Distro A - OMFV RFP W56HZV-22-R-0026 QA 01-68.pdf

OMFV Phase 3-4 Solicitation W56HZV-22-R-0026 Questions and Answers 01-68

Date: 18 August 2022

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Control No.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

001 N/A Our firm submitted several recommendations not reflected in the formal RFP. Should we re-submit?

Improve RFP The USG reviewed all comments received and made appropriate adjustments. We appreciate your submissions for our consideration.

002 RFP Para. M.3.1.1 Attachment 0027

Affordability numbers do not sum for both the basic and the option in Section M and do not match those in Att 0027

Need to know correct amounts for proposal preparations.

Agree. The affordability is correctly presented in Att 0027.

Section M.3.1.1 will be amended to the following in a future RFP Amendment:

Funding Period Basic Award Amount ($M) Award - Dec 31, 2023 $108.5 Jan 01, 2024 - Dec 31, 2024 $286.0 Jan 01, 2025 - Dec 31, 2025 $208.7 Jan 01, 2026 - Dec 31, 2026 $143.0 Jan 01, 2027 - End of contract $ 65.2 Total $811.4

Funding Period Option Amount ($M) Award - Dec 31, 2025 $ 71.8 Jan 01, 2026 - Dec 31, 2026 $ 1.6 Jan 01, 2027 - End of contract $ 1.4 Total $ 74.8

003 RFP Section J, Attachment 0072

The title for Attachment 0072 states "Rev004" but the attachment shows "Rev002" in Block 3.

The USG will update Attachment 0072's title in Section J to reflect Revision Number "002” in lieu of “004”.

004 Attachment 0034 Paragraph 1(c) and 1(d) in Attachment 0034 are identical

Attachment 0034 will be updated to delete the duplicate paragraph.

005 RFP Para. L.7.13.3 Is the marking requirement of this paragraph applicable to the entire proposal submission or only to the L.7.13 CSDR paragraph?

Need to apply correct proposal markings.

L.7.13.3 only applies to paragraph L.7.13 and all supporting data and information. FAR 52.215-1 Alt 1 para ( e) applies to the rest of the proposal.

006 RFP Para. C.5.2.6 Attachment 0051

Will SVA be conducted at the same location as vehicle testing?

Offerors require location to determine shipping and support costs.

The SVA will be held at the same location as the vehicle testing IAW Attachment 0051; however, the USG reserves the right to move the location if necessary.

007 RFP Para. C.2.2 Minimum Viable DE Deliverable Acceptance Criteria - Does "Executable file" language refer to saved native-format files of a model state that corresponds to the delivered input files? Models created in commercial analysis software are not typically executable and require the commercial software to "run" the analysis.

Typical User License Agreements preclude delivery of analysis executable to a 3rd party.

Requirement is unclear as written. Yes - "executable file" refers to the native-format output result files of the model that corresponds to the delivered input files.

The input files used in simulation should provide the outcome obtained from the output file.

e.g. Abaqus FEA .inp (input file) and .odb (output result file)

Attachment 0097 is being revised and the word "executable" will be removed.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

008 RFP Para. C.2.2 Attachment 0097

"A sub-set of MS&A provided by the Contractor will be required to undergo VVA assessments" - What are the criteria used by ATEC to determine which models are required to undergo the formal VVA process?

Requirement is unclear as written. VV&A scope applies to all MS&A intended to be used as evaluation criteria or as a verification artifact for PSPEC requirement verification (with a heavy focus on MS&A that is used in lieu of test or to reduce test scope). This includes the MS&A listed in section C.2.2.1 plus any additional MS&A being developed under CDRL E076 that the contractor plans to cite for verification of PSPEC requirements, and/or for child requirements of the PSPEC which in turn supports verification of the PSPEC. ATEC criteria is found in MIL-STD 3022 and Attachment 0097.

Attachment 0097 is being revised and will be included in a future amendment.

009 RFP Para. C.2.2 Attachment 0097

Request further definition of the Digital Design use case; language of " Manipulate a virtual surrogate of the physical OMFV to assess vehicle performance under various environmental conditions and operational contexts (For example – Assess how the vehicle navigates terrain while carrying various loads)" is too broad to VVA models against. Need further definition of types of terrains, etc., e.g. Combat-Day definition.

