FBO_Announcement_15_Jun_2017_-_1-on-1_Feedback_and_CDD_update.docx

Solicitation Number: W56HZV-16-R-0244 Notice Type: Special Notice: Mobile Protected Firepower Updated Documentation Posting Date: 15 June 2017 Services Classification Code: AC42 -- R&D- Defense System: Tank/Automotive (Applied Research/Exploratory Development) Procurement Activity: Army Contracting Command – Warren

1. Summary

The U.S. Army, Project Manager Armored Fighting Vehicles, herein after referred to as the United Stated Government (USG), conducted one-on-one sessions with Industry, from 17-20 April 2017, to discuss the programmatic and technical path forward to the potential Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program. The intent of the one-on-one sessions was for the USG to gather additional market research to further refine requirements. These sessions provided a forum for Industry representatives to brief the USG information based on their design approach of the MPF platform, and ask additional questions pertaining to the updated draft Capability Development Document (CDD), Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP), Performance Specification (P-Spec), and classified annexes. The USG recorded all industry questions pre-submitted and asked during the one-on-one sessions. The prospective offerors were advised that responses would be publicly posted via Federal Business Opportunities (FBO). These are the responses. Some questions/responses were made generic by removing vendor-specific information in order to protect the integrity of the contractor’s proprietary approach as well as remove For Official Use Only (FOUO) information so the questions/responses could be publicly posted. Some industry respondents submitted comments/recommendations to the classified documents and participated in classified discussions during the one-on-ones, however there are no specific classified questions/responses pertinent to release. This FBO post also includes the ability for prospective contractors to receive a copy of the updated CDD.

This notice does not constitute an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal and is not to be construed as a solicitation, and no award shall be made on the basis of this notice. There is no formal solicitation available at this time, no solicitation will be issued against this notice, and this announcement does not obligate the Government to issue a solicitation.

2. Programmatic Update/Schedule The attached slides (Industry One-one-One April 2017) were presented at the industry one-on-ones in April 2017, however a few specific FOUO questions USG asked were removed to be able to publicly post this information. The questions pertained to design capabilities.

Current draft program information is shown below and depicts the schedule/prototype quantities based on the award to one vendor. However, as noted below, the USG seeks to award to two vendors if affordable.

The USG targets a late June 2017 draft information release identifying key elements of the MPF acquisition approach to include an updated draft P-Spec with classified annex, bid sample information/bid sample evaluation plan, evaluation criteria/L&M, draft Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) list, and an executive level summary of key Statement of Work (SoW) items. The June 2017 draft information release will address many of the industry questions received thus far. The USG intends to hold a one-on-one industry sessions with potential prime contractors in July 2017 to address additional industry questions and comments. The USG intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract with fixed-price type Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) options to up to two contractors, if affordable. The quantity of prototypes is To Be Determined (TBD) and is dependent on USG internal budget decisions and the number of awarded contracts.

Draft program dates:

OCT 17- Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) Release DEC 17 – Formal RFP Release APR 18 - Proposal due. Bid Sample and armor coupons delivered DEC 18 - Award EMD Contract with LRIP options JUL 19 - Design Maturity Review MAR 20 - First Prototype Delivery JAN 22 - Milestone C AUG 22 - LRIP deliveries begin APR 24 – First Unit Equipped (FUE)

3. Responses to Industry Questions Over the past few months there have been multiple FBO announcements and solicitations for industry white papers, feedback and questions regarding the MPF potential program. The below update is in response to the questions the USG has received to date from industry regarding the programmatic and technical path forward for the effort. As noted above, some questions were revised to make generic. Where multiple similar questions were received, combined responses are provided.

Schedule Questions:

a. Question: Industry partners have inquired about the projected (notional) program schedule, milestone start points, multiple versus single contract award, planned contract type, and delivery quantities and dates.

