintenance level to perform the task (Operator and/or Field Maintainer Level), predicted task time and tools required. The contractor shall provide the following within the task list: (1) Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) (tasks and interval) (2) Lubrication Requirement (area and interval)." | 7-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 7 | SOL | Per CDRL A039 Provisioning Parts List (PPL) - Will the Govt be providing a LMI Data Elements Selection Sheet? | Provisioning requires three key elements: the Provisioning Parts List (PPL), the Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP), and the Pre-procurements Screening (PPS). The Contractor is responsible to provide data required for each element. | 7-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 | ||||
| 8 | SOL | Per SOW C.8.1.1.1 reference to “Maintenance Analysis” CDRL A010, Please confirm this is referring to the LORA | The Contractor will ensure that all information provided within the LSA-036 aligns with the maintenance analysis, LORA, MAC, and procedures presented in the technical manuals. | 7-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 | ||||
| 9 | SOL | Per SOW C.8.4 Provisioning – reference to enter LMI Data into “Genesis” – Will the government provide contractor access to Genesis? | After contract award, Powerlog J software will be provided to the contractor. Genesis will not be utilized. The SOW Section C.8.4 Provisioning will be amended to reflect this change. | 7-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 | ||||
| 10 | SOL | The RFP specifies specific LEUT steering capability with the RFP specified prime movers including 5, 10 and 20-ton dump trucks, 5-ton cargo trucks, HEMTT cargo trucks, Engineering Squad Vehicle (ESV), Medium Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV), and M113 APC. |
...from the RFP:
3.5.6 Turning ability. The LEUT Type II with BHL with armor weighing at least 9852.03 kg (21720 lb) and an assumed CG height of 110.24 cm (43.4 inches) above the bed, being towed by its prime movers, shall be able to negotiate a right angle turn posed by an intersection of two roads 9.144 m (30 feet) wide (wall to wall) (threshold) and 7.315 m (24 feet) wide (wall to wall) (objective) without stopping (see 4.3.6).
Please provide steering characteristics and geometry for the specified prime movers including:
- Turning circle
- Overall vehicle dimensions, including locations of axles and pintle
| - Maximum cramp angle for steered axles | Vendors are responsible for researching and determining the best options to meet the requirements. | 13-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 11 | SOL | How or will the Federal Government consider adjusting the specified program cost limitation considering recent Federal Government mandated steel tariffs and effects on the steel costs over the program life enacted after the RFP release? | The Government will not adjust the affordability limits due to the steel tariffs. | 13-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 | |||||
| 12 | SOL | We would like to request a 30-day extension to the submittal deadline of March 28, 2018 to a new deadline of April 28, 2018. This request is based upon the complexity of the technical and modeling data required for Attachment 18 of the RFP. Much of the data we need to complete the engineering analysis and modeling is dependent upon sub tier suppliers. Many of our suppliers have been slow in providing the data, putting us behind our plan required to meet the March 28, 2018 submittal deadline. We are requesting the extension in order to ensure we are able to submit a quality package for the Government’s review. | Amendment 0001 extends the solicitation closing date from 28 March 2018 to 06 April 2018. | 13-Mar-18 | 13-Mar-18 | 22-Mar-18 | |||||
| 13 | SOL | Will there be any tailoring of the optional requirements in Table A-II in 40051C-2 Appendix A? | Upon the Start of Work Meeting, the Publications Manager will have a matrix filled out and it will be given to the contractor as GFI. | 13-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | ||||||
| 14 | SOL | I saw that there was a change today to Solicitation Number: W56HZV-16-R-0210. FBO doesn’t say what changed but I do see many of the attachments including the solicitation relisted. Am I to assume that each one of those items has some sort of change | The purpose for the last two postings (dated 13 Mar 2018 and 16 Mar 2018) were to reload the current solicitation and attachments. At this time there are no changes other than those identified in Amendment 0001 dated 15 Mar 2018 and Amendment 0002 dated 28 March 2018. There are no posted changes to the solicitation or the attachments at this time. Attachment 0024, Joint Program Office (JPO) Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and Attachment 0026, LEUT SOW to CLIN Crosswalk are now explicit access controlled. | 14-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | ||||||
| 15 | SOL | What documents in Solicitation 4 loaded 3/13/18 are changed from documents loaded 2/27/18? What are the specific changes to those documents? | Same comment as to Question 14 | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | ||||||
| 16 | SOL | Page 5 of W56HZV16R0210 shows a deliverable quantity minimum 11 and maximum 1505. Attachment 10 LEUT PRICING MATRIX VERSION 14 shows deliverable quantity minimum 11 and maximum 1505. The FEDBIZOP LEUT page show a deliverable quantity minimum 11 and maximum 1204. Can the Government advise, which is correct? | The quantities listed in W56HZV16R0210 and Attachment 0010 are correct. When we issued the synopsis (Pre solicitation) on 2 Feb 2018, the anticipated guaranteed minimum and maximum quantities were: |