Requirement is unclear as written. Operating context and environment is defined by PSPEC, OMS/MP and TOPS/MIL-STD-810 for environmental and road conditions.

010 CLIN 0002 CLIN 0001 and 0003 have the Contract Type noted, but CLIN 0002 does not. Assuming that it is FFP based on the "Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price" on p2.

If the Prototype Vehicles are meant to be a different contract type than FFP, then costs proposed as FFP may include additional risk.

However, the overall Contract is FFP and the other vehicle CLIN is FFP so the Prototype vehicles are most likely FFP.

CLIN 0002 is Not Separately Priced.

011 RFP Para. C.2.2 Attachment 0097

"MS&A ran by the USG using the input executable files provided by the contractor match the results of the output files provided by the contractor" - Is there an adjudication process if results don't match?

Clarification required. If the Contractor submits an input file that does not relate to the resulting output file, the Contractor shall be required to re-submit the correct version input file. (a common mistake is sending an older version input file that does not belong to the resulting output file).

Attachment 0097 has been updated

012 RFP Para. C.2.2 Attachment 0097

How does the ATEC VVA process cascade to suppliers that have "Black-Box" models in the digital thread that segregate/isolate IP from the Contractor?

Clarification required. Attachment 0097, page 10, has been updated to address Black-Box models.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

013 RFP Para. C.2.2 Attachment 0097

"The U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), as the accreditation authority, will validate the appropriateness of the applications and uses of MS&A proposed by the Contractor. " - Does the Contractor need to account for ATEC funding for VVA in the proposal or is the VVA done at USG cost?

Clarification required as it will affect contractor cost proposal.

USG will fund ATEC accreditation cost. The contractor will provide VV&A process documentation outlined in Attachment 0097 Page 11.

014 Attachment 0044 The latest GFE list specifies quantity two of HMS, HF and SINCGAR radio kits. Please confirm that one of these two kits will be used for spares and one for installation in the vehicle.

Clarification required. The GFE listed in Attachment 0044, Rows 27-33, quantity 2 EA, can be used as the contractor sees fit, for example to build a development bench and for integration fit checks.

Vehicle GFE installation prior to test will utilize additional quantities retained by the government.

015 RFP Para. C.2 Attachment 0097

CDRL E002

CDRL E002 is delivered 90 DACA and at the end of contract. Verification and validation activities supporting VV&A criteria are not performed within 90 DACA thus this portion of the Digital Engineering Management Plan will be delivered by the end of contract. Request clarification.

Requires clarification The initial delivery of E002 (delivered 90 DACA) shall include the contractor's approach to VV&A, including VV&A activities to be performed and how VV&A criteria will be defined. After initial delivery of E002, VV&A activities and criteria will be discussed during the scheduled USG/contractor meetings (such as PCMs and TRRs). The resulting VV&A approaches will be captured in the SysML system architecture model (E041) via the requirement verification plans and results (see section

3.4.7 of attachment 0091).

016 RFP Para. C.5.2.1 Attachment_0051

Will BH&T's require ballast kits? Offerors require additional information.

BH&Ts will not require ballast kits.

017 CDRLs E077, E081, E082, and E083

CDRLs E077, E081, E082 and E083 specify the first delivery as end of contract. These CDRLs are defined as full SysML CDRLs in Attachment 91, delivered as part of E041. The contractor expected these CDRLs would be associated with PDR and CDR. Please clarify the first delivery requirements for these CDRLs.

Clarification required for planning purposes

Traditional format for E077, E081, E082, and E083 shall be delivered at end of contract. Incremental CDRL content shall be delivered via CDRL E041 IAW Attachment 0091, paragraph 3.3.5.1, Table 1 and Attachment 0021. For example, CDRL E081 is included in the allocated baseline and is delivered via the SysML model (CDRL E041) prior to PDR.

018 CLIN 0001, 0003 and A001

Item 0001, 0003, A001 have a comment at the end "End of narrative B001."

This may be a typo because B001 is actually a different section further down. Alternatively there may be missing text. Clarification is needed to confirm the response will complete.

There is not a typographical error. The phrase "End of the narrative B001" is auto populated at the end of each narrative in Section B.

019 CLIN B001 The BH&T Ship To instructions provide the TACOM address and that the vehicle shall be shipped to the test center IAW Attachment 0051. Please clarify.

