QAs_to_Draft_RFP_EST_II_15_Feb_13.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK13R0007
View the file
Other files
Show all 20
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
QAs-EST II-15Feb13
| No. | Reference | Question | Response |
| 1 | PWBS | PWBS Attachment 3 - PWBS file name is incorrectly named "PWS" | Typographical Error has been corrected |
| 2 | Multiple | RFP CLIN 0042 Authoring Capability lists a quantity of 20, which suggests that the authoring capability be provided as a distinct stand-alone item that is not an organic part of an EST II system. SRD paragraph 3.2.3, second paragraph, suggests that the EST II have authoring capabilities. Does the Government intend to procure stand-alone authoring stations (maximum of 20) or EST II systems with imbedded authoring capabilities (maximum of 20)? | Scenario modification is addressed in SRD 3.1.2.f and shall be on every system. The CLIN will be edited to reflect a purchase of the Authoring Configuration IAW SRD 3.5.3 and not a standalone capability. |
| 3 | Multiple | SRD 6.1.14, 3.1.3.2, 3.1.3.3, 3.1.3.5, RFP Att5 - GFE Regarding the details of the legacy and new weapons, please see attached chart that highlights some inconsistencies and issues within the RFP and its attachments. | All charts and weapons lists are updated, clarification was provided for outliers. |
| 4 | Multiple | The base contract and Delivery Order 001 both reference a CLIN 0001, yet both are different. The table in Draft RFP Section F (Deliveries or Performance) does not specify a delivery time for CLIN 0001. This would lead the reader to associate CLIN 0001 as defined as the tech refresh of a 5-Lane EST with Light Weapons to be associated with the first delivery order. However, the CLIN 0001 specified with DO 001 is clearly not the same as identified in Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices). | The IDIQ Section F Delivery Chart was modified to include CLIN 0001 and the delivery will period will be specified in DO 0001. |
| 5 | Draft RFP | Does the Army have something in mind or should we propose a "refresh" protocol to allow the weapon to operate properly with new EST II systems? Should reliability / maintainability improvements be considered for the refresh process? | It is up to each offeror to propose a technical approach that will allow the weapons to operate with the new as well as the tech refreshed system. |
| 6 | Draft RFP | Draft RFP PWS L.3.1 The 100 page limit for the Technical volume will present a significant challenge for offerors to clearly and convincingly demonstrate a thorough understanding of all requirements and associated risks for EST II, in addition to providing a full explanation of our solutions for each requirement. Will the government consider a 150 page limit for the technical section, and/or the addition of a Management volume? | The technical page limit will be increased to 125. The Evaluation factors and subfactors are as stated in the RFP. Each offeror is to provide the information requested in Section L, and nothing more. |
| 7 | Draft RFP | If a legacy weapon requires repair prior to refresh, will this effort be a part of the refresh or will it be accomplished and costed as a separate action? | PEO STRI, under the Warfighter Focus Contract, will maintain the EST systems and weapons until they are scheduled for tech refresh. |
| 8 | Draft RFP | Is it permissible to propose additional CLINs to align proposed pricing with bidder solution? | No, the Government will not accept additional CLINs, nor an alternate proposal. |
| 9 | Draft RFP | RFP 5152.217-5005 Liability for Government Property Undergoing Services, Repairs or Modifications (PEO-STRI) (SEP 2006) Typically the Government self-insures GFE through the standard Government Property clauses included within this solicitation (52.245-1 Government Property) to eliminate the need for additional contractor insurance premium costs being passed to the Government. Removing clause 5152.217-5005 would help provide the best overall value and lowest total cost to the Government. Would the Government consider removing clause 5152.217-5005 Liability For Government Property Undergoing Services, Repairs Or Modifications (PEO-STRI) (SEP 2006)? | The Government will self insure. Therefore, the clause is deleted. |
| 10 | Draft RFP | RFP 5152.227-5006 Intellectual Property Rights (PEO-STRI) (DEC 2010). The Government seeks rights in technical data and computer software that permits the Government to fully support, maintain, and modify the EST software and technical data throughout the program life cycle. Specifically, the Government intends to have training programs and devices operated, maintained, and supported throughout its life cycle by competitively-awarded contracts, at least in part. Please clearly define in the RFP the Government’s requirements to operate, support, maintain, and modify the EST II’s training programs and devices so that minimum IP requirements can be determined. | The requirement is for open architecture as a perfomance constraint. An open architecture refers to the interfaces to components of the system being produced to include all configurations (legacy and new development). These must be sufficiently well defined in the documentation produced that producing compatible components allows for competition and ease of additional capabilities in future development. The open architecture of the system as a whole must be based on a model of the potential for evolution and innovation that would make producing new system components (systems, weapons, scenarios, as examples) competitive to independent offerors. |
| 11 | Draft RFP | RFP 5152.227-5006 Intellectual Property Rights (PEO-STRI) (December 2010) – How do Intellectual Property Rights factor into the overall valuation of the proposal? | The requirement is for open architecture as a perfomance constraint. |
| 12 | Draft RFP | RFP 5152.227-5006 Intellectual Property Rights (PEO-STRI) (December 2010) – How is the price provided by the Contractor for privately-funded Intellectual Property factored into the overall proposal evaluation? | Price is being evaluated as set forth in Section M of the RFP. |
