2. CARTS IDIQ QA.doc

CARTS IDIQ Questions and Answers

File: CARTS IDIQ Q&A V5Conv

1.

Ref: Spec General

Q: Is there an intention to issue a new revision of the FASIT specifications for this solicitation? If yes, when would that be available to contractors?

A: Yes, with the solicitation.

2.

Ref: Spec General

Q: During the ITSC solicitation there were a large number of technical questions submitted (ref: the FASIT ICDs and Specification) to which the government responses were basically “TBD”. We would prefer not to “bog down the process” of this solicitation; and so are not sure if this is the best time to resubmit those questions? Or would PEO STRI advise us to prepare our proposal with whatever assumptions are required (and the appropriate caveats) expecting that these questions/issues would be resolved after award?

A: Yes, make and delineate assumptions in the proposal. Questions/issues will be resolved prior to Delivery Order (DO) release.

3.

Ref: Spec 3.2.1

Q: Will the Government allow different types of 802.XX systems depending on the type of range and distance that the signal must be communicated?

A: Initially, yes. 802.16e is the objective capability.

4.

Ref: Spec 3.2.2.2

Q: Please provide clarification of the purpose and operation of the reporting feature on the portable maintenance actuator?

A: The purpose is to report the status of the Presentation Device.

5.

Ref: Spec 3.2.15

Q: Can PEO STRI provide additional information regarding Electrical Power Storage, specifically the prohibition behind use of UPS as a power source?

A: Yes; the prohibition is relevant to maintenance cost.

6.

Ref: Spec 3.2.15.3

Q: Can PEO STRI clarify what items would be considered “special tools” for battery replacement)?

A: “Special Tools” are anything non-standard.

7.

Ref: Spec 3.2.23

Q: Paragraph 3.2.23 states that: “angle of fire at the target position may range from +15 degrees to -15 degrees incident to the top of the berm.” Does this mean that incident projectiles encompass ±15° of azimuthal (sic) angle normal to the face of the target?

A: There is not a specified requirement on azimuth variation.

8.

Ref: Spec 3.3.2.4

Q: Can PEO STRI please provide additional information regarding the removable “Track Barrier”?

A: The Government team needs greater detail in the question to understand the issue/concern.

9.

Ref: Spec 3.3.2.7

Q: Can PEO STRI provide further insight into the MIT max speed requirement of 10mph? Anecdotal evidence would place max speed of a running soldier considerably lower than 10mph.

A: Factually, people can run a 4 minute mile, or 15 mph average. With a track length of 15-40m, 10 mph is not an unreasonable requirement.

10.

Ref: Spec 3.3.2.8

Q: Can PEO STRI provide clarification regarding the MAT stopping distance; it is unclear if the max distance allowed to reach a complete stop is 100m or 20m?

A: Maximum stopping distance is 20m.

11.

Ref: Spec 3.5.1

Q: Please clarify the difference between the Muzzle Flash and the Illumination Device

A: Muzzle Flash is a subset of Illumination Devices. Muzzle Flash will be controlled in accordance with (IAW) the PD ICD, the Illumination Device will be controlled IAW the RIM ICD.

12.

Ref: Spec 3.5.3

Q: It is suggested that PEO STRI review the Audio Devices Specification. Revision could substantially reduce acquisition cost, while maintaining the vast majority of the required functionality.

A: Duly noted.

13.

Ref: Spec 3.6

Q: Because a stationary ESD is always connected to a Presentation Device (which provides DC power) and a portable ESD is permitted to use DC power, is it acceptable to have only a DC power input on the ESD? This provides a significant cost savings.

A: An ESD may be used autonomously, e.g. in front of a window on a façade. This requirement does not prohibit an external AC/DC converter.

14.

Ref: Spec 3.6

Q: Usually a minimum projectile velocity is specified for detection (normally 1.2 Mach). What is the minimum detection velocity for the ESD?

A: Supersonic and subsonic.

15.

Ref: Spec 3.6.3

Q: Paragraph 3.6.3 references “indirect fire ESD only” and “anti-tank guided missiles.” What is an “indirect fire ESD”? What are its parameter specifications (i.e. incident angle and velocity requirements)? Is an acoustic (or other) non-contact hit sensor ESD expected to detect and classify subsonic projectiles?