BH&Ts will be tested at XXX and therefore the assumption is that this is the ship to location.

Hardware deliverables will be shipped to locations identified in Narrative F001 for CLIN B001, B002, and B003. Attachment 0051 (Production Prove-Out Schedule) also provides the ship to location for hardware deliverables.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

020 CDRL L029 Current verbiage calls for, "The Contractor shall deliver at least 30% packaging data 30 days after the completion of each Provisioning Conference (PC).

The Contractor shall deliver at least 60% packaging data 60 days after the completion of each PC.

The Contractor shall deliver all 100% packaging data 90 days after the completion of each PC." Requesting relief on the duration by which the packaging data is delivered so as not to drive significant manpower in the short duration.

Provisioning conferences begin 120 days after CDR driving the start of the packaging data. Considering when hardware is available, the ability to start this work early is not realistic. Given phase 3 and 4 is a prototype phase, the ability to develop the packaging data over a longer period seems reasonable.

The delivery schedule is correct for CDRL L029.

021 RFP Para. C.2.6 Attachment 0010: Signature Management Tracing: Is it an error that the signature management requirements are being shown as P3 in column F? The latest rev of the requirements has these at P2. (assuming P = Priority since acronyms in this column are not defined).

Could create confusion with contractors if there is an erroneous assumption about prioritization.

Attachment 0010 will be corrected to reflect signature management requirement P2 in column F.

022 RFP Para. C.5.2.4 Is it a proper assumption that the APS BH&T can be used for one of the BH&T tests for underbody testing?

Or if you have an APS system do you need to provide 3 BH&Ts if you are offering APS?

Clarity needed for cost and schedule purposes

There is no underbody testing on BH&T. A prototype will have some LRU’s removed and will undergo a underbody blast.

Only 2 BH&Ts shall be provided.

023 RFP Para. M.2 (a) 8.

RFP Para. C.2.5.4

C.2.5.4 indicates that the TDP in support of the Assertion of Restrictions (AOR) be submitted in accordance with E011 (60 days after contract award), whereas M.2 Requires that the TDP in support of the Assertion of Restrictions (AOR) be submitted with the proposal.

Please clarify when the TDP in support of the AOR is expected. i.e.

at Proposal OR 60 days after award.

USG requires delivery of the TDP in support of the Assertion of Restrictions (AOR) at proposal and 60 days after contract award.

024 RFP Para. C.2.8 The RFP states that the Contractor shall use the USG provided DevSecOps environment (Platform One) and provide read-only access to the USG for software development.

If the Contractor already uses Platform One as its DevSecOps environment for software development, is it acceptable to use the Contractor environment (in lieu of the USG provided environment) and provide read-only access to the USG?

Using the Contractor environment would allow the Contractor to host the environment and potentially implement earlier in the program reducing program risk.

If a vendor is already using a government DevSecOps environment, they can request a waiver from the PCO to use that in lieu of Party Bus but must grant USG read access to their environment. Once the USG gets Big Bang established the contractor will still be required to transition to the USG Big Bang DevSecOps environment.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

025 RFP Para. C.2.7.2 Reference: C.2.7.2 MOSA/Common Infrastructure Capability Exceptions

Question: Will the Government require objective data be delivered demonstrating the capability of any LRU/LRM that is not MOSA compliant? (aka… qualification reports) Question: Secondly, if supporting data is required, will MIL-STD 810H be imposed or will they need to be qualified to the ATPD-2404 standard?

The contractor will need to estimate qualification costs into any decision to request a variance when integrating an LRU/LRM the meet the following criteria:

a. Proprietary, special, or non-commercial software and/or hardware

b. Exceptions to the specifications of Section C.2.4.5.

c. Sole source suppliers

d. Software configuration items that are coupled with hardware

Yes, objective data shall be submitted as part of a request for variance.

All LRCs shall conform to the applicable requirements of the PSPEC, which includes compliance to ATPD-2404 requirements.

026 Attachment 0044 The GFP List currently calls out Qty 2 of each of the following radio sets (HMS Vendor 1, HMS Vendor 2 (New) and SINCGARS). Is it the USG's intentions that the 7 prototype vehicles will require 3 different configurations of radios? The current PSPEC only calls out the integration of the Dual HMS Radio and does not mention the SINCGARS. Also, there are currently 7 prototypes, but only 6 sets of radios called out in the GFP List. Does this mean that one of the prototype will not require a radio set?

Clarification is needed as this would drive the complexity of the design to be able to integrate all 3 radio sets. Each radio set consists of different components and interconnections

The GFE listed in Attachment 0044, Rows 27-33, quantity 2 EA, can be used as the contractor sees fit, for example to build a development bench and for integration fit checks.

Vehicle GFE installation prior to test will utilize additional quantities retained by the government.

027 Attachment 0044 The GFP List currently calls out Qty 2 of each of the following components (Mounted Assured PNT System (MAPS) Gen II and Joint Battle Command - Platform (JBC-P)). Is it the USG's intentions that only 2 of the 7 vehicles will be outfitted with these subsystems, or does the Qty need to be adjusted?

The (MAPS) Gen II also provides some of the vehicle's timing, so there is an argument that this system would be required on all vehicles (Qty. 7). The Battle Command - Platform (JBC-P) subsystem would be required to operate the RED side of the vehicle.

This may not necessarily be required on all vehicles depending on their roles

The GFE listed in Attachment 0044, Rows 27-33, quantity 2 EA, can be used as the contractor sees fit, for example to build a development bench and for integration fit checks.

Vehicle GFE installation prior to test will utilize additional quantities retained by the government.

028 RFP Para. C.5.2.16 Upon completion of PPT the Contractor shall deliver the prototype vehicles in an as-is condition. The Contractor shall submit a Material Inspection Receiving Report (DD

250) for acceptance. Where (location) will the prototype acceptance take place, ie. Test Site, Contractor's Facility, or other location?

Identification of location will impact the shipping cost.

Section E will be revised to provide inspection and acceptance language.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

029 RFP Para. C.5.2.3 Attachment 0051

C.5.2.3 Contractor Shakedown Prototype Test (CSPT) is not identified in Attachment 0051, but is a shall statement. Will the USG still require one vehicle conducting CSPT or are the schedule tasks labeled #1 the CSPT?

Offerors require clarification. The CSPT is identified in attachment 0051 and can be found in the legend as part of #1 activities.

030 Attachment 0003 Attachment 0027

Attachment 0003 (Optional GFM tab) list several GFM reactive tile armor kits with prices. Attachment 0027 (Optional GFE Adj) shows individual GFE armor tiles with prices. Must vendors request GFM ERA as whole kits or can different quantities of tiles be requested?

Request further clarification on what the kit price is based upon.

Vendor specified quantities can be used. If vendors choose to use the existing USG ERA tile designs, they can request the number and type needed to protect the areas specified in the C-PSPEC for their respective design. For example if the contractor needs only 5 tiles to cover a certain area of their design, the contractor can order only 5 tiles.

031 Attachment 0003 The AUMP list (Optional GFM tab) lists the "Laser Warning Receiver AN / VVR-4" as a $44k Estimated AUMP adjustment. Is this line item for a single sensor or a set of sensors?

Drives AUMP costs based off of quantity included. Offerors require clarification on number of sensors.

The Laser Warning Receiver AN/VVR-4 is a set with 4 sensors.

032 Attachment 0003 Attachment 0027

Attachment 0003 (Optional GFM tab) lists the VPS Base Kit (APS Controller) with an AUMP price of $45k.

Attachment 0027 (Optional GFE Adj) list the VPS Base Kit (APS Controller) as $250k. Which price should be used? Where does the cost in A0003 come from?

Offerors require correct price in both A0003 and A0027. Alignment between A0044 and A0027, but A0003 does not align.

Both numbers are correct on the respective attachments.

033 Classified Annex Does the field of regard for azimuth/elevation refer to continuous coverage (sensors required to constantly watch required area) or swept area (sensor could be mounted on turret/gimbal and moved to watch portions of required area)?

Intent of requirement impacts physical integration of sensors (number, placement, etc.)

Vendors may select any approach to sensor coverage, provided that approach meets the requirement to detect the threats described in table 4.16, at no less than the distance and at the elevation and azimuth provided in the same table.