Minimum Qty: 11 EA Maximum Qty: 1,204 EA
However, on 26 Feb 2018, when we issued the solicitation, the guaranteed minimum and estimated maximum quantities were changed to:
Minimum Qty: 11 EA
| Maximum Qty: 1,505 EA | 16-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 17 | PRESOL | Please consider safe loading applications for equipment operator safety. Industry Standard is a 12 degree load angle not 15 degree. In addition, a deckover trailer without a beavertail and only ramps isn't industry standard for safe loading of equipment. | Rear load ramp angle is specified in Attachment 0001, ATPD-2414B Para 3.9.g., which permits less than 15 degrees. | 16-Mar-16 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||
| 18 | PRESOL | Payload dimensioning for testing, the BHL has a much higher CG than a SSL. If the trailer is payloaded with steel plate to achieve weight requirements, the mobility and absorbed power can be affected. | All the payloads will be actual construction equipment and not steel plate. | 16-Mar-16 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||
| 19 | SOL | Is it the Government’s intent to require only one IPSIPR during the duration of the Logistics Demonstration since the Log Demo is scheduled for four weeks? (Section C, paragraph C.3.8; Section E, paragraph E.5; Section F, paragraph F.1) | It is the Government's intent that the contractor shall conduct monthly IPSIPRs beginning the month after the SOWM through the end of the contract (see Section C.3.8). For clarification, in section E.5 Production Qualification Test, the 4 weeks expected duration is for Log Demo/Soldier Interaction Test Event and Verification. See below: |
Log Demo - 2 Weeks (10 Business Days) Soldier Interaction Test Event - 1 Week (5 Business Days)
| Verification 1 - Week (5 Business Days) | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | ||||||||||
| 20 | SOL | Is it required that the one and only IPSIRP will be scheduled 4-weeks after the start of the Logistics Demonstration which is scheduled to begin at 270 DARO? (Section C, paragraph C.3.8; Section E, paragraph E.5; Section F, paragraph F.1) | See response to Question #19. | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 21 | SOL | If it determined that the schedule must change from what is specified in the solicitation, could you please provide new and more specific guidance as to the time between events and the anticipated duration for each of the IPSIRP as required? (Section C, paragraph C.3.8; Section E, paragraph E.5; Section F, paragraph F.1) | If a schedule change is required, the contractor will receive written notification from the PCO. Monthly IPSIPR content, schedule and duration will be coordinated jointly by the Government and Contractor. | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 22 | SOL | What event will be determined to be the end of product verification? (C.3.8.1) | TM Verification Event (C.8.5.4.3). | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 23 | SOL | Is it anticipated that there will be more than one CDR event? (C.3.8.1) | More than one CDR event is not anticipated. | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 24 | SOL | Are the provisioning and CDR being held concurrently, or is it envisioned that the CDR will be held first followed by the provisioning conference? (C.3.8.1) | CDR will be held first followed by Provisioning Conference (see Sections C.3.3 and C.3.8.1) | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 25 | SOL | Does the Government require Provisioning Screening outputs prior to the PDR and CDR meetings? (C.8.4.1 ) | |||||||||||
| If not, when will the provisioning deliverables be made prior to the CDR/Provisioning conference(s)? | Provisioning Screening Outputs will not be required prior to PDR and CDR Meetings. PDR and CDR Meetings will be held first followed by Provisioning Conference. | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||||
| 26 | SOL | Will the Government consider releasing the NATC document: Light Engineering Utility Trailer (LEUT) Trade Study prepared for PEO CS&CSS? | No. | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 27 | SOL | The LEUT solicitation details that the trailers shall be top-coated in accordance with MIL-DTL- 64159. The ATPD, section 3.13.3 for the wheels, covers the fact that the wheel and rim finish for topcoat shall be in accordance with MIL-DTL-64159 (similar to what is listed in the contract for the overall trailers), but also includes MIL-DTL-53039 or MIL-PRF-32348 as options. Will the Government allow the overall LEUT trailers themselves to also include the option of using MIL-DTL-53039 (in addition to MIL-DTL-64159), similarly as to what is allowed on the topcoat for the wheels? MIL-DTL 53039, Type IV Topcoat has lower VOC’s than MIL-DTL-64159 and has the same properties as MIL-DTL-64159 when cured. The MIL-DTL-53039 QPL is approved by the Army Research Lab. We currently have other military contracts for small, medium and large trailers with ACC-Warren and all of these contracts allow the topcoat options to include MIL-DTL-53039. | Yes, the Government will permit MIL-DTL 53039 per amendment 0002. | 15-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||||||
| 28 | SOL | The following should be added to C.6.2.1: |
"...MIL-DTL-64159 Coating, Water Dispersible Aliphatic Polyurethane or Powder Coat, ..."