A: The spec is allowing for the creation of a separate ESD for rounds larger than 120mm. Incident angle is expected to be 5° to 85°. ESD, regardless of technology, is expected to classify both supersonic and subsonic rounds.

16.

Ref: Spec 3.6.3

Q: What is the smallest round that needs to be detected on an armor target? In that it is difficult to detect small rounds at large missed distances; is the missed distance envelope smaller in the armor target for the smaller rounds?

A: Initial response is .50 cal. The Government will evaluate and validate this requirement.

17.

Ref: Spec 3.6.4

Q: Paragraph 3.6.4 specifies 10mm for infantry targets and 120mm accuracy for armor targets. The requirements matrix paragraph 4.6.4 specifies 10cm and 50cm. What are the required accuracies?

A: Paragraph 3.6.4 is correct. Paragraph 4.6.4 will be revised to match.

18.

Ref: SOW 2.3

Q: We need you (sic) assistance in obtaining documents called out in the SOW. We used this link (http://www.nssn.org/search.html <blockedhttp://www.nssn.org/search.html>) and could not locate the following documents

ICD.FASIT.SYS

ICD.FASIT.AUDIO

ICD.FASIT.ESD

ICD.FASIT.PYRO

ICD.FASIT.RIM

ICD.FASIT.RP

A: The SOW has been revised to reflect the following status of ICDs:

Representation Device – Deleted

Audio – Pending release

ESD – Pending release

RIM – Pending Release

PRF-PT-00474, Perf Spec for FASIT Silhouettes – Pending Release

Note: Documents are not a requirement for proposal submittal.

19.

Ref: SOW 2.3

Q: Other Government Documents…Please provide all referenced documents. Only a few are posted on the LT2 Portal. When does the Government expect to have all ICDs and referenced documents posted?

A: See item 18 20.

Ref: SOW 2.3/ICDs

Q: Please provide the FASIT ESD ICD or a draft

A: See item 18

21.

Ref: SOW 2.3/2.4

Q: Will there be a specification for CARTS besides the FASIT Performance Specification? Rationale. Other Government Documents, Drawings, and Publications were not available at the cited URL.

A: No, however, non-FASIT devices may be procured as specified in Delivery Orders.

22.

Ref: SOW 2.3/2.4

Q: Unable to locate referenced documents at the referenced locations. Please provide the following:

ICD.FASIT.AUDIO

ICD.FASIT.ESD

ICD.FASIT.RIM

ICD.FASIT.RD

LT2-MGMT-04-0001

PRF-PT-00474

A: See item 18

23.

Ref: SOW 3.1.3

Q: Does the reference to “aerial engagements” refer to supersonic projectiles only; if so, could the parameters (projectile incident elevation and azimuth angles) of the engagement be described? Please specify the size and shape of the aerial targets.

A: No, aerial engagements are not limited to supersonic only. Parameters are to be determined. Aerial targets will be realistic.

24.

Ref: SOW 3.1.3

Q: Does “Live Fire” refer to supersonic projectiles only?

A: No.

25.

Ref: SOW 3.1.3

Q: What are the parameter envelopes for Force-on-Target engagements (projectile incident elevation and azimuth angles) and are they supersonic projectiles only?

A: Azimuth and elevation are dependent on the engagement. Projectiles may be supersonic or subsonic.

26.

Ref: SOW 3.1.3

Q: Is it a requirement that the ESD (non-contact hit sensor) score subsonic “non-lethal training events”?

A: Yes, as an objective capability.

27.

Ref: SOW 3.1.3

Q: What “pre-programmed limits” are required?

A: Successful/kill engagement results.

28.

Ref: SOW 3.1.3/ Spec 3.6

Q: Can PEO STRI please provide additional information (specification/requirements) regarding the Engagement Scoring Devices? Item 3.6 of the Performance Specification for FASIT version 1.0 defines the scoring device for a stationary type target/silhouette but not for “area type targets”? In addition, can PEO STRI provide additional information regarding the requirement to “determine the type of round” used in the engagement?

A: While further determination will be required, area type targets may be addressed via an array of ESD devices, or depending on the lane of attack, via a larger ESD platform rotated 90 degrees (to be perpendicular to the area of interest). Note the intent of the specification is not to restrict the ESD to performance for just 2D type target silhouettes. The ESD devices are envisioned to support 3D targets and areas defined by an absence of a target (i.e., window/door).

