Request_for_Information_-_Medium_Equipment_Transporter_System_-_Trailer.docx

Request for Information U.S. DoD Army Medium Equipment Transporter System – Trailer May 2019

SECTION I: General Information

1. General information. The United States Army, herein after referred to as the United States Government (USG), is seeking information via this Request for Information (RFI), to assess the marketplace availability and industry capabilities for providing a Medium Equipment Transporter System trailer (hereon referred to as METS-trailer). METS is a trailer capable of transporting 40-60 short ton payloads which comprise of approximately two thirds of the combat platforms in an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT). It provides the sole capability to address transport of combat platforms under four (4) meter underpasses which are common in Europe. It is intended to be used as part of a system along with the M1070, M1070A1 and M1300 tractors, to transport intermediate weight vehicles such as but not limited to, the M2/M3 Bradley and Armored Multi-purpose Vehicles (AMPV). Industry responses to the RFI herein, will be used to inform the USG in preparation for a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the potential acquisition of three (3) METS-trailer prototypes from up to two (2) offerors. The USG anticipates prototype METS-trailers will be acquired through competition utilizing the Other Transaction authority at 10 U.S.C. 2371b. Subject to the successful completion of the METS-trailer prototype project, the USG may further utilize the authority at 10 U.S.C 2371 to potentially transition to a follow-on production OTA or contract.

1.1. Intent. Participation in this effort is strictly voluntary with no obligation incurred by the USG. The USG will in no way be bound to information provided if a solicitation is issued. This RFI is an important opportunity for industry to influence the development of METS characteristics to support a potential future acquisition strategy for the METS program. This RFI, and all information herein is for informational planning purposes only and does not constitute a “Request for Proposal or Invitation for Bid”, nor is it to be construed as a commitment by the USG.

1.2. Clarification of this action. Responses to this RFI will be used by the USG for informational and planning purposes only. Responses to this RFI are not considered to be contractual offers and cannot be accepted by the USG to form a binding contract or agreement nor will any contracts or agreements be awarded from this announcement. Information provided by the USG in regards to potential contracts or agreements, as presented in this RFI are subject to change. Additionally, this inquiry does not bind the USG to solicit for, or award any contracts or agreements. Participation in this RFI is solely voluntary; no reimbursements will be made for costs associated with participation in this RFI. Data submitted to the USG will not be returned and will remain archived as part of historic USG records. Lastly, participation in this survey, while important to USG acquisition planners, is neither mandatory nor is it requisite for future participation by any contractor in this RFI or any similar RFI or RFPP.

1.3. Proprietary information. The USG acknowledges its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 1905 The Trade Secrets Act, to protect restricted information provided to the USG. Pursuant to this statute, the USG is willing to accept proprietary restrictions placed upon data presented in response to this RFI and to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure subject to the following paragraphs.

1.3.1. Proprietary data may be submitted in writing and/or transmitted electronically and must be clearly marked “PROPRIETARY” with additional markings designating where “PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS” AND “PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS”. Proprietary submissions shall be accompanied by explanatory text so the USG is clearly notified regarding which data is proprietary and which is not proprietary. Electronic submissions shall additionally have “PROPRIETARY” markings on both the cover sheet and the transmittal email as well as the beginning of each file submitted.

1.3.2. Mark as “PROPRIETARY” only data which is truly restricted information and to which there is a legal property right.

1.3.3. Do not mark as “PROPRIETARY” data which is already in the public domain or is already in possession of the USG or third parties on an unrestricted basis. Do not mark data which is available to the USG or to the public without restriction from another source.

1.4. No classified data. Do not submit classified data at any time or instance, in response to the RFI herein.

1.5. Disclaimer. The USG is not responsible for the public disclosure of unmarked data received in response to this RFI. Accordingly, RFI respondents shall ensure that technical data provided in response to this RFI shall be appropriately marked, as described in paragraph 1.3 herein, to ensure proper USG handling of the data. Should the USG need to reproduce the protected data for distribution purposes between USG offices, all such data shall be reproduced with restrictive legends in place. The USG may use support contractors in reviewing responses. The USG will review responses that contain proprietary information without using support contractors consistent with the resources available. In cases where support contractors may be utilized for review of proprietary information, the USG will use best practices to maintain protection of the information.

1.6. RFI response deadline. Responses to the RFI herein, shall be submitted electronically in Microsoft version 10 compatible software, via Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website within 30 days of release of the RFI herein, on or before midnight. No exceptions will be made for any reason barring a national emergency or weather/other catastrophic event.

