WSDS VENDOR QA (10 June) (questions 36-90) Final.pdf

VENDOR QUESTION USG RESPONSE

36. CDRLs state “Delivery shall be made IAW Attachment 0001, WSDS IPT Matrix” o Attachment 0001 WSDS IPT Matrix was not inclA2:B46uded with the RFP Please provide Attachment 0001 WSDS IPT Matrix.

Attachment 0001, IPT Matrix (indicates attachment will be provided after contract award). Clarified in Amendment 0001.

37. CDRLs P021 & L024 were included in Exhibit A o CDRL P021 is referenced in the SOW, L024 is not o Neither was included in the CLIN structure Are these CDRLs required

• If so, L024 needs to be listed under CLIN 0009 to be priced and P021 should be listed under CLIN 0010 as NSP

Yes, P021 Risk Management and L024 are both required. P021 has been added as a NSP CDRL under CLIN 0010. L024 has been added as a reference in SOW Section C.10.6.16‐ Source Files. Block 5 of CDRL L024 has been updated to include this SOW reference and L024 has been added to CLIN 0009. Both CDRLS have been added to Attachment 0040‐Pricing Workbookv2 and Attachment 0042 ‐ Updated Pricing WorkbookV2 via Amendment 0001.

38. Reference Attachment 0016 o Document has a header identifying it as Attachment 0008 Assuming this is a labeling error on the document

Corrected Attachment 0016 header from 0008 to 0016 in SAM.gov.

39. CLIN instructions for the #50 Fuel Pumps call for the pumps to be the same model and configuration as the 350 GPM Water Pumps provided with the WSDS o While the pump can be basically the same, there will be minor differences & it will require a different part number/NSN For example, refueling from the process fluid is not possible or desired with the water pump

• Simply looking for confirmation of this understanding

The Government understands the minor differences between the fuel and water pumps, such as the requirement to refuel from the process fluid for fuel pumps only, and concurs that the fuel and water pumps should have different part numbers and NSNs.

40. Attachment 035 (POI for MOS 91J) references TMs used for training. We would like to review these TMs, but have been unable to acquire two of them, TM 10‐ 4320‐372‐14 and TM 10‐4320‐375‐14.

o Can the Government provide them for proposal preparation?

Both TM's are DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT B ‐ Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only. Information not owned by the U.S. Government and protected by a contractor’s “limited rights” statement, including information that is received with the understanding that it is not to be transmitted outside the U.S.

Government. This determination was made on 23 June 2003. Other requests for this document must be referred to AMSTA‐LC‐ LMPP/TECH PUBS, 1 Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, IL 61299‐7630.

41. If analysis determines that sustainment level maintenance including depot is required, does C.10.3.2.1, Special Tool Criteria and Approval, account for sustainment level special tools? This paragraph appears to focus on field level maintenance as it states that special tools shall be overpacked with each production unit.

Any special tools shall be overpacked and support the system cradle to grave.

42. Based on AR 750‐1, and MIL STD 40051‐2C, a NMWR can cover a range of maintenance tasks including field‐level reparables below depot and depot reparables at a depot. Our 350 GPM pump engine is a possible NMWR candidate.

Does the Army envision performing organic depot level, e.g., overhaul, maintenance on this engine? We understand that analysis will determine level of repair. However, we are hesitant to price an organic engine overhaul capability just to ensure cost coverage for what we believe is an unlikely support solution.

This is dependent upon what the Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)/Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) shows.

43. Would the Government consider postponing pricing for the NMWR until after Phase II supportability analysis is complete?

The Govermment would like to take into consideration the price of all hardware and data deliverables when making the final selections.

44. Paragraph 3.6.1 of ATPD‐2425 requires that the pump assemblies have a threshold MTBEFF of not less than 250 hours, with a desired objective MTBEFF of 320 hours. Paragraphs 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2 of ATPD‐2425 require the use of MIL‐ PRF‐53051 and MIL‐PRF‐52109 pump assemblies, which have specified MTBFs of 200 and 140 hours, respectively. MTBEFF and MTBF are essentially the same. How do we reconcile the conflict for both pumps?

The MTBEFF requirement for the WSDS pumps is not less than 250 hours, which is more stringent than the two separate pump specs.

The pumps provided must meet the WSDS stated requirement for MTBEFF. Note that ATPD 2425A, paragraph 3.6.1 states the reliability requirement in terms of a point estimate. "The WSDS pump assemblies shall demonstrate a Mean Time Between Essential Function Failure (MTBEFF) of 535 hours as a point estimate".

