MPF_RFP_W56HZV-18-R-0001_-QandA_Batch_3_(Distro_A).pdf

# RFP Reference Question Response

1 C.1.1.5.1 Question: Is the response to this Solicitation required to address UMC? If it does, what section of the proposal response does the Government want UMC to be included?

Recommendation: Please instruct Offerors that their proposal should address preliminary UMC estimates in the System Description.

The UMC is not required as part of the proposal.

2 C.1.1.5.2 Question: Do all of the Affordability Assessment requirements and the UMC estimate take place

“at or after” DMR and PRR? These include analyses for:

- Cost reduction identification opportunities

- Production Rate analyses

- Recommendation of optimal economic order quantity rate of production

- Manufacturing cost estimates for RPGs, ATMs and ADHPMs

Recommendation: Please provide guidance that detailed UMC and Affordability Assessments will be provided after DMR and PRR.

Section C.1.1.5.2 (Affordability Assessment) of the RFP states that "The contractor shall present its affordability management process and its UMC estimate at DMR and PRR." The contractor shall also comply with the requirements in CDRLs A003 and A004.

3 C.1.1.6.5.2, Exhibit A and Attachment 04

Question: The CDRLs for the “As Planned and As Built BOMs” reference MIL-STD-881C as one of the governing documents. Is the intent of the Government to include all of the WBS elements in MIL-STD-881C or only those associated with Materials (i.e. CWBS 1.1.2 through 1.3 in Attachment 4) to be included in the BOMs deliverables?

As noted in RFP Section C.1.1.6.5.2, the data populating each BOM submission "shall align with the

CCDR with which it is submitted and include data fields to crosswalk each part with the CWBS used in the

CCDR." Since the Bill of Materials is intended to specifically include a list of materials, the items in the

BOM will need to be crosswalked to those WBS elements in which those material costs are included in the

CCDR. Thus, based on the definition of the various WBS elements in MIL-STD-881C, most (if not all) costs in the BOM will likely crosswalk to Level 3 and Level 4 WBS elements under 1.1 and 1.3. Please note: not every cost in the CCDR will crosswalk to the BOM.

4 C.1.2.11.6 Question: Regarding Fire Control software safety, will the Government please make available

GOTS fire control software or GOTS ballistic kernels for the rounds called out in the

Attachment 07 (MPF PSPEC) Appendix A?

The USG cannot provide the GOTS ballistic kernels as there are no NATO approved ballistic kernels for the direct fire rounds identified for MPF.

5 C.1.8 Proposed Change: Please consider adding the following clause to the RFP so that in the future any testing done by the Contractor can receive lower DoD rates instead of commercial private industry rates: “The contractor is authorized to receive test services from a Major Range Test

Facility Base and receive the government furnished rate".

The following language will be added to a future RFP amendment or to the contract.

"Pending test site approval, the contractor is authorized to receive test services from a Major Range Test

Facility Base and receive the government furnished rate".

6 E.7.1.1 Question: As the EMD test vehicles will be at Government test sites and will be subject to

Government test schedules and requirements, would the Government consider changing the final acceptance (DD250) prior to shipment to the Government test sites upon completion of production of each vehicle? Part of the Contractor statement of work requires the Contractor to support the vehicles throughout testing events, however, the Contractor is not at liberty to put vehicles into maintenance or upgrade periods outside of the Government directed periods, contractually stating the Government owns the vehicle during the test period.

No. The DD250 of EMD vehicles will remain at completion of EMD. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the vehicles and doing the upgrades outside of the Government-directed periods during

EMD.

7 H.1 Question: The proposal and award is based on customary progress payments. However, the RFP doesn’t identify specific liquidation events typical of a progress payments structure. Is the

Offeror permitted to include liquidation events in our proposal submission, tied to the completion of events at the sub-CLIN level?

Per Section H.1 of the RFP, the Government will consider alternative finanicing arrangments in the form of performance-based payments (liquidiation events) after contract award for the selected Offeror(s).

Therefore, the Offeror should not include performance-based payments (liquidation events) in the proposal submission. The contractor may submit a request after contract award.

MPF RFP W56HZV-18-R-0001 - Questions and Answers BATCH 3 (Distro A)

8 I-74 Question: FAR 52.244-6 -- Subcontracts for Commercial Items. This clause contains the definition of a “Commercial Item” as defined in FAR 2.101. Item #8 states, “A non-developmental item, if the procuring agency determines the item was developed exclusively at private expense and sold in substantial quantities, on a competitive basis, to multiple State and local governments.” Can we conclude that foreign governments qualify as “State and local governments” in respect to item #8 of the commercial item definition? Please confirm foreign governments qualifies as “State and local governments” in respect to item #8 of the commercial item definition.

