Questions_and_Answers_-_Attachment_12.docx
DOCX document 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Prolonged Field Care (PFC) Training System Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W81XWH-18-R-0016
- Issued by
- Department of the Army Medical Command
About this file
Questions and Answers Attachment
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| W81XWH-18-R-0016-0002.pdf | ||
| Conformed_W81XWH-18-R-0016-0002.pdf | ||
| Conformed_W81XWH-18-R-0016-0001.pdf | ||
| W81XWH-18-R-0016-0001.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_07.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_06.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_02.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_04.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_10.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_05.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_08.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_11.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_09.pdf | ||
| W81XWH-18-R-0016.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_01.pdf | ||
| CONTRACT_DATA_REQUIREMENTS_LIST_03.pdf |
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions and Answers Submitted by 2:00 PM Eastern Time (ET) on 27 December 2017
1. Pages 9 and 11 of the solicitation reference two previous projects, the DTME-PRP and the AMM, with regards to open source / open architecture. Is it your intention that this project would build from the results of these projects, or would the award winner(s) begin fresh in the development of this architecture?
Answer: This project is not required to build directly off of past efforts under DTME-PRP or AMM, rather the current project should use these past works as examples or guidance on the open source/ open architecture standards requested. While the current project is not required to build off of these current efforts, the ability to interoperate with the results of these other projects will be evaluated positively.
2. On page 9, second paragraph, it is stated that the new system “should be interoperable with any and all training systems, learning management systems, assessment systems, and tracking systems (including but not limited to audio/visual solutions)”. Could you better define this interoperability? Is it that the various systems should be able to be operated independently but without interference, or do they need to be operated together from a central point?
Answer: Interoperable is in reference to the standards and other outlets that this trainer is used in conjunction with. The idea of having this tool work and communicate with other systems is vital to allowing for use across all the different branches and networks.
3. On page 9, second paragraph, it is stated that “The tracking, assessment, and reviewing design and components need to incorporate the concept of ‘prolongation’ in a condensed way, but able to recognize when events, or lack of events, were performed that would influence the outcome of the Wounded either in a positive, neutral, or negative clinical and operational impact”. Could you better define what is meant by ‘prolongation’ in a condensed way?
Answer: The phrase 'prolongation in a condensed way' refers to the incorporation of prolonged field care concepts (care that extends beyond initial trauma care or beyond doctrinal evacuation timelines) to simulation training in a way that can be accomplished in condensed or abbreviated training or scenario schedule. For example, the training platform could train the skills needed for a 72hr prolonged care scenario with a scenario that only requires 2 hrs of training.
4. Is it the government’s intent that this project will lead to open standards that would allow any company to manufacture such systems, or that the open standards would apply to how additional functionality could be added to such systems by third parties?
Answer: The focus on open source connections and interoperability is the first priority, but open standards to allow 3rd parties to manufacture or produce the system would add additional benefit.
| PAGE NUMBER |
| SECTION NUMBER |
| COMMENT |
| EVALUATION (Completed by the Government) |
| 9, 12 and13 |
| 1.1, 2.1.1.1.2.4 and 2.1.1.1.2.5.4 |
| The RFP states, “ Interoperability: Ability of a system or a product to work with other systems or products without special effort on the part of the customer. Interoperability is made possible by the implementation of standards … For interoperability, the JPC-1 medical simulation and training portfolio has been stressing open source / open architecture within many of their announcements / solicitations. The Offeror should review and be aware of past interoperable research efforts such as the Developer Tools for Medical Education Public Physiology Research Platform (DTME-PRP) and the Advanced Modular Manikin (AMM) as examples of the desired end states in interoperability.” As the RFP correctly states, interoperability requires standards, and to the best of our knowledge, neither of these projects has set specific interoperability standards yet. Will the Government create a set of definitive standards/requirements or will they be part of the deliverables from this contract? This also relates to the requirements in sections 2.1.1.1.2.4 and 2.1.1.1.2.5.4 . |
| The government will not set specific standards/requirements for interoperability. These references are directed to communicate good engineering practices/guidelines when developing/designing interfaces. |
| 11 and 12 |
| 1.2, 2.1.1 and 2.1.1.1.1 |
| In 1.2 the RFP states, “The research and development period of performance is two (2) years, which includes the development, pilot test, and evaluation of a prototype model that demonstrates its functional capability.” However, in 2.1.1 and 2.1.1.1.1 the RFP refers to two prototypes. Can you please clarify? |
| In section 1.2, remeove "a" and change to read "prototypes" |
| 12 and 25 |
| 2.1.1.1.1 and F.2.0 |
| In 2.1.1.1.1 the RFP states, “… delivered no later than |
(NLT) ninety (90) days after the end of the award.” F.2.0 says, “Draft – 45 days after PoP”. The block to specify final delivery is blank. Please clarify the Government’s expectations as to when the Prototypes are to be delivered.
Change to read "Final – 90 days after PoP" in blank box.
| 13 |
| 2.1.1.1.2.5.3 |
| In 2.1.1.1.2.5.3 the RFP states, “… and interoperable with existing training systems.” Will the Government specify which existing training systems? |
| and interoperable with existing training systems. Recommended change to and plan/concept of interoperabilty. |
| 82 |
| 5.0.1 |
| The spreadsheet example appears to exclude Fringe as an Indirect Cost. Is that the intent? |
| Per the solicitation "...below is an example of a table Offerors can use…". Offerors may utilize different formats, rates, etc. |
| 83 |
| 5.0.1 |
| Can the contractor list a 2% escalation in Direct Labor rates for year 2? The spreadsheet example appears to exclude Fringe as an Indirect Cost. Is that the intent? |
| Per the solicitation "...below is an example of a table Offerors can use…". Offerors may utilize different formats, rates, etc. |
| 24 and 26 |
| F.2.0 |
| On Page 24, under Item “Deliverable 1”, the delivery date for reports is listed as the 15th day of the month; however on the bottom of page 26 the RFP states, “b. Monthly Technical Progress Reports shall be prepared by the seventh day following the month being reported, and shall be received within 10 days of the report month.” Please clarify as to which date is correct. |
| The correct answer is on page 26 so the first part should be the 17th day of month. |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Does the Government intend on making this a socio-economic set-aside e.g., Small Business, Women-Owned Small Business, etc.? |
| No |
| 18 |
| 2.4.9 |
| 2.2.4.8 is followed by 2.4.9 (and 2.4.9.1, 2.4.9.2). Is this intentional or an error? |
| That is a writing error, it should be 2.2.4.9 |
End Questions and Answers
File details come from the government source that posted it.