034 RFP Para. L.3.2.3 Section L.3.2.3 Subfactor 3: Lethality states "Primary Weapon (PSPEC-1435, CPSPEC 1.1.1, CPSPEC Table

1.2.1. (Primary Weapon Accuracy and Lethal Area - HEAB, Stationary to Stationary)".

CPSPEC 1.1.1, CPSPEC Table 1.2.1 has a column with inconsistent title / units. The column title is "Range" which is a linear distance. The units is in "(mil)", which is an angular measurement. Requesting a change to the table to make it consistent or requires assistance in understanding how the "Range (mil)" column is to be interpretated.

Inconsistent title / units. The units in the range column of CPSPEC Tables 1.2.1 and

1.2.2 should be in meters. CPSPEC will be corrected in future amendment.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

035 RFP Para. L.3.2.3 Section L.3.2.3 Subfactor 3: Lethality states "Primary Optics (PSPEC-1491, CPSPEC 1.5.2), Commander's Optics (PSPEC-1492, CPSPEC 1.5.2)".

CPSPEC 1.5.2 references 'Golden 3GEN FLIR Input Decks'. Requesting 'Golden' to support the DRI compliance assessment.

Not currently part of the GFI list. The Golden 3GEN FLIR Input decks are included in Attachment 0093.

036 Attachment 0018 The two primary weapon requirements in section L are as follows:

Primary Weapon (PSPEC-1242, CPSPEC 1.1.1, CPSPEC Table 1.1.1. (Primary Weapon Accuracy and Penetration

- Kinetic Energy, Stationary to Stationary)

Primary Weapon (PSPEC-1435, CPSPEC 1.1.1, CPSPEC Table 1.2.1. (Primary Weapon Accuracy and Lethal Area

- HEAB, Stationary to Stationary)

There is only one unclassified requirement referenced in Attachment 18 for the Kinetic Energy round:

PSPEC-1242 - Redacted

CPSPEC-1.1.1 – Redacted

Recommends updating Attachment 18 to align with the section L evaluated requirements (PSPEC-1242 &

PSPEC-1435).

The callouts in attachment 18 are mixing KE and HEAB in row 25, where as row 24 is limited to KE

Attachment 0018 will be corrected to add PSPEC-1435.

037 Attachment 0027 Primary Weapon is a VATEP line Item yet there is not a clear requirement that implies what exactly is being evaluated. The assumption is being made that this relates to PSPEC 1242 and PSPEC 1435. Request clarification as to the PSPEC requirement being evaluated for this VATEP item.

Clarify the requirement associated with this VATEP line item in order for Offeror to correctly account for

VATEP.

Row 11 will be clarified to state both PSPEC 1242 and 1435 as evaluated at L.3.2.3 must be met at the Objective level to receive this binary credit.

038 Attachment 0027 Attachment_0027_VATEP_Workbook.xlsx: Regarding the Technical Adjustment for the Signature Management component, Acoustic Detectability (CSPEC 2.2), how will the assigned weighting value get divided up for the distinct areas being called for in the CPSPEC?

Or in other words for the unit of measure "(T-O)/T", which T & O will be utilized?

Clarification needed to understand if the weighting will also be singularized. Our understanding was that the CPSPEC Rev005 was going to singularize the Acoustic SigMan requirements but this has not been done yet. Trying to figure out how scoring will reflect the areas requested.

The USG does not see an inconsistency between the CPSPEC Acoustic Detectability and Attachment 0027.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

039 RFP Para. C.2.16.1.2 Reference: C.2.16.1.2 High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) - requires delivery of High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) environment test plan and a test report (CDRLs E054 and E055). The vehicle level analyses/tests for the EMP/HEMP environment are also included as part of the Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Verification Plan and Report (CDRLs E059 and E060) as this environment is part of

MIL-STD-464/ATPD-2407.

The Offeror recommends removing the requirement for CDRLs E054 and E055.

There is potential area for redundant work. Removal of these CDRLs would help reduce the overall cost of the program.

No, the USG requires CDRLs E054 and E055.

040 Attachment 0071 Will the USG provide the GFI listed in Attachment 0071 upon request?

Need the GFI documents in order to prepare a meaningful response to the solicitation.