The offeror has the responsibility to determine whether or not a particular subcontract item meets the definition a commercial item per DFARS 244.402.

9 I-110 Comment: During the pre-RFP discussion phase, the understanding was that DFARS 252.225-

7001 would only apply to the LRIP phase. The RFP contains no restriction on the application of the clause.

Recommendation: Please change the requirement to limit applicability of DFARS 252.225-7001 to the LRIP phase and beyond only.

DFARS 252.225-7001, Buy American and Balance of Payments Program, applies to both the EMD and

LRIP phases of this RFP.

As stated in a previous FBO release on 27 September 2017, "The Buy American Act (DFARS Part 225) will apply to both the EMD and the LRIP portions of the contract. Also, DFARS Subpart 225.5 will apply to offers that do not meet the definition of a domestic end product IAW DFARS 225.101(a) and DFARS

252.225-7000(a)."

10 L.2.3 Comment/Change proposed: L.2.3 states: “…each paragraph of the proposal shall have a reference number.” Please explain if this “reference number” is different from normal proposal numbering conventions used by offerors to identify major sections and subsections. If the reference number is intended to be a distinct number different from the normal proposal numbering conventions, please provide a more detailed explanation of the numbering

Government desires to meet this requirement.

Utilizing the normal proposal numbering conventions used by Offerors to identify major sections/subsections is sufficient.

11 L.2.6 Comment/Change proposed: Line 4 states Hand-carried proposals must be delivered to the

Detroit Arsenal (DTA) Mail Handling Facility (Building 255) between the hours of 8:00AM and

1:00PM local Warren, MI time.

Recommendation: Please provide the full physical address for the aforementioned DTA location, Point of Contact (POC) and telephone number, if any. Offerors sending proposals delivered by commercial carriers such as FedEx, UPS, or services other than the US Postal Service need a physical address and telephone number.

Please refer to Section L.2.5 " Proposal Submission Address" and L.2.6 "Method of Submission for the

Unclassified Proposal". Offerors sending proposals delivered by commercial carriers such as FedEx, UPS, or services other than the US Postal Service, shall note on the shipping label that the proposal shall be hand-carried to the Mail Handling Facility in Building 255. The Government will be responsible for forwarding the packages to the appropriate personnel.

12 L.4.1.2 Comment/Change Proposed: The requirement “Each IMP task shall have a task description that includes inputs required for successful accomplishment of the task, the accomplishment criteria, and outputs for the task” does not make sense for the IMP, which consists of Events, Accomplishments, and Criteria. Tasks are contained in the IMS.

Recommendation: Please consider changing the word “task” to “event”. Events are the appropriate activity within the IMP for discussion of inputs, accomplishment criteria, and outputs.

L.4.1.2 will be updated in part to state : "Each IMP event shall have a description that includes inputs required for successful accomplishment of the event, the criteria to close the accomplishment, and artifacts needed to close the criteria."

13 L.4.1.2.1 Comment: The Government states that IMS shall include all GFE/GFI interdependencies.

GFP is listed in Attachment 9; however, there is no separate listing in any attachments for the

Government Furnished Information (GFI) that should be used a basis for technical recommendations and offerings.

Recommendation: Please provide the GFI for the proposal development. Particular concern is in the area of Tool Sets. Clarifying the GFI allows consistency across Offeror submissions, including development of plans and estimates for the amount and types of material required to equip the vehicle.

Offerors shall request the specific desired GFI referenced in the Performance Specification and the solicitation that it seeks. Requests shall be submitted to the three POCs identified in the RFP Executive

Summary. In reference to the tool kits, please refer to Attachment 9 that identifies the NSNs for the various tool kits.

14 L.4.1.1.2 Question: Regarding the Section L requirement to submit an Error Budget Allocation, we ask if the Government can provide the following information/guidance:

Q1. Does the Government expect the Error Budget Allocation to include parameters for both

Standard and Quasi-Combat Conditions?

Q2. For any Phit analysis results included in the proposal, does the Government expect analysis results for both Standard and Quasi-Combat conditions?

Q3. If Phit analysis results for Quasi-Combat Conditions are expected, can the Government provide typical error budget allocations or soldier performance degradations for Quasi-Combat

Conditions?

A1. Error budget allocations shall include paramaters for Standard and Quasi-Combat Conditions.

A2. Standard and Quasi-Combat condition Phit analysis results shall be included in the proposal as needed to support proposed performance levels.

A3. The Government cannot provide soldier performance degradations. Offerors shall explain what assumption are made and how they are quantified.