Response: The Programmatic Update/Schedule section above is intended to answer these types of questions.

b. Question: The current acquisition approach anticipates Milestone B and EMD contract award in 2nd Quarter 2019. Given the current Continuing Resolution (CR) and potential of a yearlong CR, what is the impact on the acquisition schedule for RFP release and award? Any changes to timing is critical to investment planning.

Response: The final RFP is scheduled for release in December 2017. Any updates to that timeline will be communicated via FBO announcements or future industry engagements.

c. Question: We have heard the Chief Staff of the Army (CSA) is looking to speed up acquisition and we noted some changes in the new CDD (First Unit of Issue (FUI) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, FUE moved up to FY 2024). Are there further changes to the acquisition schedule to come, and if so, what are they?

Response: The current notional program schedule is reflected above. The USG plans to solidify an acquisition strategy and maintain that schedule, however changes may occur. Any changes will be relayed to industry via FBO announcements or future industry engagements.

d. Question: Will the USG be asking for feedback on the L&M language? Will the USG accept/answer additional questions after this event (April industry one-on-ones)? What type of communications are permissible after the draft RFP is released? Will there be additional one-on-one sessions? Do you foresee significant changes between draft RFP and the final RFP?

Response: Under this program, the USG has been seeking to engage industry to incorporate feedback early and attempt to minimize changes. The USG intends to have one-on-one sessions in July 2017 following the planned June 2017 release. This would include industry feedback on L&M and any other documentation. Additional exchange(s) may also be provided. Industry feedback may influence the draft RFP in October 2017, with the intent to minimize changes prior to RFP release in December 2017. All communication should be directed to the FBO Points of Contact (POC). The USG may respond to additional questions via FBO. Any proprietary information will be removed prior to posting to FBO.

e. Question: If the government awards two EMD contracts, what is the schedule and criteria to down select to one contractor?

Response: If two contractors receive EMD contracts, the down-select timeline within the EMD phase (based on funding) and the down select criteria is TBD, however the LRIP option will only be exercised for one contractor. Down-select criteria is targeted to be included in the October 2017 draft RFP, if required.

f. Question: Are Concept of Operations and Concept of Employment documents planned to be released to industry? If so, what is the timeframe?

Response: A Concept of Operations is contained within the draft OMS/MP. The draft OMS/MP was released to industry earlier this year. There are no plans to release the final OMS/MP. There is not a separate Concept of Employment.

g. Question: When does the government require fielding, spares, Technical Manuals, and field service representatives to start? Are these required for the bid sample and/or EMD?

Response: Select supportability, training, and field service representative expectations will be released in the targeted draft information release in late June 2017, with the balance to be provided in a later FBO posting.

Budget/Cost/Competition Questions:

The USG received multiple questions/comments regarding the impact of CR and an unfunded budget. As of 5 May 2017, the USG is no longer under CR, therefore many of those questions are now Overcome by Events (OBE). However, future CRs may impact the schedule. The USG intends to continue to communicate with industry via FBO announcements and future industry engagements regarding any pertinent/significant schedule changes. The MPF program remains a priority for the CSA.

h. Question: How many EMD awards does the USG intend to make? What is the likelihood the Army will be able to fund two EMD awards? If two vendors are selected, will both EMD contracts be funded for full system prototype build and validation test? If two vendors are selected for EMD, when would a down-select to one occur?

Response: As noted in the Programmatic Update, the USG seeks to award up to two contracts for EMD, if affordable. The USG desires competition in the EMD phase, if funding allows. The down-select timeline within the EMD phase (based on funding) and the down select criteria is TBD, however the LRIP option will only be exercised for one contractor.

i. Question: Will an affordability cap be used on the FFP EMD contract(s) for MPF?

Response: The USG may provide a not to exceed affordability cap by year in a later FBO posting.

j. Question: Have cost targets been established that will be listed in the RFP and are the cost targets to be used by the Government as a go no go acceptance criteria in evaluation of Bidders proposals? Will the USG publish the estimates?

Response: Final cost targets have not yet been established. Some budget information may be included in the October 2017 draft RFP. Final evaluation criteria will be included in the formal RFP. An offeror’s proposal must be affordable to be eligible for contract award.

k. Question: What is the Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) target for the program and how the APUC will be evaluated or factored into the EMD selection?

Response: We intend to address this question in the upcoming June 2017 draft information release.

l. Question: Are portions of the program envisioned to be accelerated based on potential funding changes? For instance, could an RFP be released in late 2017? Is the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) being completed early?

Response: The formal RFP is scheduled for release in December 2017 (FY 2018). A notional timeline has been released. Any updates to that timeline will be communicated via FBO. AoA is currently on-going and scheduled to be finalized by August 2017.

Government Furnished Equipment/Material/Information (GFE/GFM/GFI) Questions:

m. Question: What GFE/GFM does the USG plan to provide for the EMD prototype vehicles or bid samples? Will the USG consider providing cannon assemblies and/or fire control units as GFE for ease of integration, assured commonality and cost control?

Response: For EMD prototypes, a list of required subsystems and GFE is being developed and will be provided within the draft June 2017 information release. Full vehicle systems will not be available as GFE/GFM. The USG does not intend to provide GFE/GFM for bid samples.

n. Question: Will the USG require MPF gun manufacturing at an Army arsenal or depot?

Response: TBD.

o. Question: Can the USG provide the Digital Human Models of the required Soldier population?

Response: The P-Spec that will be included in the late June 2017 FBO release will contain a table of Digital Human Model dimensions. If interested, contractors may also seek the Pro-E models by email request to the three POCs listed on the FBO announcement, and specifically request this information.

Requirements Clarifications:

The USG has previously released, through multiple FBO posts, the draft PSPEC, CDD, OMS/MP and Classified Annex/PSPEC. The latest announcement was on 29 March 2017. Therefore some of the requirements clarification related questions received prior to that date are OBE. Further industry feedback on the target June 2017 draft information release is welcome.

p. Question: What is the total number of EMD prototypes (how many are for Life Fire Test & Evaluation (LFT&E)) and Production vehicles for this opportunity and how many years is production anticipated to take place? How many MPF vehicles would be produced each year?

Response: The Programmatic Update above reflects 20 EMD prototypes, assuming one EMD contractor. The intent is to procure a total of 504 production vehicles.

q. Question: What plans does the Army have to recognize the requirement to re-establish signature management as a key tenet of the characteristics of MPF?

Response: Signature management requirements are included in the PSPEC.

r. Question: How many variants of the platform are expected if MPF is destined to be more than just a direct fire gun system?

Response: No other variants are planned at this time.

s. Question: Are you considering any electric hybrid solutions?

Response: The USG is looking for proven mature technologies that can enter at a Milestone B. Reference the draft P-Spec and evaluation criteria targeted for release in June 2017 and draft RFP in October 2017 for MPF requirements.

t. Question: In the case of discrepancy between the CDD and PSPEC, which requirement do we design to?

Response: The contractor shall bid and design to P-Spec requirements.

u. Question: Can the USG provide insight to how the operating and support cost is calculated? How was the Maintenance Ratio calculated?

Response: The USG will not provide this information.

v. Question: Is there a preference on the type of gun?

Response: Industry shall review the P-Spec requirements and evaluation criteria in the upcoming June 2017 information release. The Lethality requirements are driven by defeating a given threat set. The USG is not designating the solution set to meet these requirements.

w. Question: Does the USG have any interest in procuring Technical Data Packages (TDPs)?

Response: The October 2017 draft RFP is intended to provide information on TDPs.

x. Question: What constitutes Mission Critical Equipment?

Response: Mission Critical Equipment will be defined in the draft PSPEC in the late June information release.

y. Question: What is the purpose of the Abrams reticle requirement?