Yes, the USG will provide GFI upon request. Requests must be sent to the OMFV mailbox (usarmy.detroit.peo-gcs.mbx.mcs-omfv-contracting@army.mil) following the below instructions:

1. The subject line of your email shall state (exclusive of the parenthesis): "(Company Name) – Request Copy of GFI Documents".

2. The body of your email should list each GFI document requested, if it is Required GFI or Optional GFI as well as the respective Line #, and Title/Description. Additionally, provide explanation of your governmental purpose for documents.

3. Your email must also include the following information:

A. Company name, address, and corresponding CAGE code.

B. A copy of your DD2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, approved by the Joint Certification Office (JCO).

Please note, GFI will only be release to the listed Data Custodian via DoD Safe.

C. Indicate if you are interested as “Prime” or “Subcontractor 041 Data Markings In order to determine what data markings need to be applied to the proposal documents (Distribution D or E) we need to know if the USG is going to use other companies as part of the source selection / evaluation process.

If other companies / entities will be utilized as part of the source selection / evaluation, we may need to choose a less restrictive Distribution Statement (D vs. E) to facilitate the evaluation access to proposal documents.

See L.7.9 (Non-Government Participation) of the RFP.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

042 Exhibit A Reference: Block 10,11,12, and 13 requires a single Hazard Tracking System (HTS) Status submission 180 days after contract award. However text in Section C Paragraph C.2.15 requires presentation of HTS Status updates quarterly at Environmental, Safety, Occupational Health and Human Systems Integration Working Group (ESOH/HSI WG) meetings.

Clarification Requested: Please clarify the desired number of Hazard Tracking System (HTS) Status CDRL submissions.

Clarification is needed as a definitive number of Hazard Tracking System (HTS) CDRL submissions is needed to understand scope of effort required.

The HTS is only delivered once at 180 days and the contractor will provide updates during the quarterly ESOH/HSI presentation, but not resubmit a formal delivery of the HTS.

043 Attachment 0001 CDRLs B001 - B006 state that reports should be delivered "at frequencies specified in Attachment 0001.

CDRLs B001 (RDT), B005 (Contractor Business Data Report) are not refenced on the Events page of Attachment 0001.

Need to understand when deliverables are due.

Submission schedules for B001 (RDT) and B005 (CBDR) are addressed in Attachment 0001 on the Remarks Page, under 15.b and 15.k, respectively.

044 Attachment 0029 Have there been updates to the Classified PSPEC since the release of the RFP on 1 July 2022?

There has been one change made to the Classified PSPEC that will require a publication of Revision 006 to the Classified PSPEC. This revision will be published with a future Amendment to the RFP. The units within the table are changed from mils to meters.

045 Attachment 0091 Paragraph 3.3.2.9 (Attachment 0091 Digital System Model rev001) requires a certification plan for authoritative data sources. No description or requirements are provided for certifying authoritative data sources.

Please provide/ clarify certification plan description and requirements.

Requirement to certify is unclear. USG has updated Attachment 0091.

046 Attachment 0091 Paragraph 3.3.2.9 (Attachment 0091 Digital System Model rev001) requires a certification plan for authoritative data sources.

Please clarify the level to which data sources must be certified, for example, do we certify the authoritative requirements repository as a whole or do we certify each requirement? The same question for all the other authoritative data repositories.

Requirement to certify is unclear. USG has updated Attachment 0091.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

047 Section C Section J Attachment 0097

CDRL E002

Is the contractors data submission for VV&A assessments limited/defined by the MS&A deliverables specified in paragraph C.2.2.1? Request clarification.

VV&A scope for contractor MS&A models is unclear.

USG has updated Attachment 0097.

048 C.2.8.1.1 What is the estimated timeline for the USG to implement the Party Bus, and then what is the timeline for transitioning to the government hosted Big Bang?

Information required for planning Party Bus is planned to be ready for use by contractors at contract award. The transition to Big Bang is planned to occur by PDR.

049 CDRL E019 The last sentence states "Update and complete tab VA Method 1 (DAG) or VA Method 1 (DAG) 30 days after to receiving USG Cyber test event results."

It seems that the second mention of VA Method 1 (DAG) provided after the "or" is in error. What is the correct reference?

CDRL E019 will be revised in an upcoming amendment as follows:

From: "...VA Method 1 (DAG) or VA Method 1 (DAG) 30 days after..."

To: "...VA Method 1 (DAG) or VA Method 2 (DAG) 30 days after..."

050 CDRL P004 This provides a timeline for AT Level 1 training (within 45 days after the contract award date), AT Level 1 training for new employees (within 30 days of new employees commencing performance) and initial reporting (60 calendar days after contract award). This does not provide instructions regarding when to provide information pertaining to and new employees.

Need to understand deliverable requirements.

CDRL P004 Block 16 will be revised in an upcoming amendment as follows:

From: "AT Level 1 training shall be accomplished 45 days after the contract award date and within 30 calendar days of new employees commencing performance with the results reported to the COR 60 calendar days after contract award.

To: "AT Level 1 training shall be accomplished 45 days after the contract award date and within 30 calendar days of new employees commencing performance with the results reported to the COR 15 calendar days after completion of training."

051 PSPEC Have there been updates to Attachment 0008 since the release of the RFP on 1 July 2022?

CUI Q&A is available upon request.

052 CDRL L025

CDRL L030

Please clarify the delivery dates for CDRLs L025 and L030?

CDRLs L025 and L030 delivery dates have been updated in Amendment 1.

053 OMFV-PSPEC-1124 What is the information interchange format?

The requirement is broad and request clarification.

Request information interchange format from all sources so we can substantiate against it.

The OMFV will send and receive target information utilizing mandatory GFE. Data formats are contained in the ICDs, as part of Attachment 0071.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

054 Attachment 0044 Please add the XM-19+ (steel box) and regular M-19 (steel box) reactive armor tiles to the list of optional GFM in additional to the XM-19E1 (composite box)

The validated side recipe was tested by Aberdeen Proving Grounds with the M19 tile; a change in tile will invalidate the results especially if the weight of the tile is reduced by the use of a composite box;

alternately, the XM-19+ is an improved M-19 tile with all the benefits of the M-44 tile with improve performance and corrosion protection.

USG will not add XM-19+ and M-19 reactive armor tiles to the list of optional GFM.

055 N/A Is there a deadline for asking questions? Need to know if there is a cut off date for questions.

There is no deadline. Questions submitted closer to proposal due date may not receive a response before proposals are due.

056 L.1.9-L.1.9.4 There are no instruction regarding the number of copies desired for each volume and/or hard drive.

Need to understand the number of copies of each proposal volume (and substantiation) to submit.

The contractor shall provide three Copies for each volume.

Paragraph L.1.9.3 (DVDs) will be revised as follows in an upcoming Amendment to the RFP:

From: “Each volume listed above shall be submitted on a separate set of DVDs utilizing Microsoft (MS) Word, MS Excel, MS PowerPoint, MS Project, MS Access, or PDF compatible formats; with the exception of CAD (must be in PTC CREO v7) or other models, which the Offeror may submit on hard drives with a Firewire or eSATA interface. All MS files shall...”

To: “Each volume listed below in L.2 shall be submitted on a separate set of DVDs utilizing Microsoft (MS) Word, MS Excel, MS PowerPoint, MS Project, MS Access, or PDF compatible formats; with the exception of CAD (must be in PTC CREO v7) or other models, which the Offeror may submit on hard drives with a Firewire or eSATA interface. Submit three copies of each volume. All MS files shall...”

057 Attachment 0091 Phase 2 SOW required the Software Architecture to be UML 2.1/2.5 (CDRLs A021 SAD and A022 SAM), the Attachment 0091 Table 2 lists the CDRL E084 as "Partial SysML Model CDRLs". Since CDRL A021/A022 and CDRL E084 are the same content, is it the USG's intention to require the software architecture to transition from UML to SysML? If not, a clarification would be appreciated.

UML 2.x is not specifically called out in CDRL E041.

USG has updated Attachment 0091 in Amendment 0001.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

058 Attachment 0091

CDRL E011

Attachment 0091 Lists “Software Product Package” as CDRL E011 to be delivered as a full SysML CDRL. The actual CDRL E011 is titled “Contractor Asserted Technical Data Package (TDP)”. The contractor requests clarification of this conflict.

Clarification requested USG has updated Attachment 0091 in Amendment 0001.

059 C.5.2.4 1. What does the BH&T APS testing entail and

2. how does it differ from the G7-ATC testing?