Reason: Powder Coat is approved under MIL-DTL-53039.
C.6.2.1 the following should be updated to:
FROM: "...CARC paint per MIL-DTL-64159 Coating, ..."
TO: "...CARC paint per MIL-DTL-53039, MIL-DTL-64159, or MIL-PRF-32348 Type III Topcoat, ..."
OR TO: "...CARC paint per MIL-DTL-53039 Coating, ..."
Reasons:
In section 3.13.3 ["...MIL-DTL-53039, MIL-DTL-64159, or MIL-PRF-32348 Type III Topcoat."
In section 3.22 only IAW MIL-DTL-53072 is named.
If these items remain contradictory the conflict between the ATPD and Contract could be a point of contention during the Corrosion control and performance section of FPVI.
| Based on Lab and actual trailers we have fielded with other branches of the Military that powder coat has a much longer life then Polyurethane CARC. | Section C.6.2.1 is revised per amendment 0002. | 16-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||
| 29 | SOL | ATPD-2414B Paragraph 3.9.a "The payload platform area plus any usable tail area shall contain the full length of all equipment and shall be greater than 7.37 meters (737 cm or 290 inches) horizontally." |
M.4.1.4.1.1 For evaluation purposes ATPD-2414B Paragraph 3.9.a will be assessed against a platform length no greater than 290 inches horizontally.
| How long should the platform length be? | ATPD-2414B Paragraph 3.9a language has been updated in accordance with Attachment 0029, Superseding Revisions to ATPD-2414B per amendment 0002. | 20-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||
| 30 | SOL | We are respectfully concerned regarding the affordability CAP on Solicitation W56HZV-16-R-0210 - LEUT Type II, year 1 cap of $2,827,495 and the follow on production years CAP of $63,862,698.00. |
We ask that the government review the affordability requirements in light of the additional costs driven by the expected increase in steel costs, as well as the requirements in the ATPD for run flat tires. Previous PDs & RFIs requested if run flat tires were available and if the supplier was capable of providing. However, the run flat tire requirement was not included in previous requirements documents.
Understanding that the cap is more than likely driven by program allocated funding:
Respectfully we ask the government to consider the following options:
1. Adjust the quantity of trailers requested.
* Original quantity posted on FBO Presolicitatoin January 26th, 2018. Quantities - Minimum 11 Ea & Maximum 1,204 Ea
2. Remove the requirement for the run flat tires.
* Estimated 9K + cost savings per trailer, total $13,536,000.00.
Additionally, would the government consider removing the statement in section M.3.2.1 "Failure to meet either of the Affordability requirements described in M.3.2.1.1 and M.3.2.1.2 below will render the proposal unaffordable, and the offeror ineligible for award?"
Information & data to substantiate our position is available upon request for the governments use only as a means to evaluate the affordability of this requirement Offerors are advised to utilize business discretion in price allocation across base and option CLINs to ensure its total proposed price adequately compensates for cost and profit associated with performance of the contract.
1. The affordability limits take into account the quantities listed in the RFP.
| 2. The affordability limits take into account the run flat tires. | 22-Mar-18 | 2-Apr-18 | |||||||
| 31 | SOL | Is the bolt together wheel and the runflat a KPP item? | No. | 26-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | 29-Mar-18 | |||
| 32 | SOL | Why are the two “OPTION” years lines 0016, 0017, 0026, 0027, 0036, 0037 0046, 0047, 0106, 0107, 0136, 0137 on Attachment 0010 tab Total Proposed Price, included in the LEUT Affordability tab if they are Options | FAR 1.108(c), which states— |
Dollar thresholds. Unless otherwise specified, a specific dollar threshold for the purpose of applicability is the final anticipated dollar value of the action, including the dollar value of all options. If the action establishes a maximum quantity of supplies or services to be acquired or establishes a ceiling price or establishes the final price to be based on future events, the final anticipated dollar value must be the highest final priced alternative to the Government, including the dollar value of all options. 26-Mar-18 29-Mar-18 29-Mar-18
File details come from the government source that posted it.