FOATC T1 Industry Q and_A on RFP 11MAY2021.pdf

As of 11 May 2021 Through Amendment 0008

TYPE I FAMILY OF ALL TERRAIN CRANE

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO

RFP W56HZV-19-R-0118 RELEASED ON 17 FEBRUARY 2021

Note: Question numbers continue from the previous Q&A’s #1-79 that were posted with the RFP on 17 February 2021. Questions #80-124 were first posted with responses along with RFP amendment 0004 on 25 March 2021.

Some of those responses are revised with this 11 May 2021 update, and are identified with an asterisk (*).

Questions #125-128 are added with responses, accompanying RFP Amendment 0008.

80) If the “luffing” jib is a component relevant to this project’s performance, would it be required to be “hydraulic type” or would an offsetable manual style jib be acceptable for the Army’s application? What is the desired capacity and articulation requirement(s) for the referenced jib? Is a luffing jib price to be included in the contractor pricing -or- would it be requested in the future? Does the Government plan on transporting/storing the luffing jib on the FOATC1? Should the weight of the luffing jib be expected to be included on the FOATC1, with regards to the unit being USDOT, NATO road legal?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There is no requirement for a jib. The offeror's proposed pricing must include all elements of the proposed solution. The offeror's proposed solution must meet all stated transport, weight and storage requirements. The prior Government Q&A response at #70 has been revised to clarify.

81) Why are FOATC1-1683, FOATC1-1180, FOATC1-1422 still in the PD?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: FOATC1-1683 was included in error, and will be deleted. FOATC1-1180, FOATC1-

1422 remain valid requirements.

82) What is the Army Built CBM format?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Newly added Attachment 0046 details the Army Built CBM Data (ABCD) Format.

*UPDATE TO GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Refer to C.2.7.3. for further clarification.

83) Please clarify the Scope References of C.1.1/PD and C.1.2/PD. Paragraphs C.1.1 and C.1.2 are not found in the

Purchase Description.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: C.1.1 and C.1.2 are references to the Section C Scope of Work, not the PD (question is related to content of Attachment 0041).

84) With the deletion of the rear steer requirement, we recommend to remove rear tow as well. Remove the words

"and rear". The Type I FOATC shall be capable of being towed using a standard Army tow bar from the front and rear.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not intend to change the stated requirements.

85) Will the gov't re-insert the two speed transfer case requirement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not intend to change the stated requirements.

86) Will the gov't consider revising this requirement to align with all other Military wheeled vehicle ATPD with power assisted steering?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No change to FOATC1-1606. ISO 5010, Section 4.6 addresses secondary steering.

Type I FOATC Q&A Responses to RFP W56HZV-19-R-0118

87) 30 day extension is requested.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government has extended the closing date of the RFP by 15 calendar days to a total of 45 calendar days.

88) Please provide details on tailoring data transmission rates by network availability or please consider removing this requirement. Please provide details on data retrieval and loading or please consider removing this requirement. Please provide details on Army Built CBM (Condition Based Maintenance) Data (ABCD) format.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Newly added Attachment 0046 details the Army Built CBM Data (ABCD) Format.

89) Schedule B is missing from the solicitation. Please Provide Schedule B.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The RFP includes Section B. "Schedule B" will be established based on Pricing

Attachment 0041 submitted with offer.

90) Is there a deadline to submit questions related to this RFQ, there aren’t any reference details for QA during the solicitation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government requests any subsequent questions for this RFP be submitted no later than 17 March 2021.

91) It is noted on page 40 of 40 in the purchase description of three various road conditions with surface roughness values. What is the pass/fail and/or acceptance criteria?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The criteria are provided under PD section 4.1.3.

92) Is it acceptable if the chassis comes with breathers relocated above the fording line requirement where applicable?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Breather tube extensions are permitted, but cannot be used to meet the minimum fording depth of 20-inches stated in the PD Section 3.1.6.

93) From previous discussions, it was mentioned that a non-armored commercial chassis is being requested. Do you still require a complete armor cab solution and/or the ability to add-on armor to the commercial cab?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Armor is an objective requirement. The Government has no plan to procure an armor cab solution and/or the ability to add-on armor to the commercial cab.

94) Since it has been communicated that armor is not required, is an egress hatch still required? If so, is the opposing door window considered an egress hatch?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Emergency egress is still required as stated in the PD Section 3.2.8. Yes, opposite doors and windows can act as egress.