Response: This requirement will reduce training from other combat vehicles to the MPF platform.

z. Question: How was the Fuel Economy derived and what systems has it been proved on?

Response: This requirement is common and has been proven on multiple other Military Platforms.

aa. Question: Is the growth required in the base system or could it be provided later as a kit?

Response: The growth is required in the base vehicle configuration.

Requirements Tiering/Evaluation Criteria Questions:

The USG has received numerous questions pertaining to how the P-Spec will be tiered, what P-Spec requirements are mandatory, which are tradeable, and how vendors will be scored during the evaluation. Many of the submitted questions pertained to specific FOUO requirements in the P-Spec, therefore cannot be addressed separately for public posting. The USG was also presented with questions if there would be levels of acceptability of hardware vs. USG test data vs. contractor/independent test data vs. paper proposal submissions. An updated draft P-Spec, draft bid sample evaluation plan, and draft evaluation criteria are targeted for a June 2017 information release. Contractors shall review these documents for answers. As noted, the USG will solicit feedback from the June information release and intends to release a draft RFP in October 2017 prior to the final RFP release.

Additional requirements tiering/evaluation questions:

ab. Question: Will evaluation credit be given for additional transportability modes?

Response: Reference the draft P-Spec and evaluation criteria targeted for release in June 2017 and draft RFP in October 2017 for MPF requirements.

ac. Question: Can we get tier 1 priorities as soon as possible?

Response: The USG is working to provide all available information as soon as possible. This information will be included in the draft June 2017 information release.

ad. Question: Is this an all or nothing Bid? Do all the Threshold requirements have to be met?

Response: This will be answered in the draft June 2017 information release.

ae. Question: What is the desired weight of the MPF? We have seen one weight listed in the OMS/MP, but derived a different weight from the P-Spec. How will weight be evaluated in the RFP?

Response: The weight reference in the OMS/MP was in error. The June 2017 information release will include the updated P-Spec and draft evaluation criteria to answer any weight related questions. A final OMS/MP will not be posted.

af. Question: Will the USG entertain spiral development for this program based on when technology reaches Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) levels that allow for integration onto production vehicles? Will an offeror get additional credit for having designed for future capability integration?

Response: The June 2017 information release will include the updated P-Spec and draft evaluation criteria.

Bid Sample Questions:

The USG has received numerous questions regarding if a bid sample is mandatory, what the USG defines as ‘bid sample’/minimum requirements, how it will be evaluated, where it will be evaluated, will it be a loan to the USG and returned or remain in contractor possession, will contractor test support be required, and will there be destructive testing conducted. During one-on-ones with industry, the USG explained that bid sample submission is optional, not mandatory. There were also discussions about the possibility of Ballistic Hull and Turrets (BH&T) for evaluation; however the USG has determined it does not seek BH&Ts. Armor coupon submission is also optional. Armor coupon specifics will be released in a future FBO post. The USG will provide separate storage for bid samples. The USG intends to evaluate at a USG test site, however the specific test site is TBD. The bid sample evaluation is estimated for four months at the test site, and the vehicle will be returned to the contractor. The USG intends to use bid sample evaluation data and armor coupon evaluation data as substantiating data to the paper proposal submissions. Further clarification of the MPF bid sample expectation/approach will be included in the June 2017 information release along with a draft bid sample evaluation plan and draft evaluation criteria.

Additional bid sample questions:

ag. Question: How will a vendor be reimbursed for the Bid Samples? Will the bid sample be loaned to the USG?

Response: If the contractor opts to submit a bid sample with its RFP the cost of development and delivery shall be at the contractor’s expense. Loan opportunities are TBD.

ah. Question: Will the contractor be allowed to witness the Bid Sample, BH&T testing, receive data, etc.

Response: The USG intends to request vehicle operators/Field Service Representatives (FSR) during the bid sample evaluation period, therefore the operators/FSRs will be present during a portion of the bid sample evaluation. USG raw data generated from the bid sample evaluation will be provided to the contractor when available upon completion of the bid sample evaluation. The ability for additional contractor representatives to witness specific bid sample evaluations is TBD at this time.

ai. Question: Is use of a bid sample common?