45. Given: The Phase I Production Qualification Test (PQT) Pump Reliability and Mobility Test Plan Version 16.0 ( the SOW requirement for the test requires a fixed test duration of 1070 hours (total) cumulative on two samples of each configuration. This results in a point estimate of the MTBEFF of 535 hours, minimum, for each type. AND Paragraph 4.6.1 of ATPD‐2425 allows for termination of reliability testing at 402 hours with 0 failures to show compliance with the required MTBEFF of 250 hours (threshold) and 320 hours (objective), both of which are well less than 535 hours.

We are trying to understand what we have to design the pump assemblies to with respect to reliability. What is the derivation of 535 hours with respect to 250/320 hours? We have referenced MIL‐HDBK‐781 (Reliability Test Methods) for guidance, without success.

Please follow the most current ATPD, which is version 2425A.

Paragraph 4.6.1 indicates an overall test duration of 1070 hours with two allowable failures.

The Government utilized Chi distribution to identify the minimum test length in table III of ATPD 2425, with 250 and 80% LCL. Table III is the general output to highlight 1070 with 2 allowable failures after general analysis. The 535 negates the 402 test length since 2 allowable failures was selected by the PM instead of 0 or 1 failure.

Also, AR702‐19 (Pg.18) does not allow reference of the confidence Interval in documentation and the reason for providing the 535 as a point estimate. The Contractor with their management strategy and through engineering analysis is to select their desired confidence interval. As a design check for reliability, the Government uses the Poisson Distribution function. For threshold minimum Target, the Contractor should have at least a set value of 559. These are general outputs and does not include quality and manufacturing defects.

46. Specification AA‐59338B states that “Water Testing Kit, Chemical Agent, M272, to be provided by the Government.” Will the government be providing that item?

The WQAS‐P should only include space for the Government to add the M272 kit if and when it desires after fielding.

47. Please clarify the type anodizing you are requiring. In question 32 you stated aluminum components is MIL‐PRF‐8625 Type III, Class 1 which says that the anodizing is not dyed. We think that you may have a mistake in this response since all of the drawings ask for the parts to be dyed.

In answer to the previous question regarding anodizing requirements stated that all individual drawings would be ECP'd to indicate Class 1 (non‐dyed) would be required. If the vendor has a specific concern with the requirement or if they believe it is inappropriate for the application, please specify.

48. (Re: Q&A 24) We have expressed our concern regarding the delivery requirements, especially considering current supply chain constraints.

o We, respectfully, would like to again express the need for additional delivery time.

‐ Understanding the Government desires expedited deliveries, we have pre‐ ordered engines and other long‐lead items to assist in mitigating risk associated with delivery.

‐ While pre‐ordering these long‐lead items mitigates delivery risks for Phase II requirements, Phase I still poses significant risk at the 90 day delivery requirement.

‐ We respectfully request the Phase I delivery be increased to 150 Days, while maintaining the 90 Day delivery for Phase II. We feel this is a good comprise, considering we have leaned forward and pre‐purchased long‐lead items to allow a responsible bid, and hope the Government can accommodate.

At this time, the Government has no plans to extend the delivery schedule any further.

49. Your assistance is kindly requested for clarification of the coatings concerning the cadmium coated nuts used to connect the flanged tee assemblies. Many times, cadmium coated fasteners are recommended to join aluminum components in outdoor applications. It appears that the current configuration uses zinc plated hex screws and washers along with cadmium coated nuts. Was this selection meant to be all zinc plated or cadmium coated?

The carbon steel hexagon nuts used on the Tee Assemblies (Drawings 12681780, 12681781, 12681782, 12681783, 12681784, 12681785, 12681786, 12681787) should therefore be zinc plated in lieu of cadmium coated. This also affects the nuts used on the 4” Gate Valve (Drawing 12681798) and the 100K WSDS Accessory Kit (Drawing 12681854).

50. Section K states the NAICS code for this acquisition is 221310, with a small business size standard of $30,000,000 o The majority of CLINs and the overall requirement is relative to Pumps o The Phase I requirement is solely for Pumps Pumps have an associated NAICS code of 333913, with a small business size standard of 500 employees

• We believe using NAICS code 221310 inappropriately restricts competitive small business pump manufacturers from bidding on the requirement

• We respectfully request that the solicitation be amended to change the NAICS code from 221310 to 333913 to better reflect the requirement.

This effort is not solely a single pump requirement. NAICS 221310 is more representative of the pump as a whole. The subject effort was also synopsized under NAICS code 221310.

51. Does the government expect to use the collapsible tank for 12 years?

(An expected 12‐year use requirement will drive material selection towards extremely high cost options.) According to ATPD 2265, "The collapsible tanks are intended for use as potable water storage containers when quickly emplaced, temporary facilities are needed. The collapsible tanks are intended to provide a twelve‐year shelf life, and three‐year service life." ( REFERENCE ATPD

ATTACHMENT 0003, 3.4.1.2)

ATPD 2425A states that the tanks shall have a remaining useful life once wetted of "up to" 12 years. Meeting the service life requirement of ATPD 2265 will satisfy the requirement of ATPD 2425A.

52. What are the required components to be supplied at Phase 1 testing? (Please specify each and every component part needed to complete Phase 1 testing).

125 GPM Pump Assembly: Qty 2 350 GPM Pump Assembly: Qty 2

53. Shall the contractor quote the drawings #12681765 \ #12680564 or the supplied document: "BOM+Indentured+WSDS" ?

The contractor shall quote the drawings #12681765 & #12680564.

The Indentured BOM provided only includes a breakdown of the Government drawing numbers and is not a complete listing of all individual parts required to produce the 100K WSDS and Split Ops Kit.

54. Will the Government make available CAD or existing 3D models for established NSN parts and assemblies?

The Government will make available CAD or existing 3D models for all Government drawings included under 12681765 and 12580564.

55. Will the manufacturer of the ATPD 2265 Collapsible Tank be required to perform First Article Testing on the Collapsible Faberic Tank (CFT)?

Yes, the manufacturer of the ATPD 2264 Collapsible Tanks will be required to perform a First Article Test on the items. As stated in ATPD 2425A, paragraph 4.4.1.2, Collapsible storage tanks. The requirements of 3.4.1.2 shall be verified by contractor CoC including supporting subcontractor documentation, test results and certifications demonstrating that the first articles were subject to the verification inspections outlined in ATPD 2265, Section 4.

56. The RFP Directs Tri‐cons for storage, can the USG provide the historical quantity of tri‐con's needed to support a set (both 100K and split kits).

The legacy 40K WSDS was contained in a total of six TRICONs. The 100K is essentially the 40K system with two 50K bags in place of two 20K bags. This difference could possibly require an additional TRICON. The Split Ops Kit would require additional TRICONs. The Split Ops Kit is essentially the legacy 20K WSDS with the 20K bag replaced by a 50K bag. This is no historical TRICON packing plan for a 20K WSDS. There is no requirement for the number of TRICONs allowed. The contractor must develop a packing plan and determine the number of TRICONs required.

57. Define "Level Surface". Will the contractor have the latitude to stack Tricons?

If the Tri‐cons are "stackable," to what level? Or does level mean that all containers must be "at ground level"?

It is unclear what part of the RFP this question is referring to. The requirement for TRICON stacking can be found in MIL‐PRF‐32349, paragraph 3.5.7 and 3.5.8

58. As part of the prototype pump demonstration, will the Government evaluate IMI products for fidelity compliance to meet Level 4 DL courseware requirements on Android, Apple, and other computer platforms? Will this occur during Phase I or Phase II?

Phase II

59. Do we need to provide a Blackboard‐based review system or is any LMS launch system sufficient to review the content? (REFERENCE SOW C.10.6.11)

The delivery shall be IAW the Blackboard requirements and a link will be provided at contract award from the schoolhouse to upload/review.

60. With resepect to 3D assets, does the government have a baseline of assets available for use or will we have to create all the assets from scratch based off of reference information? (REFERENCE SOW C.6.10.13)

The Government will make available CAD or existing 3D models for all Government drawings included under 12681765 and 12580564.

61. Will the government provide accurate 3D CAD models? (REFERENCE SOW C.10.6.13)

The Government will make available CAD or existing 3D models for all Government drawings included under 12681765 and 12580564.

62. All models shall be built full sized then scaled down to fit the final model." ‐ Do you mean build the models high resolution and then bake the geo down to normal maps on lower poly models for? (REFERENCE SOW C.10.6.13)

The Government will make available CAD or existing 3D models for all Government drawings included under 12681765 and 12580564.