95) SOW page 139 0f 208 “REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE.” It appears that the Government is requiring a production / delivery rate of 13 ATCs per month and a completion of that order year quantity within 6 months.

When combined with the estimated order quantities (non-binding) we are being asked to complete each order year’s production in something less than 6 months. Is the government asking for a production / delivery schedule that will require production to ramp up, then shut down for 6 months, then ramp up, then shut down for 6 months etc?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The intent is not to max production for six months followed by a production break.

The intent is for up to 13 vehicles per month if the total production on order warrants it. FAR clause 52.211-8 will be revised to read "Up to 13 EA" on each line of the "REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE".

96) While the RFP allows a manufacturer to submit a different schedule it also states that there is a significant risk of being considered non-responsive and rejected. (a) Can the government clarify its intent? (b) Will the government consider level loading each 12 month funding cycle to allow for standard commercial production practices?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Intent is clarified by revision of the clause noted above, which also addresses the concern on "level loading".

97) Request to revise RFP Section L.4.1.3.5, L.4.1.3.6 and PD FOATC1-1418 for consistency with page 13/24 of prior posted Industry Q&A, which indicated that U.S. and NATO highway legal limits could be satisfied "with permits".

In addition: What is the substantiating data required to show highway legal limits “with permits” in 50 the 50 US states and 29 NATO countries these sections?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Section L language on US and NATO highway requirements to be deleted (L.4.1.3.5 and L.4.1.3.6). This will no longer be evaluated as part of the Technical Factor. The PD is revised as follows:

FOATC1-1418: The Type I FOATC shall meet the United States (US) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) highway legal limits with permits.

98) OCONUS Contingency is missing; add c. OCONUS Contingency.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Sub-paragraph C.12.5.2.c. is added to indicate "An OCONUS contingency Man-Day is

12 hours a day, typically six days per week but the maximum of 72 hours per week may be spread over seven days if necessary to support mission requirements."

99) Will the government amend the language of paragraph (a) under section 76 on page 153 to allow delivery of the

FAT units up to 360 days after award?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: FAT units required within 180 days after award to maintain program schedule. This requirement is firm.

*REVISED GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will accept delivery of the FAT units up to 360 days after award.

100) C.2.7.2 PPMx SYSTEM The method of encryption is not defined. Please provide details on the method of encryption or please consider removing this requirement.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The reference is to the contractor's existing PPMx system and method of encryption

(in accordance with current FIPS requirements). C.2.7.2 is revised to indicate: "Encryption shall be in accordance with the current Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2."

101) Recommendation: Revise C.15 as follows -- "The contractor shall be responsible for any redesign costs resulting from obsolescence during the period of performance. In addition, the contractor shall support systems parts for 20 years."

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Section C.15 is revised to read "The contractor shall be responsible for any redesign costs resulting from obsolescence during the period of performance. In addition, the contractor will support systems parts for 20 years."

102) Defined mission profile needed for oil temp. The Type I FOATC hydraulic tank oil temperature shall not exceed

200 degree F with an ambient temperature of 120 degree F while performing repetitive craning operations at rated load. Craning operation at what mission profile?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: 'Repetitive craning operations' refers to normal commercial operations as defined by the offeror in its certification, and is not dependent on a Government defined 'mission profile'. The government plans to update the Purchase Description via a forthcoming revision to state that specifically.

103) The Type I FOATC shall be capable of at least 10 hours of continuous normal operation before requiring refueling. Need to provide crane fuel consumption based upon prescribed duty cycle. Continuous operation at what mission profile (% of time spent driving primary roads, secondary roads, highway roads and at what speed, idle time and crane functioning)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: 'Continuous normal operation' refers to normal commercial operations as defined by the offeror in its certification, and is not dependent on a Government defined 'mission profile'. The government plans to update the Purchase Description via a forthcoming revision to state that specifically.

104) The Type I FOATC shall be capable of at least 12 hours of continuous normal operation before requiring refueling. Need to provide crane fuel consumption based upon prescribed duty cycle. Continuous operation at what mission profile (% of time spent driving primary roads, secondary roads, highway roads and at what speed, idle time and crane functioning)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is an Objective (O) requirement. 'Continuous normal operation' refers to normal commercial operations as defined by the offeror in its certification, and is not dependent on a Government defined 'mission profile'.