| 13 | Draft RFP | RFP 5152.227-5006 Intellectual Property Rights (PEO-STRI) (December 2010) – If the supplier has proprietary IP that was developed at private expense, can the supplier provide solutions (to support lifecycle maintenance and support for competitively awarded contracts) that provides limited IP exposure to the supplier in the competitive stage with full IP being released to the awardee under a license agreement. | The requirement is for open architecture as a perfomance constraint. An open architecture refers to the interfaces to components of the system being produced to include all configurations (legacy and new development). These must be sufficiently well defined in the documentation produced that producing compatible components allows for competition and ease of additional capabilities in future development. The open architecture of the system as a whole must be based on a model of the potential for evolution and innovation that would make producing new system components (systems, weapons, scenarios, as examples) competitive to independent offerors. This would be difficult to achieve if "full IP was only being released to the AWARDEE under a license agreement". |
| 14 | Draft RFP | RFP 5152.227-5006 Intellectual Property Rights (PEO-STRI) (December 2010) – Please provide clarification on the Government’s request for rights. The language in the draft RFP requests GPR on items that cannot be obtained in some cases (i.e. Microsoft products; gaming engines; proprietary commercial software components) or in other cases will be cost-prohibitive to the Government (i.e., items developed by a private business whereby release would cause irrefutable harm to said business). Please clarify. | The requirement is for open architecture as a perfomance constraint. An open architecture refers to the interfaces to components of the system being produced to include all configurations (legacy and new development). These must be sufficiently well defined in the documentation produced that producing compatible components allows for competition and ease of additional capabilities in future development. The open architecture of the system as a whole must be based on a model of the potential for evolution and innovation that would make producing new system components (systems, weapons, scenarios, as examples) competitive to independent offerors. This requirement has been clarified in the final RFP. |
| 15 | Draft RFP | RFP 5152.227-5006 Intellectual Property Rights (PEO-STRI) (DEC 2010) – The Government seeks rights in technical data and computer software so that the EST II system may be operated, maintained, and supported throughout its life cycle by competitively-awarded contracts (at least in part). With this is mind, will it be acceptable if specific Items developed at supplier private expense are provided with rights commensurate to sufficiently support government the requirements for EST II for the duration of the program? | The requirement is for open architecture as a perfomance constraint. An open architecture refers to the interfaces to components of the system being produced to include all configurations (legacy and new development). These must be sufficiently well defined in the documentation produced that producing compatible components allows for competition and ease of additional capabilities in future development. The open architecture of the system as a whole must be based on a model of the potential for evolution and innovation that would make producing new system components (systems, weapons, scenarios, as examples) competitive to independent offerors. |
| 16 | Draft RFP | RFP B - Solicitation Information states that the minimum contract value for all orders shall not be less than $250,000.00 and the maximum contract value shall not exceed $100,000,000.00. Can the Government provide an indication of the expected quantity and/or contract value for the program? Are additional FMS sales of EST II equipment expected? Is there an anticipated quantity and/or contract value for FMS sales? | The EST program is customer and mission funded. The contract ceiling is $100M and takes into account U.S. and FMS customers. This contract will be used primarily for U.S. customers. However, if ceiling remains it will be used for FMS. |
| 17 | Draft RFP | RFP B.1 Range Pricing states, “DOs for the priced supplies may be unilaterally placed at the prices and ranges stated in the RFP J Attachment 12, which will become part of B.1 in the awardee’s contract.” Clause 5152.216-5000 (Unilateral Unpriced Delivery/Task Orders (PEO STRI) (SEP 2006)) states, “When the Government determines, in circumstances of emergency or exigency, that the need for specific supplies or services is unusually urgent, the PCO may issue a unilateral unpriced order requiring the contractor to provide the supplies or services specified.” Attachment 12 establishes the FFP range pricing for all weapons and lanes to be delivered under this contract, therefore unilateral unpriced delivery orders should not be required under this contract. Would the Government consider removing clause 5152.216-5000? | Clause 5152.216-5000 will be removed in the final RFP. |
| 18 | Draft RFP | RFP B.1. Warranty Period – Request clarification on warranty period that US Army is requesting on systems/weapons that were not produced by the awardee but undergo tech refresh. Does the warranty apply to the refresh work or to the weapon as a whole? | The Government is not requiring a warranty. However, COTS commercial warranties should be passed to the Government. |
| 19 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0001 refers to Light Simulated Weapons Mix as defined below in accordance with SRD section 3.1.2. This is the IOS description. Should the reference be to 6.1.14? | The correct reference is 6.1.14. This will be corrected in final RFP |
| 20 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0002 refers to Heavy Simulated Weapons Mix as defined below in accordance with SRD section 3.1.2. This is the IOS description. Should the reference be to 6.1.14? | The correct reference is 6.1.14. This will be corrected in final RFP |
| 21 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0003 refers to Hybrid Simulated Weapons Mix as defined below in accordance with SRD section 3.1.2. This is the IOS description. Should the reference be to 6.1.14? | The correct reference is 6.1.14. This will be corrected in final RFP |
| 22 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0004 refers to FT configuration as defined in SRD 3.1.3. This is the description of simulated weapons? | Correct reference is 3.5.1. This will be corrected in final RFP |