63. Can the Government define the list of actions/vignettes they wish for offerors to depict in their training courses? To what level of detail does the Government wish these actions/vignettes to be animated? E.g., packing/unpacking, readying, complexing/decomplexing/PMCSing the system, maintaining the system, etc.

Please develop requirements IAW the CDRLs and references provided in the RFP.

64. Do you want the software to have the capability for the player to switch between the first person and third person camera viewpoints? (REFERENCE SOW C.10.6.13)

Please develop requirements IAW the CDRLs and references provided in the RFP.

65. Does the Government expect offerors to include embedded live‐action footage of WSDS operations within the training software?

Please develop requirements IAW the CDRLs and references provided in the RFP.

66. Will we have access to film live footage for reference to use for the simulated videos? (REFERENCE SOW C.10.6.14)

Please develop requirements IAW the CDRLs and references provided in the RFP.

67. Will any of the 3D characters need the ability to speak? Example, narration from a first‐person perspective would not have any visible face to lip sync. (

REFERENCE SOW C.10.6.13)

Please develop requirements IAW the CDRLs and references provided in the RFP.

68. What constitutes an ITEM in CLINs 1003, 2003, 3003, …? For example, Item 1001 ‐ WSDS 100k Production Unit and 1002 ‐ WSDS w/split operations are measured in units of EA. Item 1003 ‐ Storage, meanwhile, is measured in units of LO (lots). Does LO refer to a complete WSDS system or a unit of package (i.e., one Tricon)? Will offerors need to quote storage of 50 WSDS complete systems, which equates to approximately 500 Tricons total (assuming 10 Tricons for 1 WSDS system, per solicitation requirements), or 50 Tricon containers that will include various items, such as pumps, components, or 50k tanks?

The LO would refer to the quantity of WSDS systems called up under the storage CLIN, and is not inclusive of the packaging (i.e., Tricon) or anything not packed with the system at time of final acceptance.

69. The wording of the referenced solicitation sections is unclear. WSDS is referred to as a system and units in another, but units are part of the whole system. Are these references talking about the same thing? Does section 1003 Daily per Unit Rate refer to a rate per Tricon or a rate per WSDS system (including 10 Tricons, per solicitation requirements)? (REFERENCE SECTIONS F.1.3, F.1.13)

The reference "units" means a complete WSDS system, not the units ( i.e. Tricons) that comprise the WSDS.

70. There has been much volatility in steel prices, transportation costs, and there is an anticipation of rising inflation. Provided that the period of performance of this contract has the ability to span (7) years, would the Government include an economic price adjustment clause?

The contractors shall have the opportunity to downwardly adjust their price for Phase II.

71. Section K‐9 allows industry to provide insight into economic purchase quantities. Can the Government kindly advise as to how any data provided here is (or isn’t) considered for evaluation / award purposes?

Data provided in FAR clause 52.207‐4‐ ECONOMIC PURCHASE QUANTITY‐SUPPLIES, will not be used for evaluation/award purposes, this data is only being solicited to avoid acquisitions in disadvantageous quantities and to assist the Government in developing a data base for future acquisitions of these items. Only the information identified in Section L and M will be considered for evaluation /award purposes.

72. According to MIL‐PRF‐53051C, the 350 GPM pump must have toggle switches for the ignition system, mechanical gauges and a mechanically linked manual throttle control. Modern pump control systems use electric sending units to perform automatic pressure/RPMcontrol, start/stop and safety functions and have the ability to display gauge data such as RPM, coolant temp, oil pressure, voltage, etc. Is a separate instrument panel with mechanical gauges, ignition system and throttle control still necessary? If so,is it meant to function as a redundant system that can run the pump in manual mode in case the electronic control system is damaged?

The mechanical guages, ignition system and throttle control are indeed required in this military application for reduncancy so that the pump can run in a fully manual mode if needed.

73. Section L.4.1.1 indicates that the Government will only consider recent experience, and recent experience is further defined as tasks performed within three years of the issuance of the WSDS RFP. Would the Government consider revising this to include recent and relevant tasks performed within five years of the issuance of the WSDS RFP?

The Government has no plans to revise recent experience as referenced in L.4.1.1 from three years to five years.

74. Given the quantity and scope of Not Separately Priced CDRLs (LSA, provisioning, packaging) listed in Attachment 0042, does the Government expect these items to be included in the priced CDRLs or the hardware non‐production CLINs?

It is up to the contractor to decide where they want to include any costs associated with the NSP CDRLS, they are normally rolled up into the production system price or TMs.

75. For the Separately Priced CDRLs, both TM options are included so the total will be greater than whichever TM option is selected. Will the Government be comparing the individual unit prices for these CDRLs rather than the total?

The Government acknowledges the total will be greater than whichever TM option is selected, all offerors are required to provide a price for both TMs.

Per M.4.2.1, "The Price Factor evaluation will consider the Total Evaluated Price to the Government. The Government will also evaluate the offerors price proposal for price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing and affordability.

M.4.2.1.1 Total Evaluated Price:

The Total Evaluated Price equals the sum of the following:

(a) The proposed prices for all CLINs, as calculated in Attachment 0040 ‐ Pricing Workbook; and

(b) If applicable, any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required in accordance with the (i) FAR; (ii) DFARS; or (iii) RFP (to include RFP Attachments)" However, per M.4.2.1.3, "The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over‐ or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques.

76. Can the Government consider removing the ILS requirements from the Total Evaluated Price provided that there has not yet been a decision made on what type TM will be required?

The Government does not agree with removing the ILS requirements at this time.

77. Is the “total proposed price” as identified on the Summary Tab of Attachment 0042 the same as the “total evaluated price” from a proposal evaluation perspective?

As stated in RFP paragraph M.4.2.1.1 – Total Evaluated Price of the RFP, “The Total Evaluated Price equals the sum of the following:

(a) The proposed prices for all CLINs, as calculated in Attachment 0040 ‐ Pricing Workbook; and

(b) If applicable, any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required in accordance with the (i) FAR; (ii) DFARS; or (iii) RFP (to include RFP Attachments).”

In addition, refer to RFP paragraph M.1.1.3 that states, “In making the award decision, the Government will review proposals to determine if any other price adjustments (beyond the GFP Price adjustment and transportation costs that are already included in the total evaluated price) are required IAW the FAR, DFARS, or clauses or provisions contained within this solicitation. If an additional price adjustment is determined to be applicable, then the Government will develop a final price for those offerors impacted by the adjustment(s) and base the final award decision on this final price.

IAW FAR 52.219‐4(b)(2), if the HUBZone price adjustment is applicable, then all other price adjustments described in the solicitation shall be applied before the application of the HUBZone price adjustment."

78. Can the Government provide more detail re: how the use of Government Furnished Property impacts the total evaluated price?

RFP section L.4.2.4 and Attachment 0041 relate to GFP that the offeror has received under another Government contract that it is proposing to rent‐free in performance of this contract.

RFP Attachment 0041 – Use of Existing Government Furnished Property provided instructions on how an offeror is to calculate the GFP price adjustment.

As stated in RFP paragraph M.4.2.1.1 – Total Evaluated Price of the RFP, “The Total Evaluated Price equals the sum of the following:

(a) The proposed prices for all CLINs, as calculated in Attachment 0040 ‐ Pricing Workbook; and

(b) If applicable, any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required in accordance with the (i) FAR; (ii) DFARS; or (iii) RFP (to include RFP Attachments)."

In addition, refer to RFP paragraph M.1.1.3 that states, “In making the award decision, the Government will review proposals to determine if any other price adjustments (beyond the GFP Price adjustment and transportation costs that are already included in the total evaluated price) are required IAW the FAR, DFARS, or clauses or provisions contained within this solicitation. If an additional price adjustment is determined to be applicable, then the Government will develop a final price for those offerors impacted by the adjustment(s) and base the final award decision on this final price.

IAW FAR 52.219‐4(b)(2), if the HUBZone price adjustment is applicable, then all other price adjustments described in the solicitation shall be applied before the application of the HUBZone price adjustment."

79. Can the Government provide an overview of what elements of WSDS are currently available as Government Furnished Property?

The Government is not providing any GFP for this contract.

80. In the instance of GFP being proposed, can the Government elaborate on how ILS / Provisioning / TMs would be impacted as well as how Prime Contractor is or, is not held accountable for any contractual performance issues / delays that may be incurred on the separate contract the GFP may end up being provided under?

The Government is not providing any GFP for this contract. The contractor would be responsible for settling any issues with GFP with the Contracting Officer assigned to the contract providing the GFP.

81. Can the Government advise as to how they might handle an instance where the contract providing the GFP to the WSDS program is completed prior to the end of the WSDS period of performance?

The Government is not providing any GFP under this contract. The contractor would be responsible for settling any issues with GFP with the Contracting Officer assigned to the contract providing the GFP and is responsible for acquiring the items needed to ensure performance under the subject contract.

82. Why has the deadline for questions been moved to the left by ~10 days, can the Government consider extending the deadline for questions until 6/14/21?

The initial proposal due date was 14 June, Amendment 0001 extended it until 21 June. The Government made the decision to make 5 June the cut off for questions to allow time to provide responses to industry questions and allow vendors more time to complete their proposals.

83. Would the Government consider the WQASP‐LITE (NSN 4160‐01‐541‐4596) as an alternative to the WQASP?

The Government requires all of the capability in the WQAS‐P;

therefore, the WQASP‐LITE will not be acceptable.

84. Will the USG consider a container option other than TRICON? The Army has a container option that includes an integrated bail bar and container platform that is compatible with the HEMTT‐LHS, PLS, M‐1076 PLS Trailer and ECHU and handled by the All‐Terrain Lifter Army System (ATLAS) forklift and the Rough Terrain Container Handler (RTCH). A 20FT TPU customized container solution limits the PLS Flatracks requirement within the BCT/Sustainment Brigades. This other container option is being deployed for SSA’s across the tactical Army’s BCTs and CAB. In conclusion we would again like to ask if the Army would be willing to consider a 20’ container solution instead of a TRICON TEU (twenty‐foot equivalent unit)? (REF. ATPD 3.8.6 The WSDS TEU containers)

The Government will not consider another container option.

85. The 100,000 GALLON WATER STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Purchase Description (3.5, 3.10, etc. ) a TRICON pack out. It also mentions specific markings / labels that indicate the contractor would be responsible for providing the said TRICON. However,the Government provided BOM has no such mention of a TRICON being required. Can the Government kindly clarify? If TRICON is required, can the Government provide a revised BOM?

The BOM provided only contains an indentured list of Government Drawings/Army Ordinancy Part Numbers (AOPNs) contained in the 100K WSDS and the Split Ops Kit. The BOM does not contain all of the down parts required to manufacturer the system. The TRICONs are not included in the BOM because it is unknown to the Government how many TRICONs will be required, or which components will be packaged within each container. The requirement to configure and pack all components within the TRICON is in C.3.5 and C.3.5.1. The requirement to provide the Special Packaging Instruction (SPI) is in C.10.7.6.

86. Will the Phase II system components be considered as deliverables for the first year requirements after completion of the phase II process? ( REF. C.9.1.2)

The pumps used in Phase I shall be the same make and model used for the Phase II PQT testing, but the test assets from Phase I are separate deliverables from the production representative assets.

87. Does the government have requirement for CMI5 (xAPI)? Will any LRS be available with Blackboard to communicate to? Advanced Distributed Learning has stated that CMI5 is the current direction the Army is going for online instruction.

DODI 1322.26 states that DoD components "should" implement xAPI.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/132226_do di_2017.pdf?ver=2017‐10‐05‐073235‐400/home_new

The Government's VR products have xAPI (dashboard) capability.

However the DTEs do not. The Government does want xAPI. This will allow the instructors to track student progress and improve the POI.

The Government's DTEs are stand alone and should not be put on blackboard, only the IMIs.

88. There are many material / component suppliers that continue to have COVID‐ 19 related staffing issues that are having significant impacts on their ability to provide timely responses to RFIs and RFQs. These issues are further compounded by the fact that this contract has option years that extend the contractual period of performance to a total of (7) years, which in many cases is taking more time to cost & price due to the unprecedented supply chain and logistic impacts that continue to be realized across the industrial base. As such, would the Government kindly consider extending the proposal submission date by 45 days?

Amendment 0001 extended the proposal submission date from 14 June to 21 June, the Government has no plans to extend the proposal submission date further at this time.

89. Our company requests an extension to the response date of Solicitation W56HZV‐21‐R‐0011. This request is based on the complexity of the requirement and continued delays in responses from vendors as a result of the effects of

COVID.

Amendment 0001 extended the proposal submission date from 14 June to 21 June, the Government has no plans to extend the proposal submission date further at this time.

90. Would the government supply the existing SPI for previous 100K and split kit systems? ( REF. C.10.7.6)

The Government does not have the SPI for the 100k and split systems to provide.