105) When does the gov’t plan to release ANNEX A for armor? Or provide instruction on how to obtain ANNEX A?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not plan to procure an armor cab solution and/or the ability to add-on armor to the commercial cab. As a reminder, armor is an objective requirement only. It is not included under the Technical Factor requirements at L.4.1.3. There is no additional credit given for proposing performance that exceeds the threshold requirements.

106) During the Q & A session, the government stated that add on armor was no longer to be included for the

FOATC. Will this be removed from the Purchase Description?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Armor is an objective requirement. It will not be removed from the Purchase

Description. The Government has no plan to procure an armor cab solution and/or the ability to add-on armor to the commercial cab.

107) In reference to: Attachment 001, Area G, Section 3.6.1, ID FOATC-1353, the technical requirement specifies human lifting of outrigger pads is to be in compliance with MIL-STD-1472, Table XXXVIII. This table outlines applied torque requirements for items such as handwheels. Could the government clarify if this requirement applies to the requirements for the outrigger pads?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please reference MIL-STD-1472G, Table XXXVIII Maximum design weight limits. All references in the PD to MIL-STD-1472 are for MIL-STD-1472G.

108) The Government has included C.16 “Make of Buy” and C.16.1 Evaluation of Arsenal Capabilities and is requiring coordination with depots on the feasibility of the depot making production or sustainment parts. While it is acceptable to request the manufacturer to explore the potential of utilizing the depots as part of the supply chain, the inclusion of this clause requires clarification of the Government’s intention regarding data rights. The Solicitation also includes C.8.3 Engineering Data For Provisioning and under C.8.3.b requires that the manufacturer ensures that EDFP is suitable for the manufacturing of an item. (a) Please confirm that the government intends to purchase a commercial item and that EDFP is only to be utilized for Provisioning – under a limited rights provision. (b) If the government intends to purchase a technical data package for the purpose of manufacturing these commercial items or any parts of them, please clarify and amend the pricing workbook to reflect this.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: (a) The Government intends to purchase a commercial item and EDFP is only to be utilized for provisioning. RFP Section C.8.3 is revised to clarify the level of detail for the EDFP. RFP Section C.8.3.f "Data Rights" is consistent with DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(1) and 252.227-7015(b)(1). (b) The Government does not intend to purchase a technical data package for the purpose of manufacturing. RFP Section C.8.3 and the description of EDFP in general are revised to remove reference to EDFP being adequate for manufacturing.

109) The provisioning requirements are quite exhaustive for a commercial purchase and have become a cost driver as we are receiving quotes from multiple sources to identify the best path forward. The question that these potential partners are asking is how the government intends to leverage the available commercial manuals and information. (a) It appears from the solicitation that the government is requesting a full Level III Data Package. Please confirm or clarify. (b) The importance of this understanding is magnified by the inclusion of the penalty clause. Will the government accept contractor proscribed deadlines for government response and review to better enable the contractor to meet schedule?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Refer to Section C.4.1.1 "COTS TMs" and Attachment 0004, which includes MIL-PRF-

32216A requirement. MILPRF-32216A sections 3.2 (Supplemental Data) and 3.1.4 (Content Requirements) specifies Government's guidance for COTS content and supplementation requirements. Industry should reference those so it can determine what level/degree of supplementation its manuals may require to meet Army requirements. (a) The Government does not intend to license a technical data package for the purpose of manufacturing. RFP Section C.8.3 and the description of EDFP in general are revised to remove reference to EDFP being adequate for manufacturing. (b) Government review times are identified in applicable CDRL Data Items.

*REVISED GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The government’s intent is not to request a full Level III technical data package. Please refer to updates in sections C.3. and C.8. for clarification. The government will conduct a joint review of the first submission as indicated in CDRL A016 (Provisioning Parts List (PPL) and Reviews) at the Logistics Start of Work Meeting (LSOWM).

110) FAR 52.243-1, CHANGES--FIXED PRICE, AUG/1987. Why is FAR 52.243-1 in this contract? Recommend

Removing FAR 52.243-1, and adding FAR 52.212-4.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: FAR clause 52.243-1 is deleted from the RFP in lieu of the 'Changes' portion of FAR clause 52.212-4.