1.7. RFI response submittal instructions. Responses to the RFI herein, including any supporting information, are preferred to be submitted electronically to the email address shown below. Large files may also be sent electronically via AMRDEC Safe file exchange (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Guide.aspx) if possible. The subject line or package must read “(Company Name) Response to METS RFI 30 days from the posting date.” Please spell out acronyms in their first instance. DO NOT submit or send ANY classified information. Electronic file formats will be compatible with Microsoft Windows 10 software. Alternately, if all or some response data is not able to be sent electronically, it can be emailed to:

Dawn Wright Contract Specialist Agile Capabilities Team

SCCTA-ASG-A

(586) 282 8712 dawn.e.wright.civ@mail.mil

1.8. METS-trailer RFI response format instructions. Please answer all of the USG Information Requested in Table 6 herein, as accurately and with as much detail as is needed to effectively answer the information request. Estimations are acceptable in the response so long as they are identified as estimates. Please provide supporting information as needed. Supporting information includes descriptive language as well as objective numerically based data, schematics, specifications or other information which clearly and accurately supports the answer provided. Please spell out acronyms upon first use and provide a table of terminology and acronym definitions as part of the RFI response.

1.9. Industry Day Workshop Announcement. The USG may opt to conduct an Industry Workshop on or about 1QFY20 as a compliment to the METS-trailer RFI. Specific details regarding the Industry Workshop will be provided by the USG and posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. Additionally, all timely respondents to the RFI, will be notified via email of the time and location of the Industry Workshop.

1.10. Unachievable or unavailable characteristics. If certain U.S. Army capabilities identified are deemed not available, not achievable or would likely drive the need for development and/or higher cost, according to the respondent’s company knowledge, please include characteristic(s) as described in the RFI, and/or an alternate characteristic(s) parameter which, if adjusted would meet intent, without possibly incurring a higher cost and/or development solution. It is the U.S. Army’s desire to avoid “not applicable” (N/A) type answers to the maximum extent possible.

2. METS-Trailer Physical Characteristics General Description. The METS-trailer will operate worldwide on primary and secondary roads in all climatic conditions. Its primary mission is to transport tracked vehicles weighing up to 60 tons. It will also be capable of transporting 20 foot International Organization for Standardization (ISO) containers and general cargo when the situation requires. The system will provide line haul and local haul of tracked and wheeled equipment. It is required to support the transportation of M2 and M3 and AMP-V and tracked and wheeled vehicles of similar weights, as needed for the desired capability of the force. Table 1 summarizes for reference purposes only, the METS-trailer characteristics of primary interest to the USG and Table 2 provides the expected mission profile for the METS-trailer which should be capable at Gross Combined Vehicle Weight Rating (GCVWR). Table 3 herein provides the general physical description of the typical payloads for the METS-trailer.

Table 1 METS-trailer Primary Characteristics

Table 2 METS Mission Profile

METS MISSION PROFILE

Table 3 METS projected Payloads

Table 3 METS projected Payloads (continued)

3. SECTION II INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE USG

3.8 Contractor Research Development Test and Engineering (RDT&E) cost estimate. For each non-commercial solution(s), please provide contractor RDT&E cost estimate. Include all development costs and separate prototype costs assuming three (3) prototypes for each solution, in Table 4 below. The USG is interested in development and prototype costs as the major cost drivers. The total RDT&E costs shall not be limited to only development and prototype costs, but shall include all costs associated with RDT&E.

Table 4: RDT&E Cost Estimate Solution Description

Total RDT&E

Development Costs

Cost per one prototype

*Additional rows may need to be added for multiple solutions.

3.8.1 Commercial Item Price. Is the system, tractor or semitrailer solution a commercial item? If so, please provide a website address or link that describes the solution.

3.8.2 Estimated Unit Price. Please provide a market or estimated unit price. Table 5 below shows various quantities; please provide an estimated unit price associated with each quantity.

Table 5: Estimated Unit Price

Table 6: USG Request for Information

1.1 General Company Name and Mailing Address; please include affiliates and former names and manufacturing, headquarters and Engineering locations

1.2

Point of contact Name and title and alternate point of contact, office and mobile telephone, fax number, email address and mailing address

1.3

Company Website address

1.4

Data Universal Numbering System Number (DUNS)

1.5

Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE)

1.6

Data Universal Numbering System Number (DUNS)

1.7

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

1.8

What is the business size (i.e. number of employees) and eligibility under U.S. Government socio-economic programs and preference?