| 23 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0019 Tech Refresh: M141 Simulated Weapon - This is currently listed as a Prototype weapon in GFE list. What will be required for the tech refresh of this weapon? | The BDM 141 LRIP will be complete in spring 2013. The tech refresh applies to these simulated weapons. The GFE list was updated to clarify. |
| 24 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0030 New M240 Simulated Weapon – The CLINs reference an M240 and M240B, separately. The M240B is the weapon used on the EST. Is there a need for CLIN 0030 (M240)? | Yes, there is a need for a M240 as well as a M240B. |
| 25 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0041 New M98A1 Simulated Weapon – This is the Javelin and no GFE has been specified for this weapon. Will a GFE SimCLU (existing Javelin simulated weapon) be provided? | Javelin requirement will be P3I; adding to potential future weapons and removing the CLIN |
| 26 | Draft RFP | RFP CLIN 0042 - Authoring Capability - references PWS section 3.3.5 - this is System Configuration? | The correct reference is 3.5.3. This will be corrected in final RFP |
| 27 | Draft RFP | RFP L.1.14. states, "Offerors may submit a request to obtain Government Technical Data listed in Section J of the ID/IQ contract in support of proposal preparation. In order to obtain this Government Furnished Information (GFI) the Offeror shall complete the Distribution Agreement, included as RFP Section J Attachment 6, and forward to the POCs identified in Sections L.1.4. and L.1.5., with the solicitation number in the subject line. The email shall also include the following: - The Offeror’s preference for receipt of the technical data package (pick-up from Government location or Government will mail the package). - If Offeror prefers the package to be mailed, include a point of contact, phone number, and address to which the package will be mailed. The Government will provide for pick-up or will mail the technical data package within five business days from receipt of email request including all of the above, as applicable." Will the customer consider adding the optics already in inventory (CCO and ACOG) for the EST program to the EST II GFE Provided list? | The Government added to GFE list one CCO and one ACOG, which are already in inventory. SRD 6.1.14 is updated to reflect the CCO and ACOG mix to provide and price with new systems. Two separate CLINs have been added to the RFP for individual CCO and ACOG. |
| 28 | Draft RFP | RFP L.3.1 (table L-1) volume I is limited to 30 pages while sec L.3.2 states Vol I does not have page limitations. Please clarify. | Vol 1's page count is now unlimited, except for the Executive Summary which should not exceed 5 pages. |
| 29 | Draft RFP | RFP L.3.1 indicates that the page limit for Volume I is 30 pages, but L.3.2 indicates that there is an exception to the page limits for Volumes I, IV and V. What is the page limit for Volume I? | Vol 1's page count is now unlimited, except for the Executive Summary which should not exceed 5 pages. |
| 30 | Draft RFP | RFP L.3.1 The page limit table in section L.3.1 limits the length of Volume I – General to 30 pages. The items required for Volume I (Section A, G, I, K, Subcontracting Plan, OCI Plan, Test Traceability Matrix, and Section F of DO 0001) appear to exceed the overall limitation for this volume. If the intent is for this volume to contain Government contractual documentation, we recommend the Government consider removing the page limitation for Volume I. | Vol 1's page count is now unlimited, except for the Executive Summary which should not exceed 5 pages. |
| 31 | Draft RFP | RFP L.3.3 "...An Executive Summary shall be provided as a top-level overview of the proposal, and included in the proposal before the individual volumes…" L.4.3 "Page counts do not include the following items: Executive and Volume Summaries. The Volume I Executive Summary shall not exceed five pages..." L.5.1.1 "Section 1 - Executive Summary..." Section L.4.3 states that the Volume I Executive Summary is excluded from page count and is limited to five pages for Volume I. Would the Government please clarify if the Executive Summary is required for all volumes, and is excluded from the overall page count of all volumes? | L.3.3. Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Volume Summary, and the Narrative discussion. An Executive Summary shall be provided as a top-level overview of the proposal, and included in the proposal before the individual volumes. The 5 page Executive Summary is excluded from the overall page count for all volumes. |
| 32 | Draft RFP | RFP L.3.3 states that the Exec Sum should be located “before the individual volumes” while Sec L.4.3 and Sec L.5.1.1 indicate that the Exec Sum is included in Vol I. Please clarify. | The Executive Summary that does not exceed 5 pages is to be restated in all volumes. |
| 33 | Draft RFP | RFP L.4.4 Do fold-outs count as one page? | Fold-out pages (NTE 11X17 inches) for diagrams needed to support technical approach in the Technical Volume, and the Excel spreadsheet in the Pricing Volume. A fold-out page counts as 1 page. |
| 34 | Draft RFP | RFP L.4.4 states, "Illustrations, such as graphics, figures, graphs, embedded screen shots (or graphics), and tables shall be a minimum of 12-point size with colors other than black allowable." Would the Government consider allowing a 10pt font for illustrations, such as graphics, figures, graphs, graphics and tables? | No. Illustrations, such as graphics, figures, graphs, embedded screen shots (or graphics), and tables shall be a minimum of 12-point size with colors other than black allowable. |
| 35 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.1.2(e), L.5.4 What is the difference between Section L5.1.2 (e) Subcontracting Plan and L5.4 Volume IV - Small Business Participation Plan? | Per FAR 19.702 Statutory Requirements, a Subcontracting Plan is required to be submitted by large businesses. Subcontracting Plan requirements are delineated in FAR 19.704 and DFARS 219.704. Each Large Business Offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9. The Subcontracting Plan submitted by offerors that are a large business addresses the requirements for SB participation in this acquisition. L.5.4 Vol IV, Factor III, Small Business Particpation Plan is to be completed by ALL offerors (large and small business). a Small Business Participation Plan that clearly demonstrates a viable plan for meeting or exceeding the Small Business Participation goal of no less than 30% of the ID/IQ $100,000,000 total contract ceiling with an implementation plan for each year. |
