QAs-to-Draft-RFP_ESTII_26Mar13.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 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-Posted 26 Mar 13
| No. | Reference | Question | Response |
| 136 | Multiple | Draft RFP L.5.2.3.1, Draft SRD 3.3 Feb 15 2013, EST II Draft RFP Questions & Government Answers #41: Please clarify if the Government is requiring, either as threshold or objective, a graphical approach for EOF. The Government’s answer to Question No. 41 indicates the GFE list is being updated to include newer raw video EOF footage, which seems to support a video approach for EOF. The EST II Draft RFP Section L.5.2.3.1. requires the offer to “describe their approach to modeling three dimensional (3D) structures, terrain, vehicles, personnel, animations, and other virtual artifacts to realistically simulate environmental conditions, dynamic events, and munitions effects in support of marksmanship, collective, and Escalation of Force (EOF) training” and requires the offer to “describe model fidelity to include facial expressions and identification, body animations, and similar to utilize in an EOF scenario”. In addition, several EST II Draft SRD requirements, for example, in SRD 3.3, “Collective and EOF training capabilities shall support artificial intelligence or other logic based techniques for path planning which allows navigation of small spaces and allows each entity to act intelligently”, seem to point to a graphical approach for EOF. | The Government is unclear as to what is precisely meant by 'graphical approach for EOF'. However, it is up to the Offeror to propose an implementation that allows Government the best solution to maintain scenarios that are cost effective for future expansion and updates based on changing TTPs. The GFE videos are being provided as they are government-owned. It is not mandatory to use the GFE videos or video solution. |
| 136 | Attachment 1 SRD | In Draft SRD 3.2.1.3, Visual System Image Quality, it is stated that “Multi-screen views, if used, shall be synchronized so that the viewer sees one continuous image.” For a Squad Collective configured as a 10 lane system, is it required in Collective mode to have two 5 lane systems side by side with a single synchronized eye-point across all 10 lanes? Is it acceptable instead to have two 5 lane systems side by side with each operating with its own eye-point but being networked and running in the same virtual battle field? | Yes, it is acceptable for each 5 lane system in collective mode to have its own eye point in a networked virtual battlefield as long this does not introduce undesirable visual artifacts (ie, entity runs from one screen to another but is warped in the transition, or does not show up when expected, etc). |
&"Times New Roman,Bold"QAs to Draft RFP_EST II_Posted in FBO on 26 Mar 13
QAs-EST II-Posted 11 Mar 13
| No. | Reference | Question | Response |
| 124 | Draft RFP | Is the expectation to provide scenarios for all CoFs for all supported weapons or to provide scenarios for one CoF for all supported weapons? | The requirement is to provide all CoF's for all supported weapons but not all within the same Delivery Order (DO). DO 1 SOW 3.3.3.1 is development for all of the heavy suites marksmanship scenarios as defined in SRD PP 3.3.1. When other types of EST II systems (e.g. light, hybrid, etc.) are ordered, the system should come with the scenarios that support the requisite weapons. |
| 125 | Draft RFP | A list of GFE to be provided to the awardee was included in this RFI document. This GFE listing included Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS 2), and indicated that it would be provided to the awardee. |
• Will the Army provide VBS 2 to the awardee through their Enterprise License, and will they include license dongles for each EST II system?
| • Will the licenses be based on VBS 2 version 1.6 or the newer version 2.0? | VBS2 was removed as a requirement | ||
| 126 | Draft RFP | PWS, Section B, CLIN 0005 |
The recent Government response in Draft RFP Question #77 stated that for refreshed simulated weapons, “No additional features or capabilities are required”. However, one of the Key Performance parameters in SRD 3.1.1 states that the “Capability to perform immediate and/or remedial action” is a Production Threshold requirement.