Section L.4.1.1.2 will be updated in an upcoming Amendment to state that "An Error Budget Allocation

(standard and quasi-combat) to include narrative of the fire control architecture and stabilization..."

15 L.4.1.1.2 Question: Regarding the Section L requirement to submit Night Vision Integrated Performance

Model (NV-IPM) input data and results, can the Government please provide the following information/guidance:

• Does the Government have a preferred format for the input data?

• If there is no preferred format, can we submit actual NV-IPM XML model files containing the input data to meet this requirement?

The Government prefers the .XML files submitted along with any .tp5 files the vendor might be using if they are running the MODTRAN component. Additional information regarding custom components or parameters should be provided in a narrative.

Section L.4.1.1.2 will be updated in an upcoming Amendment to state that NV-IMP model results shall be an output of NV-IMP v1.6 or later, up to v1.9.

L.4.3.1.3

Question: The RFP states “Offerors are instructed to provide a Table of Contents showing each file submitted as a part of the VATEP Volume with a short description of the contents of the file.” What is meant by the term “file”? Does this mean files, such as excel files, that are attachments to the VATEP volume? In addition, do level headings or paragraph headings

(pulled from the RFP) meet the requirements of a short description? Level headings provide a clear, concise summation of the content being presented in the Table of Contents. If level headings are not sufficient, please define what should be included in a “short description” and/or provide an example of what you are looking for.

The term "file" refers to anything submitted to support the VATEP volume (e.g. Word, Excel, etc…).

A short description needs to be sufficient to describe the files submitted.

17 CDRL A130 Question: Is the Government’s intent to have a full vehicle and component level Depot

Maintenance Work Requirements validated and ready for verification during the Logistics

Products verification window in LRIP?

Please refer to the SOW C.2.8.4.15. It is not the intent of the Government to have a full vehicle and component level DMWR validated and ready for verification during the Logistics Products verification window in LRIP. In accordance with CDRL A130, the DMWR procedures shall be delivered 90 days after completion of government logistics product verification in LRIP.

18 General Can someone provide information regarding the number of RAM missions planned during

EMD and LRIP phase of the Test?

No. The number of RAM missions is unknown. However, the number of RAM miles is identified in the

RFP.

19 General Will the Government sponsor bid sample testing at ATC to be completed before formal bid sample submission and/or after USG bid sample evaluation is completed, if the contractor seeks to conduct additional testing?

This language will be added to a future RFP amendment or to the contract.

"Pending test site approval, the contractor is authorized to receive test services from a Major Range Test

Facility Base and receive the government furnished rate".

20 General Can the Government provide a conformed copy of the RFP? Yes. It is released with this set of Q&As.

21 General Prior postings reference a bid sample support contract would be awarded to contractors that submit a bid sample. When will this contract be available

The synopsis for this effort is posted on FBO.gov. The RFQ is estimated to be released by the end of Jan

2018. Please refer to FBO for the latest information on W56HZV-18-Q-0005.

22 RFP

C.1.7.4

In accordance with the Mission Load Plan requirement will the Government provide the

COEI/AAL items as additional GFP?

The Government will not provide any COEI/AAL items.

23 C.1.2.7.6 The SOW paragraph as stated poses a safety hazard for the facility that is performing the NATO engine test. The fuel that is specified for the test is JP-8 (F-34) which by specification has a flash point of 46 degrees Celsius. The test procedure per the SOW requires the engine fuel inlet temperature to be at 80°C. Additionally the test cell temperature is to be maintained at 49°C.

These two requirements reflect a tailoring of the NATO AEP-5 test procedure.

Conducting the test in this manner will result in a significant fire hazard within the test cell; any fuel leak will only require an ignition source to initiate a fuel fed fire. In the unmodified form of the AEP-5 test, the engine is tested at standard conditions with the temperature being 25°C.

In order to conduct the test in a safe manner, is it possible to modify the paragraph C.1.2.7.6 to reflect a fuel temperature at the inlet of the engine 5 degrees below the flashpoint of the fuel?

For JP-8 this would mean the inlet fuel temperature for the test would be 41°C.

The SoW will not be changed. The intent of the SoW is to tailor the AEP-5 procedures to be more relevant to current military fuels and operating environments. When a vehicle is operating in a desert environment, the temperatures utilized in the SoW reflect realistic temperatures that the engine will encounter. The specification for JP-8 fuel calls for limits of flash point, the lowest temperature where vapor is flammable, to be no less than 38 degrees Celsius at ambient pressure. This should not be confused with the autoignition temperature, the point where fuel self ignites due to temperature at ambient pressure, of approximately 210 degrees Celsius. Facilities designed and approved for conducting testing of combustion engines are equipped with ignition protected electrical systems to prevent igniting vapors and vapor extraction systems to properly handle fuel vapor. These facilities are capable of safely conducting the testing described in the SoW (Reference NFPA 70, NFPA 30, NFPA 31, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard

62, and MIL-DTL-83133).