1.9

a) Has the company provided products and/or services to the US Department of Defense (DoD) and in particular the United States Army previously? If so, please provide the contract numbers and contract(s) award dates over the past 3 years and USG POC if available.

b) Has the company ever provided prototype or production trailers to the US Government for testing? When? What Government entity? What trailer models?

1.10

Is your company owned and/or controlled by a foreign entity? If yes, please provide the owning/controlling country. Also state at what ownership percentage the foreign entity owns of the company.

1.11

Does the METS-trailer solution(s) rely upon subcontractor support? If yes, please identify the subcontractor(s) and the aspect of the design which is subcontracted.

1.12

Are all applicable facilities U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), security clearance-capable to handle classified information? (May not be needed)

2.1 Physical Information Is the METS-trailer solution(s) Non-developmental Item(s) (NDI), Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) or a commercial item (CI)/NDI needing only minor modifications? If so, please list the make and model number and include the item specifications in the RFI response. Please also summarize any modifications to the existing design which would be needed.

2.2

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be interoperable with the M1070, M1070A1 AND M1300 tractors? If so, please include the specific interoperability and interface characteristics of the trailer solution(s) be which demonstrate interoperability with these tractors.

2.3

What is the assumed payload capacity for your METS-trailer solution(s)

2.4

What is the most severe terrain profile capability of the METS-trailer solution(s) IAW the definitions of terrains in Test Operations Procedure 01 1 010A Vehicle Test Course Severity (12Dec17), attached?

2.5

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of individual operations wherein personnel are clothed in their appropriate individual Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) ensemble?

2.6

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) survivable? If no, please describe the development solution, time and cost to make the METS-trailer solution(s) EMP capable.

2.7

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of transporting the required payload of up to 60 short tons with the capability of attaining road permits to allow transport of equipment worldwide, including within the Continental United States (CONUS), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Other Continental U.S. countries?

2.8

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of safely transporting over the Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP) IAW Table 2 herein, of current and future models of the tracked and wheeled vehicles located within an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) Table 3 METS Projected Payloads, weighing up to 60 tons as well as general purpose military containers?

2.9

Would the METS-trailer when used with a M1070, M1070A1 and M1300 tractors, be capable of self-loading and unloading current and future models of the tracked and wheeled vehicles in Table 3 METS Projected Payloads up to 60 tons located within an ABCT in combat configuration? If so, is it capable of transporting higher payloads such as an additional 4-tons payload? What is the expected maximum payload capability?

2.9.1 Physical Information What is the load and the unload strategy which would be utilized for the payloads described in Table 3 METS Projected Payloads, such as rear ramp or gooseneck loading?

2.10

What winch routing strategy would be used, if any, (OPTIONAL: please describe with text and supporting schematics) on the METS-trailer solution(s) for loading and unloading disabled payloads given the interoperability tractor descriptions IAW Table 3 herein, information using the five highest payloads listed in the table.

2.11

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of having an integral means to provide proper load alignment and load securing capability?

2.12 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of negotiating a 157.5 inch (4 meter) underpass while transporting a payload which is 123 inches high when operating on highway? Will the trailer solution include any ride height control feature and if so, what is the expected range of travel of operation?

2.13 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable to negotiate an underpass when transporting a 130 inch (3.3 meters) high payload without lowering the deck?

2.14 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of having powered rear legs for stabilization during loading and unloading of heavy equipment within its payload capacity? Can the stabilization legs and their associated gears be protected from the elements in order to ensure maximum efficiency and durability? Please describe the technical characteristics and applicable specifications for the powered rear legs if they are capable of being part of your solution set.

2.15

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of being marine transportable by U.S. Army landing craft and larger vessels/ships to include roll-on/roll-off vessels and be rail, marine, and air transportable with payload equal to the trailers curb weight, including double stacked trailer transport?

2.16 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of be rail transportable worldwide connected to the prime mover (where feasible) and being tested according to the rail impact test IAW MIL-STD-1366 Transportability Criteria (attached) without degradation to performance and reliability?

2.17

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of being air transportable at curb weight by C-5 and C-17 aircraft? Will it also be marine transportable by U.S. Army landing craft and larger vessels/ships to include roll-on/roll-off vessels? Ref. MIL-STD-1366 Transportability Criteria attached.

2.18 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) have the capability for central tire inflation system (CTIS) which is controlled from the tractor cab driver ? If so, would the CTIS have the capability to match the four preset tire pressures of the interoperable tractor.

2.19

What is the description of a brake system for METS trailer?