The objective state of the ESD will allow the device to classify the type of round penetrating the plane being monitored in accordance to the requirements of 3.6.3.

29.

Ref: SOW 3.1.4

Q: Is the differentiation of “mortal and non-mortal hit detection” to be accomplished with an ESD or a Precision Engagement Target, or both?

A: Both. By definition, an ESD device should be capable of providing hit location information whereas to determine mortal/non-mortal shot placement. The Precision Engagement Targets are expected to perform this function intrinsic to the target, the ESD extrinsic to the target.

30.

Ref: SOW 3.1.4

Q: Can PEO STRI please provide additional information regarding the Precision Engagement Targets?

A: A precision engagement target is a standard target which has the ability to classify hits into predefined zones (i.e., mortal and non-mortal zones) vice only registering hits on the silhouettes, to allow various pre-definable behaviors (i.e., 3 non-mortal hits to kill a target or one mortal hit).

A precision engagement target does not require the identification of a missed engagement (like an ESD device would).

31.

Ref: SOW 3.1.6.1, 3.1.6.2

Q: Can PEO STRI provide further information regarding the Handheld Controller and Handheld Target Terminal? Specifically how does PEO STRI envision these devices being used (for what purposes)? How will they interact with hardware actuators, and will these devices be expected to run a version of the UTC?

A: Handheld Controllers will communicate to the TRACR control system; Handheld Terminals will host TRACR for the range. See the response in item 41 also.

32.

Ref: SOW 3.1.6.2

Q: Handheld Target Terminal: Please further define “situational awareness of the range.”

A: Graphic interactive representation of the range to include all target positions and target status, and summary score sheets/engagement results.

33.

Ref: SOW 3.2.2.2.5, 3.2.2.2.6, 3.2.2.3

Q: Is there a training site at which the Government will offer potential bidders the opportunity to see a range in operation, one which includes all of the subcomponents (such as AAR system, the RDE, and the SDT) as addressed in referenced SOW paragraphs? Rationale. A site visit might ensure our better understanding of the challenges presented.

A: No, the Government does not anticipate arranging a site visit associated with the CARTS procurement. At the DO level, a site visit may be arranged if necessary to support the DO bid process.

34.

Ref: SOW 3.5.1 – 3.8.4

Q: Overall, while the SOW is comprehensive, it does not appear to be parsed to map to the individual Lots. Is it reasonable to assume that a Lot I vendor can be responsible for all of the tasks described in 3.5.1 – 3.8.4? Perhaps the Government can designate certain paragraphs for certain lots. Rationale. This would clarify areas where a vendor who might only bid a single lot needs to concentrate.

A: LOTs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are mapped to sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, respectively. The remaining paragraphs apply to all LOTs.

35.

Ref: SOW 3.5.1.2

Q: There is no mention in the SOW about Lot II vendor(s) working with the contractor(s) that will be awarded Lot I, Lot III or Lot IV contracts, unless they are to be part of the LT2 IPTs. This would be necessary if the range devices were to be used on any effort developed under Lot II. Is it the Government’s intent to expect the Lot II contractor to negotiate Associate Contractor Agreements with Lot(s) I, III & IV awardees independent of the Government? If so, suggest the Government modify the language in Paragraph 3.5.1.2. to remove the words “as needed” and make this a hard requirement. Rationale. Who is to determine “as needed”? Require it upfront, this will solve numerous interface control issues.

A: “As needed” depends on Delivery Order requirements. The goal is to not have every LOT II awardee creating ACAs with every LOT I, III, and IV awardee that may never be utilized.

36.

Ref: SOW 3.5.2.1

Q: What is meant by “…with meetings synergized for maximum efficiency”? Rationale. Clarification.

A: There may be 2 or more ranges at a single installation. Hold 1 meeting, vice multiple, when applicable.

37.

Ref: SOW 3.6

Q: No mention of environmental impact with respect to conceptual designs. Also, no mention of producibility, producibility reviews or producibility planning. Rationale. It appears that it is the intention of the Government to have quantity buys included in Lot I & possibly other Lot(s).

A: The Government team needs more clarification to understand the question. Producibility engineering is covered in paragraph 3.6.16, and will be further delineated in individual Delivery Orders.

38.

Ref: SOW 3.6.6.3

Q: Lightning Protection: Please specify whether this section is applicable to all LOTs, or is it specific to LOT II as part of the range infrastructure design?

A: It may be applicable to all LOTs, as defined in the Delivery Order against that LOT.

39.

Ref: SOW 3.6.6.4

Q: Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3): This section implies that the contractor is responsible for developing its own E3 compliance plan per range environment. However, section 4.11 of PRF-PT-00468_FASIT provides for testing to the requirements of MIL-STD-461E, Ground Army, CS116, RE102, and RS103. Please clarify which approach the contractors are expected to follow.

A: Yes, they will develop their own E3 compliance plan per individual DO.

40.

Ref: SOW 3.7.1 – 3.7.3

Q: Referenced paragraphs address the requirement to interface with & “report to the CPM organization”. Is there any documentation, such as an organizational plan or SOP that discusses the CPM? If this is another contractor, will they also have and ACA requirement in their contract? Rationale. The LT2-MGMT-04-0001 document was not available at the URL designated in the SOW.

A: The CPM organization for the time being is the APM LT2 office within PM TRADE. Once the CPM effort is awarded, appropriate synchronization and collaboration with APM LT2 and the CPM contractor will have to be established, an ACA is one mechanism. Requirements will be delineated in each CARTS awarded Delivery Order.

41.

Ref: SOW General

Q: Can PEO STRI provide further information regarding the intentions for the range control system; will PEO STRI implement a Universal Target Controller (UTC)? Will the UTC be a GFE item (i.e. TRACR)? Will contractors be expected to provide control room/center hardware and the government will provide software?

A: The Government’s intent is to utilize the Government Off the Shelf (GOTS) software solution called TRACR to be the single control system software for all small arms ranges. Contained within TRACR is a Live Training Transformation (LT2) component called the Universal Target Controller (UTC); the UTC implements the TCP/IP FASIT protocols.

TRACR will be GFE. Individual delivery orders will specify the requirements for a contractor; but it is envisioned that the contractor will supply the control hardware to host the TRACR software. The Government will be posting via the LT2 Portal, further details, instructions, and minimum requirements for the TRACR control system. Note: the contractor may also be required to supply, field, and integrate the network communication devices on the GFE range hardware.

42.

Ref: Solicitation

Q: How many contracts are projected to be awarded for Lot II? Rational. The Pre-solicitation announcement addressed the plan to award Lots I, III & IV at the Lot level. No information provided for Lot II.

A: Up to 9 awards for Full and Open and up to 9 awards for Small Business.

43.

Q: When are you projecting overall contract award? If awarding lots separately, when for Lot II? Rationale. The Government might consider having the Lot II prime(s) awarded first to assist in Task Order prioritization.

A: All contract awards are projected for Sept 2009.

44.

Q: When is the first range effort expected to be awarded? Rationale. Might be good to allow time for ACAs to be in place before placing first range task order.

A: Any award is dependent on funding. No projected date yet.

45.

Q: Will a Lot II vendor have an Organizational Conflict of Interest against bidding Lot I? Rationale. The Government might not get a specific vendor solution were the Lot II vendor(s) precluded from bidding the solution set in Lot I.

A: No.

46.

Q: Is it possible to get some indication of what the “instructions to bidders” might contain? The methods that PEO STRI elects to use for proposal consideration effect how much and what materials a bidder can submit and also the effort required to prepare and submit an effective proposal.

A: RFP will be released in May. See Section L for instructions.

47.

Q: Could PEO STRI provide further guidance regarding the timetable for release of the solicitation, and the expected period allowed for the submission? Is there an intention to host an industry day regarding the solicitation?

A: RFP to be released in May 09. Technical volumes are due 2 weeks after release, Past Performance and Cost are due 4 weeks after release. No industry day is anticipated.

48.

Q: Could PEO STRI provide further guidance as to what items will be included in the BPA, and if that “Lot” will be an “open solicitation” or restricted to small business or only certain suppliers?

A: The BPA will be limited to small business only. Items to include:

2D/3D target silhouettes

Paper Silhouettes

Mechanical target systems

Poppers

Iron maidens

Bullet traps

Bayonet dummies

Facades

Special Effects Small Arms Marking System

49.

Q: Could PEO STRI provide guidance as to whether consideration has been given to the possibility of a contractor bidding both as prime and a member of a team for any of the 4 lots that the solicitation will contain? Would that be encouraged or discouraged?

A: A contractor can do both.