24 Section D Issue: Spares packaging requirements in EMD

Recommendation: Allow delivery of SSP in EMD using “Best Commercial Practice” ASTM D-

Rationale: MIL-STD-2073-1E is called out in CDRL A097, Packaging and Marking of Spare

Parts, during EMD phase. The MIL-STD-2073-1E requires specific packaging development that takes time to complete both the specific packaging design and validation of those designs to the

MIL-STD. Additionally, items during EMD are subject to change depending on the results of test, which could require subsequent changes to packaging designs. “Best Commercial Practices” continues to place to the risk on the Offerors during EMD to meet the support requirements during USG testing without increasing costs associated with full compliance with the MIL-STD during the EMD phase of the program.

The contractor shall package its spares/SSP at its discretion. Paragraph D.1.2 will be deleted in an upcoming RFP Amendment. CDRL A097 remains unchanged.

25 Section L

L.4.2

Issue: Limited inputs for Contract Performance Specification requirements. Recommendation:

Change L.4.2 to the following: L.4.2 “The Offeror shall provide a Contract Performance

Specification, in Excel 2013 format, of its proposed design tailored from the Governments MPF

Performance Specification (Attachment 07). The Contract Performance Specification shall not be tiered and shall contain the values proposed under Attachment 45 and Attachment 46 as thresholds. Non-proposed Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 requirements shall be removed, to include non-proposed objective requirements. No other language in these Performance Specification

Paragraphs may be modified.”

Rationale: The last sentence limits an Offeror’s ability to provide capabilities that may fall below the threshold requirements for Tier 2, 3, and 4 requirements even though those capabilities may still have value to the US Government. Proposals that include requirements in their Contract

Performance Specification that are below threshold values for Tier 2, 3, or 4 would still become contractual obligations and no Technical Adjustment VATEP credit would be awarded.

Section L.4.2 will be updated in an upcoming RFP Amendment to include the following: "Proposed level of compliance identified in Attachment 40 for Tiers 2 and 3 requirements shall be included in the contractor PSPEC."

No additional credit will be given for proposed values below the threshold. All existing language in

Section L.4.2 will remain unchanged. Per L.4.5.2 "the Offeror agrees to incorporate all proposed requirements into the resultant contract and the proposed values will be listed as threshold requirements"

26 Section L Issue: Potential conflicting requirement between L.2.2 Proposal Format with L.4.3.1 Proposed

Contract Price.

Recommendation: Change L.2.2 to:

“The Offeror's proposal shall be submitted electronically and formatted based upon the use of standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper with a minimum font size of 8 point and with a minimum of 1 inch margins. Schedules, drawings and other documents more appropriate to larger paper may be formatted no larger than 11 x 17 inch paper. All spreadsheets must be in Microsoft Excel 2013 compatible format and include all formulas, function, macros, computations, or equations used to compute the proposed amounts. For each workbook, all Rows, Columns, Cells, and

Worksheets must be visible. Zero height and zero width rows and columns in Worksheets are not acceptable. Worksheet cells formatted with the font color equal to the fill color are unacceptable. If Workbooks or Worksheets are password protected, then the passwords must be provided. Print image files or pictures or files containing only values are not acceptable.

Supporting narrative, including Basis of Estimate (BOE) sheets if submitted, shall be provided in files which are MS Excel or MS Word 2013 compatible. BOEs may not be submitted as pictures.

Text or spreadsheets used as supporting rationale within a BOE may not be included as a picture. File names of submitted files shall not exceed 250 characters in length.”

Rationale: Based on section L.4.3.1, Basis of Estimates are not required for delivery as part of the Proposed Contract Price section of the VATEP volume; however, they may be provided to crosswalk against the IMS if an Offeror elects to do so. Clarifying Section L.2.2 to address format only if BOEs are provided would eliminate the potential compliance conflict created between the two sections.

BOEs are not required per L.4.3.1; however, if the contractor submits them they shall meet the requirements in L.2.2.

27 Attachment 56 and 56 Can you confirm that Attachments 55 and 56 are to be submitted with a later LRIP proposal, not with this current proposal?

Current, offerors shall not submit Attachments 55 and 56 with the EMD proposal. These attachments shall be submitted per H.9.