2.20 Physical

What is the METS-trailer solution(s) make, model, type and specifications for tires?

2.21 Physical

Does the METS tire solution have the capability for Mud and Snow (M+S) or the Three Peak Mountain Snowflake (3PMS) on the side wall of the tire?

2.22 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of fording hard bottom water crossings (salt and fresh water) to a depth of 28 inches for not less than five minutes duration without prior to fording trailer preparation, damage, degradation of performance, or any need for additional maintenance post fording, prior to further operation?

2.23

Does the company have an experienced manufacturing facility or source for application of Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC)?

2.24 Physical

What is the METS-trailer solution(s) corrosion protection strategy with or without CARC paint?

2.25

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of operating in a variety of worldwide environments (coastal, desert, artic etc.), How many years would the METS-trailer solution(s) be expected to age without a corroded through hole existing?

2.26

Is the METS-trailer solution(s) capable of operating on either side of the trailer going uphill on a 10 percent side slope, without evidence of faulty lubrication, leakage, or other malfunctions, when towed by the M1070, M1070A1 AND M1300 tractors?

2.27 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of operating without performance degradation when towed by a M1070, M1070A1 AND M1300 tractors, at speeds of 55 mph (8.8 kph), flat surface, on primary and secondary roads? Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable under the aforementioned conditions at 65 mph (105 kph)? How fast can the METS-trailer solution(s) be towed when traversing off-road terrain? Reference the attached Test Operation Procedure 01 1 010A Vehicle Test Course Severity for a description of road terrain.

2.29

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of operating in environmental temperatures ranging from basic and hot -25 degrees Fahrenheit to +120 degrees Fahrenheit and induced humidity levels associated with those temperatures IAW AR 70-38 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation of Materiel for Extreme Climatic Conditions?

2.30 Physical

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of operating in environmental temperatures ranging from cold, basic, and hot -40 degrees Fahrenheit to +120 degrees Fahrenheit?

2.31

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of ascending/descending at angles of 15 degrees and go over crest ramp angles of 15 degrees?

2.32

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be capable of incorporating blackout lighting?

2.33

Are there any of the military characteristics described in this Table 6 which would be considered unachievable or needing development of new or major changes to technology(s)? If so please describe in sufficient detail what military characteristic(s) are driving development/infeasibility as well as proposed solution strategy(s), in terms of general design & engineering, cost and schedule impacts. Are the recommendations for relaxing the characteristics justified by cost or schedule savings yet still within the intent of the characteristic?

2.34

What flooring material is to be used on the trailer solution?

2.35

Please describe the suspension system utilized on the trailer solution(s).

2.36

Is the trailer solution free of hazardous materials? (e.g. Hexavalent Chromium, Cadmium)

2.37 Physical

Will any elastomeric products on the proposed trailer be ozone resistant w/ a quality retention rating of 100% per IAW ASTM D1171- Rubber Deterioration - Surface Ozone Cracking Outdoors or Chamber - Method B?

2.38

Will the trailer solution contain an anti-lock braking system (ABS) and meet requirements for braking performance specified within FMVSS 571.12?

2.39 Physical

Will the trailer solution's electrical wiring conform to SAE J1292, Automotive and Motor Coach Wiring?

2.40

Will the stop, rear turn signal, tail lamps on the trailer solution be Light Emitting Diode (LED) and conform to SAE J1889, L.E.D. Signal and Marking Lighting Devices?

2.41

Will the trailer solution's electrical connectivity be (i.e. lighting system, brakes) be compatible with the M1070, M1070A1 AND M1300 tractors with respect to the 12 pin 24V, 7 pin 12V (Tow connectors) and 7 pin 24 V (ABS) connectors that are present on the prime mover?

2.42

Will the materials of the trailer solution be resistant to fungus IAW MIL-STD-810, Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests?

2.43 Physical

Will the trailer solution be protected against galvanic corrosion per MIL-STD-889, Dissimilar Metals?

2.44

If your trailer solution(s) includes ABS, what is the configuration? (i.e. side by side/axle control)?

2 .45

Will the suspension system of the trailer solution allow for adjustable tuning?

2.46

Would the METS-trailer solution(s) be equipped with MIL-STD-209, Lifting and Tiedown Provisions, compliant tie-downs and cargo restraints? If yes, have these been tested in accordance with MIL-STD-209? If no, what standard(s) do the tie-downs comply?

2.47

If the METS-trailer solution(s) payload on/off capability includes ramp assist for lowering and raising the ramps, please describe in detail the technical characteristics, dimensions, and specifications for the ramp assist system.

2.48

What is the delta cost between a ramp assist system and a system without ramp assist?

2.49

What are the weights of an individual ramps for the METS-trailer solution(s)?

2.50

Will all welders be American Welding Society (AWS) certified or equivalent, when performing welding procedures on the METS-trailer solution(s)? If equivalent, please specify.

2.51

What is the METS-trailer solutions expected reliability?

3.1 Logistics Does your company possess technical data rights to support the METS trailer?

3.2

What is the maintenance accessibility for the brake air tanks if applicable?

3.3

Have you ever produced U.S. Army Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM) or Interactive Electronic Technical manuals (IETM)? .

3.4

How long is the trailer warranty period which would be expected for the METS? What is included in the warranty? What actions void the warranty?

3.5

Does your company have experience developing operator/maintainer training manuals for the U.S. Military?

3.6

Do you have a safety assessment for the operator / service / maintenance manuals of the METS-trailer solution(s)?

3.7

Is there Operator and/or Maintenance Step-by-Step printed manual(s) currently available for the METS-trailer solution(s)?

3.8

Do you have operator and maintainer training material available for the METS-trailer solution(s)?

3.9

Describe design characteristics of the METS-trailer solution(s) with respect to human factors engineering as it relates to operations, preventive maintenance checks and services, and maintenance, (ref. MIL STD 1472 Human Engineering)?

3.10

What percentage of your system is repairable with common tools (e.g., General Mechanics Tool Kit (GMTK), Forward Repair System (FRS), Standard Automotive Tool Set (SATS)?

3.11

Does repair of your trailer require special tools? Please provide a list and cost if not included in the Basic Issue Item (BII).

3.12

What tools and quantities are expected to be included in the BII on every trailer?

3.13

Does your company have the have the means of conducting a Product Support-ability Analysis (PSA) for the METS program to assist in creating the logistics products?

3.14

Does your company have any experience conducting a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) as it relates to reliability and maintenance on a Government program?

3.15

Does your company have any experience in conducting Level of Repair Analysis (LORA)?

3.16

Does your organization have any experience in developing National Maintenance Work Requirements (NMWRs)?

3.17

Does your company have experience using the Logistics Product Support-ability Analysis to create a Maintenance Task List (MTL) and Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC)?

3.18

Do your company have any experience developing Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP)?

3.19

Does your company have any experience developing a Repair Parts and Special Tools list (RPSTL)?

3.20

Does your company have any experience developing a Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) 036 report?

4.1 Manf.

What is the production rate (trailers per month) capability for a METS type trailer?

4.2

Does the manufacturing facility(s) have sufficient manufacturing capacity (i.e. adequate equipment utilization, facility space) to produce for delivery to the U.S. Government 152 trailers per year? If so, what is the expected production rate per month (please consider the tier 2 and 3 supply chain)?

4.3

Please provide manufacturing lead time for the major system and subsystems for each METS-trailer solution included in response to this RFI (e.g. steel/aluminum, tires, axles, suspension). Please do not leave this information blank, provide best estimates based on analogous platforms. Timing data is for planning purposes only and is not contractual. The U.S. Army does not consider this information firm.

4.4

What is the production and delivery lead-time upon order receipt?

4.5

Describe a plan for producing the Army specific trailers, subsystems and components. For instance, will the Army specific items be produced on the same line as commercial equipment? If so, describe a plan for integrating the Army specific products into commercial production.

4.5

How many METS-trailers is the company capable of storing prior to shipment? How long can the trailers be stored prior to shipment?

4.6

Is the manufacturing facility where the METS-trailer solution(s) would be produced ISO 9000 or equivalent certified? If equivalent certification please specify what is the certification standard the facility is certified to? Please compare ISO 9000 to the certification standard and identify the major differences between the two standards.

4.7

Will the welding performed on the trailer solution be in accordance with the AWS or equivalent standard? Please list the equivalent welding standard.

5.0 Reliability What is the expected durability of the tires given the trailer is pulled by a tractor IAW Table 3 Mission Profile on primary terrain? On secondary terrain? On off-road terrain? Ref. TOPS 01 1 010A Vehicle Test Course Severity, attachment for terrain definitions. Please provide additional terrains to which the METS-trailer solution has been tested.

5.1

What is your estimated trailer service life? Service life is assumed to be a measure of system durability (e.g. no structural or major component failure).

5.2

What is the annual hours/miles used for service life estimation?

--END OF RFI INFORMATION REQUESTED THANK YOU--

image1.emf image2.emf