Response: Bid samples have been used on other programs. It is deemed a viable option for MPF.

aj. Question: Will the USG take suggestions on how Bid Samples will be provided?

Response: The USG has, and will continue to take industry feedback into account in defining the Bid Sample plan.

ak. Question: Will GFE and its stowage provisions be expected to be integrated onto the Bid Sample?

Response: Reference the upcoming draft June 2017 information release. The June 2017 information release will contain additional bid sample information.

Other Questions:

al. Question: Why were the Classified Annex markings changed?

Response: This was an internal government decision.

am. Question: When will the Security Classification Guide (SCG) be available?

Response: The USG targets providing the SCG by July/August 2017.

an. Question: You have stated a strong desire to leverage proven foreign technologies that would reduce cost, schedule, and/or technical risk to the MPF program. Given the relative lack of mature, relevant US-origin technology for MPF, do you have concerns about policy or legal hurdles which would prevent the acceptance of mature foreign technology?

Response: The USG desires to leverage proven technologies; not necessarily limited to either foreign or domestic technologies. All contractors are bound by existing legal and contractual policies regarding the purchasing and manufacturing of foreign products.

ao. Question: The Army has expressed an interest in looking at offshore designs as part of the MPF selection process, but there are no mechanisms in place for the Army to send MPF requirements to an offshore supplier. Does the Army plan to put a mechanism in place to allow foreign companies access to MPF requirements? If yes, what is the expected timeline to accomplish this task?

Response:

Per the Army Materiel Command Legal Center in Michigan: Regarding export control please seek professional guidance from your company's export control team and from the Departments of Commerce, State, Treasury and Energy. As background, the United States, like most industrialized countries, has laws which govern the export and import of certain products and technologies. Four U.S. Government Agencies have primary export licensing responsibilities: the Departments of Commerce, State, Treasury, and Energy.

The MPF is likely to involve International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controlled items and information. While we are not providing legal advice, it should be noted that;

- The requirement per ITAR §122.1 is that "any person who engages in the United States in the business of either manufacturing or exporting or temporarily importing defense articles or furnishing defense services is required to register with Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). Manufacturers who do not engage in exporting must nevertheless register."

- The United States Munitions List (USML) is included in Part 121, ITAR. The ITAR and USML are on the Department of State web site at www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html.

- A commodity jurisdiction (CJ) determination is made by the Department of State, in consultation with other Government agencies, when doubt exists as to whether a commodity (i.e., articles, technical information, and services) is covered by the USML.

ap. Question: Can the USG provide a copy of drawing 57K6627 for T161 Track System, Modification Kit?

Response: Yes, Drawing 57K6627 is authorized for distribution to U.S. DOD Contractors and is owned by the USG for USG purposes. The MPF program does not dictate the use of or have a preference for this Modification Kit or Track System.

aq. Question: Can the USG provide main gun ammunition for independent contractor testing and/or demonstration prior to proposal submission?

Response: If a contractor would like ammunition prior to proposal submission, it will need to coordinate and purchase ammunition directly through the Joint Munitions Command (JMC).

4. Instructions for Requesting the Updated CDD (Version: AROCM 17-016) v3) FOUO and Classified Information relevant to MPF Requirements are available to interested participants. Please refer to the previous FBO announcements dated 14 July 2016 and 08 December 2016 for instructions on how to obtain information supporting this announcement.

5. Points of Contact For all comments or concerns to this announcement please contact the following. Include all three in any correspondence:

Steve Roberts (Email Address: stephen.w.roberts20.civ@mail.mil), Shannon Zemke (Email Address: shannon.b.zemke.civ@mail.mil), and Jamie Barnett (Email Address: jamie.l.barnett8.civ@mail.mil image1.png