111) C.4.2.1 calls for a 30 percent delivery. C.4.2.2 calls for a 70 percent delivery. C.4.2.3 calls for a 100 percent delivery. Final Draft Reproducible Copy (FDEP) Final Reproducible Copy (FRC) The CDRLs A014 & A015 require deliveries for Log Demo, Verification, FDEP, and FRC, but do not mention the 30% and 70% deliveries. Should the deliveries of the TM's follow the outline in C.4.2, or CDRLS A014 & A015? Recommendation: Advise which delivery schedule is to be followed.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: CDRL Data Items A014 & A015 are revised to reflect the % breakouts noted in

Section C.

*UPDATED GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: CDRLs A014 & A015 are updated to reflect a submission 60 days post-delivery of FAT Assets to enable contractor validation.

112) Attachments indicate that for categories identified as ANC or IT, offers should input Lower than 1st Tier ONLY dollars. (a) Should offerors be screening lowing than first tier subcontractors for the ANC or IT category only? (b) Would offers include first tier and lower for these categories?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: As a business model all offers should have a process in place to gather information about each social economic category they represent. (a) It is the offeror’s business decision on how and whether to screen lower than 1st tier subcontractors for ANC or IT category. (b) Yes, in accordance with CFR 125.3(a)(1)(A)) an Other Than Small Business (OTSB) offeror is allowed to receive Small Business (SB) and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) credit from Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC) or Indian Tribe (IT) first tier or lower tier subcontracts for its SB Subcontracting and Small Business Participation (SBP) Factor Plan Proposal.

113) DOD 4140.1-R replaced by DODM 4140.01 V1 thru V12, where V3 Sec 9 addresses DMSMS. Why is DOD 4140.1-

R called out?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The obsolete reference to DoD 4140.1-R, (chapter C 3.6) is replaced with DoDI

4245.15.

114) In lieu of unlimited / unrestricted rights to engineering data to be used for provisioning (Section C.8.3.f), will the Government accept limited rights to this commercially developed data which will be provided along with a Letter of Permission from the OEM to use the data for the purposes of provisioning and NSN assignment under the resulting contract?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: RFP Section C.8.3 is revised to clarify the level of detail for the EDFP. RFP Section

C.8.3.f "Data Rights" is consistent with DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(1) and 252.227-7015(b)(1).

115) The NATO STANAGs referenced in Attachment 001 are not releasable to the public when accessed via

Attachment 001 para 2.2.1 "Classified documents (including NATO UNCLASSIFIED) are not releasable to the public. To obtain these documents you must contact your national Ministry of Defence or national Representation at NATO HQ." Will the Army procurement office provide access to these specifications and/or the applicable dimensions, requirements, and technical specifications applicable to the FOATC1?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The STANAGs referenced in the PD are not releasable from the program office. As stated on the NATO website: "To obtain these documents you must contact your national Ministry of Defence or national Representation at NATO HQ."

*REVISED GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Potential contractors, who are trying to get classified NATO documents must go through Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA). DCSA POC is Byron Jenkins at:

Byron K. Jenkins, Sr.

Senior Program Security Manager NATO Program Security Manager, Critical Technology Protection (CTP), National Operations, Industrial Security Directorate (ISD), Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency (DCSA) Quantico, VA 22134

(v) (571) 305-6336 NIPRNet: Byron.k.jenkins.civ@mail.mil

116) In reference to PD 3.5.1 Add on Armor / FOATC1-1643 (1469 & 1677) Objective (O) add-on armor requirements, should these requirements remain in the PD, is it the Government's expectation that the FOATC1 chassis cab be designed to accept armor, without any modification? Is the analysis of this requirement intended to be hands on and part of the FAT validation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The solicitation requirements from Attachment 0001, AT-PRF-0001 are the

Threshold (T) requirements. As stated in response to multiple questions above: Armor is an objective requirement. The Government has no plan to procure an armor cab solution and/or the ability to add-on armor to the commercial cab.

117) In reference to PD FOATC11646, "Load cannot transverse over the outriggers" -- would a programmable solution be acceptable to achieve this requirement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, a programmable solution will be acceptable to achieve this requirement.