Assuming it is performance testing but unclear if all section 4 requirements apply for this test series or not.

BH&T APS testing will consist of ERA tiles and entail testing against live fire threats. The APS testing on G7-ATC will consist of inert tiles and inert rounds.

060 Attachment 0092 Please provide Viewpoint description identifying the specific information and scope required for each of the 34 requested views.

The names of the views, on their own, are not adequate to determine the scope of effort or content required for the deliverable.

All the views requested in this document shall contain all the power, signal and data interfaces among the Configuration items and components belonging to the requested views.

061 C.2.1 Reference: C.2.1 OMFV System Architecture Model

Clarification Requested: Please clarify or provide an example of what is meant by "lowest level component" in contractor's Bill of Material. Is a component a configuration item, or something lower, like Class IX spare parts, or potentially down to a nut or screw? In Section C.2.7, it states "The term “component level” means a configuration item (e.g. severable modules of a fire control system), which encapsulates a subset of the system's functionality/data, with a defined interface."

Ensures better understanding and meeting expectations of the lowest level of bi-directional traceability required in the contractor's Bill of Material. The contractor assumes the lowest level component means the lowest level configuration item unless otherwise clarified.

The USG will update C.2.1 in Amendment 0002:

From: “…physical architecture elements to the lowest level component in the Contractor's Bill of Materials (BOM).

To: “…physical architecture elements to the lowest replaceable or repairable assembly, subassembly, and repair part, as determined in the LORA, in the Contractor's Bill of Materials (BOM)”

062 L.3.2.4 L.3.2.4 Subfactor 4: Two Soldier Crew (PSPEC-238) requires that "The Offeror shall identify, and provide performance values for the specific PSPEC capabilities proposed to implement 2 Soldier Crew operation that meet the following conditions: Capabilities proposed above Threshold up to Objective PSPEC Priority 1 and Priority 2 requirements; or PSPEC Priority 3 threshold or above requirements."

For these requirements, is the Offeror required to provide substantiating data as proof of the performance values?

Yes. L.3.1 states in part "For all Subfactors, the Offeror shall provide data to substantiate the credibility of its proposed level of performance for all requirements specified in L.3.2."

This applies to any specific PSPEC capabilities proposed to implement the Two Soldier Crew.

063 Section L and M Factor 2 - Persistent Modernization has two sample tasks. It is not clear whether these are two separate subfactors or just parts of the overall factor.

Sections L & M have been revised in Amendment 0002 to clarify that the two Sample Tasks are two separate subfactors within the Persistent Modernization Factor.

Attachment #, or RFP Section Reference Contractor Comment/Question Contractor Rationale Government Response

064 Would the government consider allowing performance-based payments in lieu of customary progress payments? Or conversely, would the government create multiple CLINs (e.g., PDR, CDR, prototype deliveries, etc.) so the prime contractor does not have to carry the costs for the entire period of performance.

The USG will consider Performance Based Payments after contract award subject to meeting the criteria under FAR

32.10 Performance-Based Payments.

065 C.2.8.1.1 How will the USG keep Contractor data segregated from competitor data and ensure that? Will the USG provide reports of the maintenance of data segregation?

Clarification required. The Platform 1 environment has built in security measures to ensure that data from different vendors will be completely segregated. The USG does not intend to provide routine reports on the maintenance of data segregation.

066 This Q&A is CUI and available upon request.

067 This Q&A is CUI and available upon request.

068 OMFV-PSPEC-1173

OMFV-PSPEC-1174

OMFV-PSPEC-1268

OMFV-PSPEC-1269

OMFV-PSPEC-1272

OMFV-PSPEC-1274

OMFV-PSPEC-1275

OMFV-PSPEC-1276

OMFV-PSPEC-1278

OMFV-PSPEC-1279

OMFV-PSPEC-1282

OMFV-PSPEC-1284

OMFV-PSPEC-1438

Please confirm that Offerors are not required to propose to meet DA requirements that only have an (O) performance level.

M.4.1.2 states that proposals will be rejected for not proposing at least the threshold level of performance for mandatory (DA, P1, and P2) requirements. It is unclear if Offerors are required to propose to meet (O) performance on these mandatory requirements if there is no threshold performance level in the requirement

M.4.1.2 addresses threshold performance. DA requirements without thresholds need not be met.