Considering that legacy simulated weapons manufactured by both FATS and by Cubic do not include sufficient sensors to fully support the complete “SPORTS” (Slap, Pull, Observe, Release, Tap, Squeeze) methodology for immediate and/or remedial action, please confirm that the SPORTS capability is not required for refreshed legacy weapons.
| Further, please confirm that all additional features or capabilities prescribed in the EST II SRD/PWS but not inherent to FATS or Cubic legacy weapons, are not required for refreshed weapons in EST II. | Immediate action is not a new requirement but using what is currently sensored in the Program of Record EST legacy weapons. The "Tap" is currently observed by the instructor and can continue as such with EST legacy weapons if an offeror desires to stay with this approach for the refreshed weapons. It is up to the offeror to decide. | |
| 127 | Attachment 1 | |
| SRD | Paragraph 3.2.1.3.1 of the SRD states that the EST II visual system interface shall utilize the Common Image Generator Interface (CIGI) version 3.3 or later. |
Previous replies to RFP questions have indicated that the CIGI requirement does not preclude the use of high fidelity game engines as viable options. While this is true, the intention and expectations of using a CIGI interface for EST II merit additional review. We expect that a CIGI interface will cause undesirable impacts on graphics quality and realism, and further discussion and acknowledgment of this topic is requested.
State of the art, high fidelity game engines typically utilize proprietary communication protocols between multiple instances of the game engine (predominantly termed “multiplayer” mode which stands in contrast to traditional host/IG architectures). While a standard protocol (such as CIGI) would facilitate interoperability, high fidelity game engines typically pass different types of unique data that does not map effectively to the current CIGI standard. For example, the CIGI standard deals primarily with rigid body vehicle models and does not have native mechanisms for humans or other life-forms. One might contemplate repurposing the CIGI animation mechanism to also handle animating humans, but the process employed by high fidelity game engines is drastically different yet ideally suited to animating humans (most game engines currently use skeletal deformation systems). For the EST II, having extremely realistic humans is a highly desirable design requirement. High fidelity game engines are designed for this express purpose, unlike traditional IGs that struggle to achieve similar realism. By mandating CIGI as the only allowable connection between the renderer and the simulation, corresponding graphics quality and realism will likely be compromised and reduced to a “lowest common denominator” as determined by the capabilities of the CIGI interface.
We understand the government’s desire to have a common interface for Open Architecture (OA) considerations. However, it appears that the required trade off of performance quality in this case (i.e. CIGI) will be significant. Please keep in mind that OA objectives can still be achieved without requiring the use of a CIGI interface by replacing one game engine solution for another.
| Is it the government’s intention to maintain the CIGI requirement, even if there are unavoidable reductions in graphics quality and realism? | The CIGI interface design does not preclude a gaming engine. It can be tailored. | ||
| 128 | Draft RFP | Paragraph 3.8.1.2 (System Development Environment) of the PWS states that at the end of the contact effort, the contractor shall inventory, deliver, install, and check-out for proper operation a subset of the development system support environment to serve as the sole means to sustain the system. The environment shall include an EST II system with latest configuration, diagnostics, development, IDE, special test equipment, data and technical documentation, CM tools and processes, etc. |
| Considering that this requirement includes the delivery and installation of an entire system, should it be priced as a separate deliverable or should it me amortized over the entire program? | This is not a delivery and install of an entire system. It is to ensure that the software delivered at the end of the contract can be reused/rebuilt by the Government or one of its DoD contractors. For example the Systems Development Environment may include depending upon the approach, but is not limited to, the source software to include all configuration, dll and executable code for the IOS. | |
| 129 | Attachment 1 | |
| SRD | SRD 3.2.1.3.2 states that "The visual system shall provide resolution throughout the field of view such that a target the size of 0.5 meters located 360 meters from the eye point shall be identifiable in accordance with Johnson’s Criteria." |
Johnson's criteria specifies that for Identification, a specific object can be discerned, e.g. a woman versus a man or a specific vehicle, with 6.4 +/– 1.5 line pairs. This equates to 4.9 to 7.9 line pairs or 10 to 16 pixels.
Considering the following specifications:
• Distance to target: 360 meters
• Firing line distance: 26' 3"
• Resolution: 1920x1080 pixels (full HD)
• Screen Height: 90"
• Screen Width: 160"
• FOV: 28.5 degrees
The resulting EST II target will span only 5 of the minimum 10 pixels prescribed by Johnson’s criteria. Even with a more conservative factor of 0.7 applied for a progressive scan display versus interlaced display, at least 7 pixels would be required for the specified target to be identifiable in accordance with Johnson’s Criteria at 360 meters.
Is it possible that the requirement was intended to read “recognizable” instead of “identifiable in accordance with Johnson’s Criteria”? This is an easier threshold to reach and it will be achievable with the parameters outlined above.
If it requirement is to be identifiable in accordance with Johnson’s Criteria, there is commercially-available projection technology with sufficient resolution to meet this criterion (i.e. 4K UHD, Ultra High Definition). However, these projectors are relatively new technology and very expensive (upwards of $50k per screen).
| Is it the government's intent to drive the resolution requirements to the point where these types of projectors are required? | Updated SRD to" recognizable" instead of "identifiable". | |
| 130 | Attachment 1 | |
| SRD | SRD 3.4.3.2 - Power – This requirement includes support for multiple power inputs/frequencies. A universal input multi-power/frequency converter that supports all power requirements in one unit is expensive relative to single input power/frequency converters. A configurable approach that supported various single power/frequency converters would offer considerable cost savings to the government and the system could still be easily re-configured to support any of the other power sources listed in SRD 3.4.3.2. | |
| Is a universal multi-power/frequency converter a requirement for EST II such that it can automatically accept all of the power sources listed in SRD 3.4.3.2 without re-configuration? Or, is a cost saving single power/frequency approach equally acceptable if the system can be re-configured in the field to support any of the other power sources listed in SRD 3.4.3.2? | The system must support the power requirements as stated in section 3.4.3.2. It is up to the offeror to determine the best method for implementing this requirement. | |
| 131 | Attachment 1 | |
| SRD | SRD 3.6.2.3 (Special Tools) states that EST II shall not require the use of special tools or test equipment. |
However, PWS 3.5.3.2 (Special Tools/Test Equipment (ST&TE)) and PWS 3.7.3 (Installation Tools and Test Equipment), and RFP L.5.2.4 (Sub-factor 4 - Logistics/Supportability Approach) indicate that special tools are expected and should be planned for in the program.
Special tool requirements will be minimized wherever possible. Please confirm that special tools are not prohibited for the
EST II.
| Section 3.6.2.3 Special Tools - has been updated to state that the usage of special tools/test equipment shall be minimized wherever possible. | |||
| 132 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.3.1 Does the Government desire that offerors replicate the Performance Risk Contract Matrix data (ref: L.5.3.1, Sec 1) in the text of volume 3 in addition to submitting identical information in the required Excel spreadsheets If so, is it permissible to include that information as an appendix to Vol III, (and not have them count against page count). | The 'Performance Risk Contract Matrix' (Vol III, Section 1) will contain a list of the relevant contracts. The 'Performance Narrative' (Vol III, Section 2) will provide the description of the work performed under the contracts listed, detailed explanation of terminations, etc. Not to exceed |
25 pages total for Section 2 information. Section 1 & 3 page count is unlimited.
| 133 | Draft RFP | RFP L.5.4.2, Large Businesses shall provide and submit separately from the Small Business Participation Plan, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. May we provide this as an attachment to Vol IV to meet the intent of separability? | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be provided as part of the Volume I – General submission. The RFP Section L will be updated to reflect this information. |
| 134 | Draft RFP | Will PEO STRI provide a detailed demo plan in the Final RFP? If not, will the demo evaluators or contractors have the ability to go "off script"? | Yes, the final RFP will include a 'Data Collection and Demonstration Plan'. Offerors cannot deviate from the data collection and demonstration requirements defined and outlined in the plan. |
| 135 | Draft RFP | Will aerodynamic coefficients for the ballistics accuracy verification be provided with the Final RFP? | Yes, the final RFP will provide additional ballistic information. |
&"Times New Roman,Bold"QAs to Draft RFP_EST II_Posted in FBO on 11 Mar 13
QAs-EST II-Posted 15 Feb 13
| 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. |
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 .