118) Could the Government further explain the intent of the requirement at C.16 Make or Buy, and CDRL A090

Evaluation of Arsenal Capabilities?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Per the Army Regulation (AR) 700-90 Army Industrial Base Process, the Army has three manufacturing Arsenals, all of which operate under the Army’s operational control within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) performing policy, planning, and resource management functions for the Industrial Base (which includes the Army Arsenals). As indicated in the solicitation and CDRL Data Item A090, the intent is for the chosen contractor to assess the economic feasibility of leveraging Arsenal capabilities in their supply chain.

119) Considering the current market constraints on supply chain, would the government consider extending the proposed expedited FAT delivery?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: FAT units required within 180 days after award to maintain program schedule. This requirement is firm.

*REVISED GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will accept delivery of the FAT units up to 360 days after award.

120) In reference to CDRL A053, can the Government provide a specific list of NMWR candidates? We recommend a list of NMWR candidates to be engine, transmission, axles and hoist.

mailto:Byron.k.jenkins.civ@mail.mil

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not plan to provide a list of NMWR candidate at this time.

Per CDRL A053: “NMWR Technical Manual Requirements will be determined after the contract Start of Work Meeting (SOWM), so these items are placeholders and do not represent the Government committing to four (4) NMWR TMs; more or less NMWR TMs may be required.”

*UPDATED GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government added language to indicate historical NMWR candidates that are typically found on Army managed systems. Please refer to updated language in section C.4.10.5.

121) With respect to Section H.1.2, will the Government issue a written cure notice prior to imposing a withholding of payment and/or a price decrease remedy where a Logistics CDRL deliverable is found to be unacceptable?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: IAW FAR 49.607(a), a cure notice is only required if a contract (or portion of a contract) is to be terminated for default prior to the delivery date.

122) With respect to the Section H.1.2.1 price withholding remedy, will the Government consider withholding payment from only the specific Logistics CDRL found to be unacceptable -- as opposed to the current RFP term, allowing for withholding of payment of the total hardware price?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not intend to revise this requirement.

123) With respect to the Section H.1.2.2 price decrease remedy, will the Government consider decreasing the price for only the specific Logistics CDRL found to be unacceptable -- as opposed to the current RFP term, allowing for a price decrease across any or all hardware end items?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government does not intend to revise this requirement.

124) Production CLINs 0201-0206 require delivery of one Special Tools Kit with each FOATC. This requirement is contradictory to SOW Section C.1.2.3, which states: “The contractor shall provide a Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE) Kit with every third production Type I FOATC, unless otherwise specified by the delivery order.” Request the Government 1) Remove Special Tools Kit from the included list on CLIN 0201 thru CLIN 0206, and 2) Add a separate CLIN for pricing the Special Tools Kit so it can be costed separately enabling a given delivery order to be complied with whether it requires a Special Tools Kit or not in compliance with C.1.2.3.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government acknowledges this discrepancy and plans to address this via a forthcoming amendment to the solicitation.

New Questions & Responses as of RFP Amendment 0008:

125) Is it the government’s intent to purchase full DA TMs?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, the Government will accept current COTS Manuals (Operator, Maintainer, Parts) as is. Only supplemental data is required to be in the Government’s indicated format. Refer to updated language in C.3. and C.4.1.1.

126) Will the government include data in current COTS Manuals for the Government’s Verification event?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, the Government will only verify supplemental data. Refer to updated language in C.4.5.

127) Did the government update timelines for logistics deliverables to include the MA Review and FMECA?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the Government updated CDRL language for deliverables for the products annotated above. Please refer to section C.1.5.6.2.1.1. for MA Review and CDRL A020 for the FMECA timeline.

128) What is the Governments strategy to determine level of supplementation? Attachment 0004 led to confusion on the Government’s intent.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Attachment 0004 (Excel) is updated to reflect sections the Government requires as supplementation. The degree of supplementation proposed is what the Government is requiring to be in Department of the Army Format. The requirement is to provide the information per the scope and CDRL Data Items, with preference to existing commercial/contractor format data plus supplementation to fill gaps between those existing logistics management information (LMI) products and the detailed contract requirements. In the event a contractor were to propose that they do not have existing commercial LMI products sufficient for the Government’s needs, the degree of supplementation would increase only up to the level of detail required in the scope and CDRLs. The Government is not requiring the COTS plus supplementation to be equivalent to a DATM; a contractor proposing to deliver one would be going beyond the requirements.