| 36 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.1.2, e Volume I, Section 2 - Solicitation Documents, the RFP requests the submission of a Subcontracting Plan (with the request to present the Offerors planned approach to accomplishing a number of objectives associated with subcontracting to small businesses). Section L.5.1.2, e) also states that the Subcontracting Plan may be submitted either with the offer or after the date set for receipt of offers. In addition, in Volume IV (L.5.4.2), the RFP calls for the submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan separate from the Small Business Participation Plan. Question a: It is correct that the Government’s intent is that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be submitted as a standalone document completely separate from the five proposal volumes Question b: Does the Government require any summary, overview, key features, etc. of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in either Volume I or Volume IV? | The Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted with the proposal. "After the date set for receipt of offers" has been deleted from the RFP. The Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted in Vol. 1 - General. Please see FAR 52.219-9, FAR 19.704 and DFARS 219-704 to see what all must be addressed in the Subcontracting Plan. As stated in L.5.4 Vol IV - Factor III - The Small Business Participation Plan shall stand on its own merit without reference to a separate Small Business Subcontracting Plan that is required for large businesses. L.5.4.2 also reiterates - Each Large Business Offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9. This plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Plan information required above, which applies to both large and small businesses. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to a large business and will be incorporated into any resultant contract. |
| 37 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.1.5 "The Offeror shall populate the Cross Reference Matrix, provided as RFP Section J Attachment 8, with the requested proposal reference information as well as whether the Offeror’s solution, “meets, does not meet, or exceeds,” the corresponding Government requirement. The matrix will be used by the Government for evaluation in the Technical and Performance Risk Assessment Volumes." Do you consider the populated Sec J, Att 8 included in the page count for Vol 1? | The page count for Vol 1 was changed to unlimited. |
| 38 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.1.6, L.5.2.2 Is it the Government’s intent that the proposer supply details of his Program Management approach (DO 1 and post-DO 1) required for the design, development, and production of the EST-II system (e.g. response to EST-II ID/IQ PWS) be included in the currently requested volumes? Reference L.5.1.6 (program schedule) in Vol I and L.5.2.2 (approach to designing, upgrading, and integrating and producing weapons and systems) in Vol II. Please clarify. | Program management is at a PWS level to encompass all DOs in the ID/IQ. Per Section C - 3.1 - "The contractor shall provide the overall management and adminstrative effort necessary to ensure that the requirements of this contract are accomplished." A given DO will reference SOW requirements per the PWS as applicable and/or update, expand, or modify the PWS IAW unique DO requirements. Each offeror is to provide the information requested in Section L for each factor. |
| 39 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.2.1.1 When will the Government provide the table of established environmental parameters (humidity, temperature, air density, etc.) and their effect on ballistic performance? How many days prior to the SSB Demo will this data be provided? | The government is providing partial data points (GFI) to assist in intitial validation before the government data collection and demonstration. Demonstration criteria was updated and will be released with the RFP. The government intends to use the ARDEC data to validate the offeror's models and determine risk. |
| 40 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.2.3 Sub-factor 3 – Simulation Fidelity – Are all the SRD requirements, with the exception of those directly related to Marksmanship Simulation Fidelity (Sub-factor 1), Open Architecture (Sub-factor 2) and Logistics Supportability (Sub-factor 4), to be addressed in the Simulation Fidelity (Sub-factor 3) write-up? There are no other evaluation factors for which to apply write-ups for the other requirements (i.e., most of the SRD). Please clarify where the remaining SRD elements should be addressed. | Overall technical approach should be addressed in Markmanship Simulation Fidelity, Sub-factor 1. |
| 41 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.2.3.4 Scenarios – Will the awardee receive previously recorded raw video footage as GFE to facilitate incorporating EOF video scenarios into the system? | Some newer raw video footage will be available to the awardee. The GFE list was updated. |
| 42 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.3.1 c requests data on Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, Termination for Convenience or Termination for Default within the last ten years. The Instructions tab for the RFP Attach 10_Perf Risk Contract Matrix requests this information for the last three years. We recommend that Section L.5.3.1 c be revised to coincide with the Instructions tab at three years of data. | Attachment 10 was updated to reflect 10 years for Cure Notices, Show Cause Notices, Termination for Convenience or Termination for Default. |
| 45 | Draft RFP | RFP L4.3 the IMS is mentioned as a contract attachment however it is not due until 30 days after contract award - CDRL A003. Does the Government expect a preliminary IMS be submitted with the proposal? | Yes, a preliminary IMS is to be submitted with the proposal. The CDRL is updated to show the updated DID and dates. |
| 46 | Draft RFP | RFP L5.1.5 refers to a Management Volume. What volume is that? It is not mentioned in L3.0, Proposal Volumes | Volume is renamed to Performance Risk Assessment |
| 47 | Draft RFP | RFP L5.5.9 states, "The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support the reasonableness of its proposed direct labor rates and indirect rates for the T&M CLINs. The order of preference is: - Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) - Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) - ACO approved interim billing rates" RFP Section B.2 states, "If requested by the Contracting Officer, the contractor shall submit revised T&M rates within 30 days of the Government's request taking into consideration the final DCAA recommended rates. Should the contractor fail to submit revised rates or no agreement can be reached, then the Contracting Officer may make a unilateral determination and modify the contract accordingly." Section L.5.5.9 requires Offerers to provide sufficient information to support the reasonableness of their proposed rates through the following; Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) or ACO approved interim billing rates. Additionally, RFP Section B.2 provides for a unilateral downward adjustment of T&M rates as a result of a DCAA audit conducted after award of the contract. The competitive process is typically sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the offeror’s T&M rates. After the T&M rates are determined reasonable, a unilateral downward adjustment after award should not be necessary. Would the Government consider removing this aspect of clause B.2? | No, T&M rates will be reviewed/negotiated after award since they are such a small part of this acquisition. |
| 48 | Draft RFP | RFP M.3.3.1.c states, "Data Collection - The Government will utilize the data collection setup White Paper and evaluate the offeror’s physics-based ballistic model and compare the output to Government validated data." Section M.3.3.1.c states that the offeror's physics-based ballistic model output will be compared to Government validated data. Will the government provide the validated data (i.e. ARDEC tables) for the M855 and M856 rounds to allow Offerors to appropriately prepare for the demonstration? | The government intends to use the ARDEC data to validate the offeror's models and determine risk. The government will provide partial data points (GFI) to assist in intitial validation before the government data collection and demonstration. Demonstration criteria was updated in the RFP. |
| 49 | Draft RFP | RFP M.3.3.1.c states, "The Government will evaluate data collected for LOS aim point and round impact point at various ranges (i.e., 25m, 75m, 175m, 300m, 400m, 500m, etc.) of the E-silhouettes (300m feedback target)." Section M.3.3.1.c provides "various ranges" for data collection during the demonstration. Would the Government please clarify what the "etc." represents? Will a similar data collection table be utilized as an observation and data collection sheet? Recommend providing a complete list of specific data collection points through a detailed, Government provided, demonstration plan to ensure all demonstrations are conducted in a consistent manner. | The government intends to use the ARDEC data to validate the offeror's models and determine risk. The government will provide partial data points (GFI) to assist in intitial validation before the government data collection and demonstration. Demonstration criteria is updated and specific ranges are identified in the RFP. |
| 50 | Draft RFP | RFP M.3.3.1.c states, "The Government will review the demonstration setup White Paper and evaluate through a demonstration that an M16A4 firing both M855 and M856 rounds from a fixed location, the LOS and virtual bore line translate (per Figure 2) into the virtual scene correctly. The Government will evaluate proper scaling by overlaying physical E-silhouettes at 25m (E-silhouette depicted on the 25m zeroing target) and 300m (300m feedback target) over virtual representations of these E-silhouettes. The Government will visually evaluate the weapon LOS to the virtual aim point representation of the LOS as well as the round impact point. The Government will evaluate data collected for LOS aim point and round impact point at various ranges (i.e., 25m, 75m, 175m, 300m, 400m, 500m, etc.) of the E-silhouettes (300m feedback target)." Section M.3.3.1.c allows offerors to propose their own unique demonstration setup, through a proposed white paper, that could present unique differences in the manner in which the demonstration is conducted. This could limit the Government's ability to conduct a consistent evaluation. To ensure all demonstrations are conducted in a consistent manner with clear evaluation criteria, will the government consider providing detailed demonstration tasks and a consistent data collection and observation sheet to capture evaluation data during the Data Collection and Demonstration? Furthermore we recommend the Government limit the evaluation of the demonstration to only the items provided in the demonstration plan to ensure all demonstrations are conducted in a consistent manner. | Demonstration criteria was updated to ensure consistency of the demos. |
| 51 | Draft RFP | RFP M.3.3.2 states, "The Government as part of this evaluation will review the offeror’s completed table to DFARS 252.227-7013." The offeror's response to DFARS 252.227-7013 will be included in the section H response included in Volume I - General. Volume I does not have specific evaluation criteria, nor is it associated with an evaluation Factor or Subfactor. In order for the Government to evaluate our response to DFARS 252.227-7013, is it the Government's intent that the offeror include our response to DFARS 252.227-7013 in both Volume I Section H and Volume II Sub-factor 2 - Open Architecture? If this is the intent of the Government, we recommend allowing offerors to include responses to DFARS 252.227-7013 as an attachment to Volume II, excluded from page count. | Open architecture should address only what's being proposed as a solution. Each offeror shall provide their written response to RFP clause 5152.227-5006 Intellectual Property Rights (except for the cost information, which should be provided in the Cost Volume). Section L has been updated. |
| 52 | Draft RFP | RFP M.3.4.1 limits relevance of the Performance Risk Assessment to only DoD simulation systems. Would the Government consider expanding relevance to include simulation systems outside of DoD (For example, commercial, law enforcement, foreign military, etc…)? | Deleted reference to DoD. |
| 53 | Draft RFP | RFP M3.2.2 is missing - should it be associated with paragraph starting with "To receive consideration……"? | Yes, numbering was corrected. |
| 54 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 2.3 Order of Precedence – States that the PWS shall be the governing requirement. What is the order of precedence for rest of the documents? | The RFP was updated to reflect the contents of the PWS shall be the governing requirement, followed by the SRD and then the referenced documents, exhibits and attachments |
| 55 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.1.5.5 states "The Contractor shall develop the system software and firmware following the Contractor organizational software development practices that are compliant with at least Level 3 of the Software Engineering Institute’s CMMI." Question - Is the Government requiring Offeror's to be certified to CMMI Level 3? | No, the paragraph was updated to state "The contractor or its subcontractor responsible for configuration management shall utilize Capability Maturity Model Integration - Development (CMMI-DEV) Level 3 or higher standards. The contractor or its subcontractor responsible for configuration management shall provide these procedures to the government for review and audit purposes on the IDE. At this level, processes are well characterized and understood, and are described in standards, procedures, tools and methods. The Contractor shall maintain surveillance over the configuration management process in support of the contractor’s CMMI Level 3 established processes or higher. All verifications and audits conducted in accordance with these plans shall be documented within the Integrated Digital Environment (IDE)." |
| 56 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.1.5.5 The Contractor shall be responsible for identifying opportune timeframes to the Government to witness the Contractor’s in-process verifications of the documentation and hardware components. What is the Government’s expectation for the frequency these inspections; one time, annual, bi-annual, quarterly? | The contractor is responsible for identifying opportunities in the IMS |
| 57 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.1.7.8 Technical Interchange Meetings – What is the Government’s expectations for the frequency of the TIMs? Annually? Bi-annually? Quarterly? | The contractor shall conduct and participate in Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) as required and as a minimum, quarterly in conjunction with the PMR. The RFP has been updated. |
| 58 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.1.9 (Page 37) states: “The Contractor shall establish, implement, and maintain data (either contractor or GFI) management capability within the IDE for the integration, storage, access, management, delivery, and exchange of data during contract execution that includes subcontractors’ and vendor’s data. All technical, cost, and schedule data use for program management shall reside in the IDE. Technical data shall include but is not limited to operations and maintenance publications, engineering drawings and specifications (Product Drawings and Associated Lists (PDAL)), SW Source code, SW databases, training materials, baseline description documents, etc. The IDE shall provide program personnel complete visibility into the program and system at every stage. The contractor shall establish a disaster recovery process to ensure that appropriate information systems and data are available when needed after a natural or human disaster.” Question: A contractor may utilize separate development, defect tracking and configuration management tools. Instead of locating some technical elements such as software code or defect cases directly in the IDE, is it permissible that the contractor incorporate the use of documentation lists or status reports that point to these technical elements that may live and reside in other configuration management tools? Or is it the government’s desire that the IDE contain all working and final product elements so that they may be accessed directly within the IDE itself, or at minimum, through a link in the IDE to a web-based defect or CM tool? | A contractor may utilize commercially available separate development, defect tracking and configuration management tools if the tools and licenses are also included in the IDE. The IDE must contain all working and final product elements so that they may be accessed directly within the IDE itself. The Government requires complete working copies to possibly transfer to future competitive awardees. |
| 59 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.2, 3.2.6.2, 3.4.4.1 Question 1 - Is “performance specification” a generic term for the documents described in PWS section 3.2? Question 2 - Is the system performance specification, referenced in PWS 3.1.5, different from the performance specifications for each configuration item in the system, referenced in PWS 3.2.6.2? If they are different, which is referenced in PWS 3.4.4.1? | RFP subject paragraphs were edited for clarification. |
| 60 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.2.5.3 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) - What is the E3 environment in which the system is required to operate? What are the emission limits for the system? | Section C 3.2.5.3 E3 has been revised as well as SRD 3.4.5 to no interference add "within commercial standards" |
| 61 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.2.7 Product Definition Data (PDD). Are government assigned numbers required for only new drawings specific to EST II or for all drawings provided as a part of the EST II package? | Government assigned drawing numbers are required for all drawings |
| 62 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.4.4.2.1 Paragraph ends with the statement, "Scenarios shall be generated to provide for SRD requirements....for the following operation types:" There are no types listed. The following paragraphs do list details. Can the details of the types be added? | Paragraph 3.4.4.2.1 was updated . |
| 63 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.4.4.4 What is Formal Qualification Test? Is it software testing at a CSCI level? | A formal software test is required to demonstrate compliance with the contract requirements and this is the first step in determining readiness for software integration into the system. It is conducted at the CSCI level. |
| 64 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.4.4.5, is Functional Qualification Test intended to be Formal Qualification Test, or is it a different test than Formal Qualification Test? Both have the same acronym defined as FQT. | They are different tests. Functional Qualification test is to add subsystems to an accepted system. Formal Qualification Test is testing everything. |
| 65 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.4.8 Inspection and Acceptance Testing – is this the testing of the production units? | Yes, this is the testing of production units |
| 66 | Draft RFP | RFP PWS 3.6 Interim Contractor Support (ICS) and Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices (CLINS). Question: Under which CLIN(s) will ICS be procured? It appears that ICS (PWS 3.6) has no pricing CLIN associated with it. | The price for the ICS in Section B shall be included in the FFP for the systems and the weapons. See para B.1 Range Pricing. |
| 67 | Draft RFP | RFP Section B CLIN 48 The requirement for CLIN 0048, CDRLs, is unclear. Are the CDRLs intended to be priced for the entire ID/IQ as one single lot, or is it intended that CDRLs be priced within each applicable DO/CLIN? While many of the CDRLs are recurring throughout the entire length of the five-year program, the number of DO/CLINs during this period has yet to be determined. If the CDRL pricing is to be contained within DO/CLINS associated with hardware deliverables, what portion of CDRL pricing should be allocated to each DO/CLIN? | The price for technical data is not separately priced, should be included in the priced CLIN that the data supports. The portion of CDRL pricing that should be allocated to each DO/CLIN is up to the offerors approach as this is a production buy. P3I efforts (new weapon developments, TTP changes, FMS cases, etc.) will be executed as separate DOs and will be incorporated into the baseline under the PWS. These will require separate negotiations. |
| 68 | Draft RFP | RFP Section F, page 62, last paragraph. Comment: Recommend “RFP Section J Attachment 5” be changed to “RFP Attachment 5 GFE” | Section J contains the list of attachments. The GFE list is in Attachment 5. |
| 69 | Draft RFP | RFP Section K “Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors”- the NAICS code assigned to the RFP is 333319. NAICS code 333319 is no longer recognized by the SBA. NAICS code 333318 replaced NAICS 333319 and also increased the business size standard from 500 to 1000 employees. Please confirm the NAICS code the government will assign to the RFP? | The NAICS code was updated to 333318. |
| 70 | Draft RFP | RFP Section L, paragraph L1.14. Comment: Recommend “RFP Section J Attachment 6” be changed to “RFP Attachment 6” | Section J contains the list of attachments and is correct. |
| 71 | Draft RFP | RFP Table of Contents Page Numbering does not tie up with the actual page numbering in the body of the RFP. The SF33 shows there should be 172 pages but there are only 135 pages. | The RFP has been corrected |
| 72 | Draft RFP | RFP Test Traceability Matrix – The Section L proposal layout instructions do not currently include provisions for a Management Volume/SOW and there are no evaluation factors for such in RFP Section M. However, this section makes reference to a Management Volume. Are there plans to add a Management Volume requirement in the final RFP? | Volume is renamed to Performance Risk Assessment. References to the Management Volume was changed to reflect Performance Risk Assessment. |
| 73 | Draft RFP | RFP Volume III - Performance Risk Assessment, Sections 1 and 3 are administrative in nature. Will the government consider excluding Sections 1 and 3 from the 30 page limit? | Section 1 and 3 page count limitation has been removed. A page count of 25 has been assigned to Section 2. |
| 74 | Draft RFP | RFP We interpret the requirement to provide “predictive failure data of delta components between lots” to refer only to the component level deltas (not individual parts) between CLIN delivery lots. Is this a correct interpretation? | Yes, Updated to clarify it's the LRU level. |
| 75 | Draft RFP | RPF L.4.4 Would the Govt consider smaller font sizes for graphics, imbedded screen shots, and tables to enable a more complete representation of the proposed approach within the page constraints of volume II? | No. Graphics, figures, graphs, embedded screen shots, and tables shall be a minimum of 12-point size. |
| 76 | Draft RFP | RPF PWS 3.4.5, System Operational Test (SOT). Question 1: is the SOT time-limited? If not, how will we be able to estimate the expense needed to support the test, as well as the cost to “provide all necessary spare, repair, and replacement parts …” Question 2: Will there be any sort of test procedure for the SOT, and will the use of the EST II be limited in any way during the SOT? Or, will it be a “use as a trainer free-for-all” of unspecified duration? Question 3: SOT is typically an independent test activity separate and distinct from test activities conducted by the developing agency (PEO STRI). These tests are conducted to assess the operational effectiveness and suitability of the item tested in an operationally representative environment. Operational tests generally do not test against contractual specifications. Should operational test deficiencies be identified and given that those deficiencies may not be in the scope of the contract, how does PEO STRI intend to address these with the contractor? | The test is dependent upon the offeror's approach. Three weeks should be planned for this test. This will be a user test, and not done by an independent test activity. The user community will be running it in a normal operating condition. Deficiencies will be provided to PEO STRI and the contractor, and anything outside the scope of the contract will be managed by the PM. |
| 77 | Draft RFP | What does a “tech refresh” of a legacy simulated weapon entail? Are any additional features/capabilities required; i.e. addition of SPORTS capability to legacy weapons? Prior to tech refresh, can we assume that these weapons will be fully operational? | This is based on the offeror's technical approach. No additional features or capabilities are required. The weapons will be operational. Non functioning weapons are serviced under PEO STRI's WarFighter Focus (WFF) contract. |
| 78 | Draft RFP | What exactly is included in the "technical refresh" for the approximately 10,000 EST simulated weapons available for use in EST II. | The items to be included in the tech refresh is dependent upon the offeror's approach; and what needs to be done to make it work with their proposed tech refresh system. |
| 79 | Draft RFP | What is the Government’s fielding plan? Is there an available list of weapons mix with quantity each anticipated per configuration? | The Government's fielding plan is based upon the availablity of funds, and prioritization by the MCOE. |
| 80 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.1 - The STORM is listed in KPP2 (SRD 3.1.1) but not listed in the SRD 3.1.3.5. If the STORM is desired, what CLIN is the STORM to be priced under? | STORM requirement will be P3I, and will not be listed in SRD 3.1.3.5 or have a CLIN. |
| 81 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.1 Key Performance Parameters “Interoperable, Adaptable/Tailorable” – Production Threshold “- Adding sniper rifles and the Javelin medium anti-armor weapon simulators to the simulation”. Question: We assume that no Javelin Simulated Weapon exists now, but the wording could imply that there is already an existing Javelin simulated weapon. If this is the case, will interface documents be made available? | Javelin requirement will be P3I; added to potential future weapons and the CLIN was removed. |
| 82 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.1 Key Performance Parameters “Interoperable, Adaptable/Tailorable” – Production Threshold “Simulate realistic recoil to all simulated weapons using a tethered capability” Question 1 - Is a certificate of conformance required for each weapon type to confirm that the recoil strength and rate of fire compared are the same as the original weapon? Can this data for the original weapon provided as GFI? Question 2 - Will this information be provided as GFI? | No, there is not a certificate of conformance required. The Government shall use SMEs to confirm that form, fit and function meet the SME's training requriements. The Government does not have all recoil data. An offeror may have to get it from the manufacturer or from its own test results. |
| 83 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.1, 3.1.33 p/q, 3.1.3.5 Sniper Training – Since a spotter is typically paired with a sniper, is the simulation of a spotter scope also required? The SRD mentions the need for sniper rifle training on the EST II. In reviewing how the sniper rifle will be trained on the EST II, it was noted that CPD 6.h mentions in the rationale for sniper training, “Sniper training will consist of a single sniper working individual task (marksmanship) or sniper teams working collective tasks”. Also, does slope have to be supported physically in the training room or is ballistic simulation sufficient? Please clarify. | Sniper requirement will be P3I; added to potential future weapons and optics and the CLINs removed. |
| 84 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.2 Instructor Operating System (IOS) (b) – What is the difference between freeze and pause? | SRD was edited to state "examples include". "Freeze" means all simulation traffic has halted. "Pause" means that the simulation clock is still ticking, but the state data isn't updated. |
| 85 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.2.5 Operational Status – Is it planned that more than one trainee could train on one dedicated lane at the same time? | No, the intent is for one lane per trainee. |
| 86 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3 (c) What CLIN are tripods, mounts, and traversing and elevating (T&E) mechanisms to be priced under per production delivery? | These items, if needed, will be purchased under the T&M CLIN. |
| 87 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3 (c) and 3.1.3.5 How many tripods, mounts, and traversing and elevating (T&E) mechanisms are anticipated per site (or FT system)? Or, are these to be delivered per MK19 and M2? | These items, if needed, will be purchased under the T&M CLIN. |
| 88 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3.10 Does the non-leathal requirement include items such as the X26 taser? Or just beanbag shotgun pellets and nonlethal grenades? | Yes, the X26 taser is supported as a new weapon in P3I. All the non-lethal ammo types are also addressed as a munition type per weapon. |
| 89 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3.2 Legacy Weapons – Please confirm that some of the listed sensors are software functionalities only rather than real physical sensors in the weapon, for example “Ammo Empty” | Yes, some sensors are only functionalities. SRD was updated to clarify that not all were physical sensors. |
| 90 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3.5 Simulated Weapon System Accessory Capabilities - “The EST II simulated weapons system accessories shall support a modular open architecture interface design concept that provides the ability to attach simulated components or accessories associated with a given service weapon type.” Question: Could weapon accessories like thermal vision devices also be simulated devices? | Yes, as long as they meet the form, fit and function requirements and interfaces are clearly identified |
| 91 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3.5 What CLIN are the optics to be priced under per production delivery? | Added CLINs to price ACOG and CCO separately. Other optics would be P3I |
| 92 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3.5 What quantities of optics are to be priced per site (or FT system)? | 2 ACOG, 3 CCO shall be provided per FT system. SRD and PWS have been updated. The RFP has been updated to include a CLIN for ACOG and CCO. |
| 93 | Attachment 1 SRD | SRD 3.1.3.7 Simulated Weapon Recoil “If weapon recoil is provided by an air compressor, then the air shall be moisture-free and operate at a noise level that does not detract from training (below 60 dB)” Question: Where is that noise measured? Near to the compressor or in the trainee area? | This is measured from the trainee area (i.e. firing line), the distance is dependent on the offeror's approach |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .