QAs-to-Draft-RFP_ESTII_9_May_13.xlsx

QAs-EST II-Posted 9 May 13

Rows 2, 8, and 28

It doesn’t appear to have been updated in the most recent draft SRD. It is important that this is updated so as not to drive unnecessary cost into the system.

The referenced DID states “It is not intended that all the requirements contained herein should be applied to every program. This DID should be tailored to the minimum data requirements of the applicable contract or purchase order”.

It also later states “Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists shall be in either the contractor's format or the Government's format as specified on the TDP Option Selection Worksheet incorporated into the contract or purchase order. “

There are two other sections in the DID that also clearly state the TDP Option Selection Worksheet is where the tailoring is to be performed, one which states the contractor can select the level of drawings needed.

The 1423 does not provide the tailoring and the TDP Option Selection Worksheet has not been provided to allow proper scoping of the Product Drawing Models/Associated Lists.

Within the CDRL sheets, Block A, Contract Line Item No., the CLIN reference does not seem to correspond with DO1 CLINS. Only two CLINs exist for DO1, yet Block A references CLINs 0003, 0004, 0005 etc. for many CDRLs that are required for DO1 per the DO1 SOW.

In addition, the CLIN references in Block A do not seem to correlate well with the PWS CLIN structure either, for example, CDRL Item A00J, Test Problem Report lists CLIN 0004, which is the Tech Refresh: 5-Lane EST Excluding Weapons. Is the Test Problem Report expected only expected for this CLIN item?

(1) Communication within defined graphic types would be enhanced for USG evaluators, thus receiving a clearer, more complete grasp of the offeror’s approach and explanation. Clean crisp illustrations permits USG evaluators ease in understanding and identification of various competitor advantages leading to improved proposal grading.

(2) An option for smaller font sizes down to 8 point permits a concise illustration layout and minimizes additional text explanation. Alternatively, the minimum 12-point font adds unnecessary page count and a cumbersome look to illustrations and tables thereby limiting the USG’s understanding.

RFP L.5.2.3.3 c) Systems and Weapons Fidelity. The Offeror shall describe their approach for upgrading current and producing EST II systems and simulated weapons to meet current and future requirements (SRD 3.1.3).

The Performance Risk Assessment Survey, RFP Section J Attachment 8 must be provided to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) (or equivalent) for each relevant contract identified in the Performance Risk Contract Matrix (RFP Section J Attachment 9) with instructions to email the completed survey to the Government no later than close of business on the date proposals are due.

The contractor shall provide the proposed system physics-based ballistic model, subsystem, all other equipment, and software required for the ballistic data collection. This will be documented in the white paper submitted the day of the data collection/demonstration.

This section indicates that a white paper is to be submitted on the day of the demonstration. Is this an updated version of the white paper required to be submitted as part of our proposal, or a different separate white paper? Section 2.1.3 revised to read: Offeror shall provide the Government team in its proposal a one to two page white paper (8.5x11, size 12 font) outlining detailed description of their required setup, tools used in the data collection if not provided by the government, and process for data collection in accordance with (IAW) the section 2 of this document submitted with the proposal. The white paper shall support the Offeror’s proposed physics-based ballistic model, and it shall not be used to augment or modify proposal technical information or discussed at the time of proposals.

During the data collection, the Offeror shall modify input parameters to its physics model to capture and the Government shall evaluate the output data. This data shall be recorded in the “Ballistic Data Collection rev 1” spreadsheet by the Offeror and verified by the Government. Therefore an updated version of the white paper is not required for the data collection and demonstration as these are to be submitted with the proposal."

160 Attachment 2A Demo Plan, Attachment 2B Ballistic Data Collection Section 2.1.4 states “Output data shall be recorded in the “Ballistic Data Collection rev 0” spreadsheet at an altitude at sea level and a temperature of 70˚F” and “The “Ballistic Data Collection rev 0” spreadsheet will be filled out by the Offeror and submitted to the Government with the proposal“.

The spreadsheet provided contains 3 sheets and it is our understanding that the sheet labeled “Base Ballistics” should be filled in with the output data of our ballistic model based upon zero altitude and 70 ˚F. The other two sheets, “Variations due to Temperature” and “Variations due to Altitude” appear to be values that serve as inputs into the ballistic model rather than outputs and will be used during the data collection demo rather than supplied as part of the proposal.

SRD 3.1.e: “The setup of the squad configuration shall be accomplished by no more than three people in two hours or less” SRD 3.4.6: “The EST II shall be setup within a maximum time of 4 hours…” SD 3.1.e requires two hours or less and SRD 3.4.6 states a maximum of 4 hours, please clarify. Updated 3.4.6 to reflect CPD requirement in section 3.1.e Max time for setup is a total of 6 hours, or no more than three people in two hours or less.

165 Attachment 1 SRD SRD 3.4.6 (Transportability) states that the EST II shall be setup within a maximum time of 4 hours and maximum teardown of 8 hours. However, paragraph 3.1 (e), states that the setup of the squad configuration shall be accomplished by no more than three people in two hours or less.

Are there different conditions for each of these requirements? Please clarify if these are two different requirements or the same requirement that needs modification. Updated 3.4.6 to reflect CPD requirement in section 3.1.e Max time for setup is a total of 6 hours, or no more than three people in two hours or less.

If those values are not to be overwritten, then it appears those values are in conflict with the values reflected in the Partial ARDEC Ballistics Table provided. For example, at Range 100m, the ARDEC table specifies a “Super Elevation” of “0.60” Mils whereas the value in the “Base Ballistic” sheet is “0.67” Mils which does not correlate. Also, at the same range, the ARDEC Table specifies that for a 10m/s cross wind the deflection is “0.6” Mils whereas the “Base Ballistic” sheet specifies for a 10MPH cross wind (which equates to only 4.47 m/s) a deflection of “0.7” Mils which is more drift than the ARDEC table using less wind speed.

Can you please clarify this discrepancy? Are those merely sample values that can be disregarded? 1) The sample values were provided from the ARDEC validated tables. The offeror shall provide the values from the vendor's ballistic model for the proposal.

2) ARDEC Ballistics Table for M16A4 (RIFLE, 5.56MM, M16A2/A3/A4, FIRING CARTRIDGE, BALL, M855) were used to correct Attachment 2B, Ballistic Data Collection

3) References updated to reflect 10 m/s crosswind in accordance to the ARDEC table.

173 Attachment 2B, Ballistic Data Collection and Attachment 4B GFI Partial ARDEC Ballistics Table for M16A4 The ballistic data collection excel spreadsheet contains a sheet labeled “Base Ballistics” that lists 10 MPH cross wind, whereas the Partial ARDEC table for M16A4 lists 10 m/s cross wind. We assume that the government wishes the vendor to supply the output data from the ballistic model for the proposal submission based on 10MPH cross wind, “at an altitude at sea level and a temperature of 70˚F”.

Range pricing for CONUS shipping and travel shall include shipping and travel costs using a midpoint in U.S.: St. Louis, MO.

OCONUS shipments shipping and travel costs will be for the difference between the U.S. midpoint and the OCONUS location. The cost differential for OCONUS shipments and travel will be covered under a T&M Work Directive.

Is it the Government’s objective that the offeror provide a separate sub-section within the Sub-factor 1 response to address the overall technical approach (including open architecture, simulation fidelity, and logistics)?

Is it the Government’s intention that Section 1 of Volume I be structured to begin with an Executive Summary followed by the three subsections as indicated thus deleting the requirement for a formal letter to transmit the proposal as an integral part of Section 1? Offerors are to follow the instructions as outlined in L.5.5.1.

189 Draft RFP In the PWS (C.2.3), the Government indicates that, in case of a conflict, the order of precedence is PWS, then SRD then reference documents. There are a number of conflicts between the content of the Government answers to Offeror’s questions. One example is the number of pages allowed for the Executive Summary.

&"Times New Roman,Bold"QAs to Draft RFP_EST II_Posted in FBO on 9 May 13

QAs-EST II-Posted 17 Apr 13

• 50/60 Hz, 120 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) single phase

• 208/120 VAC three phase

• 480/277 VAC three phase (required for motors above 15 hp)

• 60 Hz: 120/208 V, 3 phase, 4 wire*

• 240/416 V, 3 phase, 4 wire*

• 50 Hz: 120/208 V, 3 phase, 4 wire*

• COTS generators for FMS cases *U.S. Army standard generators for deployment

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that 50/60 Hz, 240 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) single phase power will also be available at all EST II sites. Do you agree?

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that prescribed three phase power sources will be typically utilized at deployed locations requiring U.S. Army Generators for electrical power. Do you agree?

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that single phase loads will be served using one of the three legs available in the three phase supplies (generators included). Do you agree?

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that COTS generators for FMS installations will provide power sources equivalent to one or more of the sources specified for U.S. Army installations. Do you agree?

• Based on our surveys of fielded systems and the specifications above, it is presumed that fixed CONUS and OCONUS installations will typically have 50/60 Hz, 120/220 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) single phase power available. Do you agree?

Paragraph 3.4.3.2 states that the EST IIs shall utilize the following power sources.

• 50/60 Hz, 120 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) single phase

• 208/120 VAC three phase

• 480/277 VAC three phase (required for motors above 15 hp)

• 60 Hz: 120/208 V, 3 phase, 4 wire*

• 240/416 V, 3 phase, 4 wire*

• 50 Hz: 120/208 V, 3 phase, 4 wire*

• COTS generators for FMS cases *U.S. Army standard generators for deployment

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that 50/60 Hz, 240 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) single phase power will also be available at all EST II sites. Do you agree?

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that prescribed three phase power sources will be typically utilized at deployed locations requiring U.S. Army Generators for electrical power. Do you agree?

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that single phase loads will be served using one of the three legs available in the three phase supplies (generators included). Do you agree?

• Based on the specifications above, it is presumed that COTS generators for FMS installations will provide power sources equivalent to one or more of the sources specified for U.S. Army installations. Do you agree?

• Based on our surveys of fielded systems and the specifications above, it is presumed that fixed CONUS and OCONUS installations will typically have 50/60 Hz, 120/220 Volts Alternating Current (VAC) single phase power available. Do you agree?

If there is a desire to go forward with an updated design for compressed air, then information is needed regarding the airflow requirements of the fielded Cubic and Meggitt weapons so that needed compressors can be designed to meet worst case air flow needs.

The Air Compressor consists of a JUN-AIR model Air Compressor. For Lot 0-8.5, the model of the Air Compressor is 12-50 and operates at 115V, 60Hz 20 amp or 220V 50 Hz 10 amp with a maximum pressure rating of 160 psi. For Lot 10 and higher, the model of the Air Compressor is 36-150 and operates at 115V, 60Hz 20 amp with a maximum pressure rating of 160 psi. The model 36-150 Air Compressor requires two individual 20 amp circuits for proper operation.

The Air Compressors are used to provide recoil for the simulated weapons. Compressed air is delivered via a trainer peculiar umbilical cord attached to each weapon and cycles the bolt as each round is fired. Standard operating pressures for the EST system are 100 psi and 125 psi. The pressure regulator for the larger diameter outlet is set for 125 psi. The pressure regulator for the smaller diameter outlet is 100 psi.

Question: 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.

Government response to question 38: “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 administrative 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.”

&"Times New Roman,Bold"QAs to Draft RFP_EST II_Posted in FBO on 17 Apr 13

QAs-EST II-Posted 26 Mar 13

&"Times New Roman,Bold"QAs to Draft RFP_EST II_Posted in FBO on 26 Mar 13

QAs-EST II-Posted 11 Mar 13

• Will the Army provide VBS 2 to the awardee through their Enterprise License, and will they include license dongles for each EST II system?

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.

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.

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).