(Blank)_CRM_for_OMFV_PSPEC_Rev004.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) W56HZV-22-R-0026
- Solicitation number
- W56HZV-22-R-0026
About this file
This document contains a draft request for proposal for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program. The U.S. Army is seeking feedback on the draft RFP by May 2nd for the detailed design, prototype build, and test phase. Interested parties must submit comments within a provided comment resolution matrix template, identifying any issues with the performance specification, common infrastructure architecture, or draft RFP. Classified and controlled unclassified information attachments are available to qualified parties upon request with proper facility clearances and approvals.
View the file
Other files
Show all 49
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
| **INSTRUCTIONS & GENERAL RULES** |
| 1) CLASS column-- enter “U” for Unclassified, “C” for Confidential, or “S” for Secret to show the classification of each review comment. If any comments are Confidential or Secret, your response must be submitted via SIPRNET or mail. |
2) LEVEL column--for Critical comments enter A for Administrative, S for Substantive and C for Critical.
| Use the following guidelines for rating comments: |
| (1) Critical: Critical comments apply to issues, which are considered potential “show stoppers” until resolved. Critical issues identify problems of such severity that, if not resolved, will have a significant impact on the cost, performance, or schedule of the program or related programs. Critical issues can arise from several causes. |
| (2) Substantive: Substantive comments document problems within the program worthy of correction, but not of such severity as to require program redirection. These comments must be accompanied by a recommendation for correction of the document with supporting rationale. |
| (3) Administrative: Administrative comments provide feedback to the program office concerning structure of the document, spelling, punctuation, grammar, paragraph marking inconsistencies, and other items related to the document’s form and readability rather than its content. |
3) Comments/Rationale column: provide clear concise comment or recommended change to specific document reference (page, para, line). Rationale should clearly articulate purpose for comment/change.
NOTE: Comments without rationale clearly explaining proposed recommendations or without citing any governing references are not useful. In general, format comments will not be categorized higher than Administrative unless there is a clear rationale how performance, interoperability, supportability, or other factors that may impact the potential success of the program .
PSPEC Rev004 - Comments
| Document Name: CRM for OMFV P-Spec Rev004 | ||||||||||
| Control Number | Vendor Name & Phone # | PSPEC Section or Model Section (Package Name) | PSPEC Unique ID Number | PSPEC Header Number or Diagram Name | CLASSIFICATION | |||||
| (U/C/F) | COMMENT LEVEL (C/S/A) | COMMENT | RATIONALE | |||||||
| Example Company | Section 3 | PSPEC-OMFV-XXXX | 1.X.X.X | U | S | This requirement needs to adjust by… | In order to… | |||
| Example Company | Section 4 | PSPEC-OMFV-XXXX | 1.X.X.X | U | S | This verification plan needs to adjust by… | In order to… |
ObjArch Model - Comments
| Document Name: CRM for OMFV Objective Architecture Model | |||||||||
| Control Number | Vendor Name & Phone # | Model Section (Package Name) | Diagram Name (If Applicable) | CLASSIFICATION | |||||
| (U/C/F) | COMMENT LEVEL (C/S/A) | COMMENT | RATIONALE | ||||||
| Example Company | Functional Architecture | Defeat Threat BDD | U | S | This architecture element … | In order to… |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .