RFPAttach14_QAs_060713_EST_II.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Engagement Skills Trainer II (EST II)
- Solicitation number
- W900KK13R0007
About this file
RFPAttach14_QAs_060713_EST II
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
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
RFP Q&As - EST II
| No. | Reference | Industry Question/Comment | Government Answer/Response |
| 1 | RFP Sections L.5.3.1.b & M.3.4 | Section L.5.3.1.b states “Major subcontractors” are those subcontractors whose annual subcontract revenue is expected to exceed 10 percent of the anticipated annual effort. |
Section M.3.4 states “A major subcontractor is defined as one whose subcontract is for more than 10 percent of the total proposed price.”
Does the Government intend for the term “major subcontractor” to mean: “one whose subcontract is for more than 10 percent of the total proposed price”?
Yes, it is the Government intent for the term “major subcontractor” to mean: “one whose subcontract is for more than 10 percent of the total proposed price.”
RFP Section L.5.3.1.b language was revised from “Major subcontractors are those subContractors whose annual subcontract revenue is expected to exceed 10 percent of the anticipated annual effort.” to “major subcontractors are those subcontractors whose subcontract is for more than 10 percent of the total proposed price.”
2 SRD 3.5.2, 3.5.3, CLIN 0038, PWS 3.8.1 SRD 3.5.2 states the Post Deployment Software Support configuration shall consist of a standard FT configuration with authoring capability. Based upon this description, what is the difference between a PDSS configuration and the Authoring Configuration described in SRD 3.5.3 and identified as CLIN 0038?
PWS 3.8.1 describes PDSS as Post Deployment Software Support for the duration of the contract and includes subparagraphs that discuss a software support environment (SW and documentation, etc.), a System Development Environment for sustainment of the system (latest configuration diagnostics, development, IDE, test equipment CM tools, etc.), transitioning of software support to the LCSEE, engineering services, etc.
The meaning of the PDSS appears to be different between the SRD and the PWS. Please clarify.
The PDSS is all software to include source code and software development environment. The authoring tool is part of the overall configuration and source. The authoring configuration is just the software and/or hardware necessary to create scenarios.
The PWS has the details of the PDSS while the SRD just has the high-level requirement.
3 RFP Section L.1.3 Section L.1.3 states, “The anticipated award date for this requirement is 17 Jan 2014.”
a. Should the T&M Pricing table be updated to start rates in FY14?
b. Should the T&M rates extend out to FY19 due to the fact that the contract has a 5-year ordering period and work may extend into FY19?
c. Should the ODC and Travel Factors be shown by fiscal year, based on different indirect rates projected for the out years?
| The T&M pricing table within the RFP Attachment 11 was updated to reflect cells where Offerors will identify their Fiscal Year Accounting Period and provide their applicable FY14 through FY19 rates and factors. In addition, Section B.2 T&M Rates Applicable to CLINs 0039, 0040, 0041 and 0043 have been clarified to reflect that the T&M rates FY is the Offeror's FY. Offerors are to identify the period of performance that their FY covers. | ||
| 4 | RFP Section L.4.4 | Section 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.” |
a. Attachment 11 – Pricing Spreadsheet, as provided by the Government, is in 10-point font size. Should this be reformatted to 12-point font size?
b. The Pricing Spreadsheet is currently locked, which does not allow for adjustments in column widths. If price becomes more than 9 digits long (including two decimal places) in any column it will show as “#####” because the column width does not have enough room to display the number in that format. Will the Government unlock the Pricing Spreadsheet so column widths can be adjusted?
| File was reformatted to a 12 pt font size and column widths increased. | |
| 5 | RFP Attach 2A_Demo Plan & RFP Attach 4B_GFI - Partial - ARDEC - Ballistics Table M16A4 |
| The partial ARDEC ballistic table provided mentions the range data is created under “standard conditions.” We need to know the definition of “standard conditions” with regards to temperature, humidity and altitude and how it relates to US or ISO standard atmosphere. The concerns are 1) that the requested initial recorded data during proposal submittal is assumed to be under standard conditions of 70 F, which is different than the US, or ISO standard atmosphere definition of 59 F at sea level and 2) the humidity is not defined for the data collection. Can the Government provide the definition of “standard conditions” with regards to temperature, humidity and altitude and any relationship to the US or ISO standard atmosphere and also confirm if the initial data collection should be under” standard conditions”? | Output data shall be recorded by the Offeror in the RFP Attachment 2B “Ballistic Data |
Collection” spreadsheet at a simulated altitude at sea level and a temperature of 70˚F. Sea level and 70˚F are the standard conditions provided in the ARDEC table provided. There is no relation between the data collection and US and ISO standards. ARDEC did not use US or ISO standards when collecting their data. The "standard simulated environment condition" with regards to temperature and altitude is 70˚F at sea level for this acquisition.
Initial data collection should be under "standard conditions" except where specified (e.g., standard altitude but higher/lower temperature, or standard temperature at higher elevations). No data is available for varying humidity levels. Humidity variations are not being evaluated in the data collection subfactor.
| 6 | If the Government has drawings for existing EST 2000 weapons and does not provide that data to the potential suppliers, this will give the incumbent supplier a competitive advantage. Does the Government own the EST 2000 weapon drawings or are they proprietary? | The final production drawing package for the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition and the Modular Appended Shotgun System (MASS) M26 have not been accepted by the Government. The drawing package for the M320 Grenade Launch is based on Cubic's proprietary simulated weapon design. The Government will release that portion of the M320 Grenade Launch design that was delivered with Government Purpose Rights. Please note that this data is being released as Government Furnished Information "AS IS". The Government does NOT warrant the accuracy of the data or its suitability for use. | |
| 7 | RFPAttach2B_BallisticDataCollection_050813.xlsx | Would the Government clarify the interpretation of the values in the "Variations Due To Temperature" tab, in particular columns B and C? Can you give an example of completed table using another military or commercial ammunition type? | The Government has updated the spreadsheet to include the correct data for temperatures variations with samples that correspond with the ARDEC data that was provided as GFE. |
| 8 | RFP Attach 7 Cross Reference Matrix |
RFP Section L.5.1.5
| Section L.5.1.5 states, "The Offeror shall populate the Cross Reference Matrix, provided as RFP Section J Attachment 7, 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." The Technical volume instructions do not provide a location to respond to the Program Management requirements in the PWS. Is it the Government's expectation that the Offeror write to all PWS requirements, to include Program Management, even though a Program Management section is not included in the Technical Volume? If not, is it the expectation that these requirements would be identified as "N/A" in the cross reference matrix? | L.5.1.5 has been updated to state: "The Offeror’s Proposal shall include a populated Cross Reference Matrix (RFP Section J Attach 7), which is excluded from the page count. The intent of the Matrix is to ensure that an Offeror has provided evidence of compliance for the RFP requirements (not all requirements are listed in the Matrix). The matrix will not be used by the Government for evaluation in the Technical and Performance Risk Assessment Volumes. Proposal documents must identify all instances of deviations from the RFP/PWS/SOW. Deviations from the RFP/PWS/SOW should clearly articulate the benefit to the Government for accepting the deviation. Please note that a deviation from any of the documents contained within the RFP may render an Offeror ineligible for award. Format/structure of the Matrix is open to interpretation but must be made available via electronic media as part of the Volume I proposal submittal. Offeror's shall certify that they meet/do not meet/exceed a given RFP requirement. If an Offeror proposes to exceed a given requirement that is being evaluated in Factor 1-4, then they should identify the page and paragraph # in their proposal for that Factor/Subfactor. Their response to the respective Subfactors should state how they plan to exceed the requirement and the benefit to the Government as well as the information requested in the Subfactor. |
| 9 | RFP Attach 7 Cross Reference Matrix & |
RFP Section L.5.1.5
| Section L.5.1.5 states, "The matrix will be used by the Government for evaluation in the Technical and Performance Risk Assessment Volumes." Are Offeror's required to cross reference the PWS and SRD requirements to the Performance Risk Assessment Volume? | No. Please see answer to Question 8. | ||
| 10 | The responses to previous Q&A and the Final RFP released on 10 May, defined a new approach for estimating delivery locations, travel estimates and Interim Contractor Support (ICS). The number of locations and number of new or tech refresh weapons/systems at each location is still unknown and results in uncertainty in the Offeror's estimates. This change in fielding and installation will require a change in pricing strategy. | RFP Attach 12 has been added to identify the current fielded EST locations. RFP Attach 1, SRD, Section 6.1.14 outlines the current simulated weapons and optics mix. |
B.1 Range Pricing has been revised to state the following regarding the purchase of tech refresh of simulated weapons or simulated weapons not being acquired as part of a system: "The pricing for technical refresh of EST simulated weapons and/or simulated weapons procured separately from a EST systems shall reflect all the applicable efforts required for the supplies and services required to manufacture; test and deliver the weapons."
Section F.1 has been revised to state:
"F.1. SHIPPING ADDRESSES FOR SYSTEMS AND OR SYSTEMS WITH SIMULATED WEAPONS
The Range pricing for CONUS/OCONUS shipments for systems and systems with simulated weapons shall not include shipping costs as well as travel costs for installs, site surveys, and initial training (excluding labor) as this will be covered under a T&M Work Directive. The labor costs for install, site surveys, and initial training shall be included in the range pricing.
F.2 . SHIPPING ADDRESSES FOR SIMULATED WEAPONS THAT ARE NOT ORDERED WITH A SYSTEM:
F.2.1 The Range pricing for CONUS shipments for simulated weapons that are not ordered with a system shall include shipping costs using a midpoint in U.S.: St. Louis, MO. This average shipping costs will be utilized for all CONUS shipments of simulated weapons.
F.2.2 The Range pricing for OCONUS shipments for simulated weapons that are not ordered with a system will be for the difference between the U.S. midpoint (average shipping costs) and the OCONUS location. The cost differential for OCONUS shipments will be covered under a T&M Work Directive."
| 11 | RFP Section F | Section F 5152.245-5005 states, "The initial Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) that will be provided to the Awardee is identified in Attachment 4 RFP Section J. The GFE delivery will start within sixty days after the basic contract award." | ||
| Section F implies that GFE deliveries will start 60 days after award, although is not clear on when GFE deliveries will complete. Would the Government please clarify when the Offeror can expect that all GFE deliveries will be completed? | Section F clause 5152.245-5005 has been updated to state: "The initial Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) that will be provided to the awardee is identified in Attachment 4 RFP Section J. The GFE delivery for DO 0001 will start within sixty days after the DO award. For Tech Refresh efforts, the Government will provide the applicable GFE systems and simulated weapons that will require the refresh sixty days after the respective DO is awarded. For the AT4, BDM, M320s, and M26 development, the Government will provide GFE expended AT4 tubes, expended BDM tubes, M320s, and M26s commencing sixty days after the respective DO award. Depending upon the amount of GFE needed for these weapons, the delivery of the GFE may be staggered. If GFE is staggered, then delivery will also be staggered, i.e. weapons due twelve months after receipt of the GFE. Furnishing of the GFE and subsequent delivery schedule will be specified in each DO." | |||
| 12 | Attachment 2A, page 10 | The specified target dimensions are inconsistent. Is the total length and height of the target 5 meters from edge to edge? If so, are the interior squares supposed to be 1 meter from center of one border line to the next? If both those conditions are correct the outer borders would need to be half the thickness of the inner borders. Would the Government please clarify the inner and outer dimensions of the sample target shown in Figure 5? | Yes, the target is 5 meters from edge to edge. Outer boundary is half-width (1.27cm). Target is 5mx5m with 1m squares, measured from the center of the division lines (or the edge of the outer border, in the case of an outer square). Attachment 2A has been corrected. | |
| 13 | RFP Attach 2B | Would the Government please verify that only Tab 1 of the Ballistic Data Collection spreadsheet needs to be populated during the demonstration? Tabs 2 and 3 are to be populated prior to the demo and submitted with the proposal. | Tabs 1, 2, and 3 must be populated and submitted with the proposal. During the Ballistic Data Collection, the Government will vary the parameters, as stated in the demonstration plan, and collect data as identified. RFP Section L.5.2.5.a and Attach 2A have been updated to clarify this. | |
| 14 | Attach 11, B.1 | The instructions listed in the RFP Attachment 11, B.1 Range Pricing as well as the subsequent Q&A responses, state that “The pricing provided by Offerors shall reflect all the applicable efforts required for the manufacture, delivery, installation, instructor/operator training course, initial maintenance training, interim Contractor support, documentation, and test of each system/weapon.” RFP Section 3.6 states, “The Contractor shall provide one month of Interim Contractor Support (ICS) services for each new system, or weapon…” The range pricing worksheet allows the Government to place an order for one new weapon for delivery to a system. If an order were placed for one new weapon to be fielded to an existing EST system, does the Government require a site survey and one month of on-site ICS support? The cost of the site survey and ICS support would outweigh the cost of the new weapon. |
Offerors are required to provide firm fixed pricing for unknown delivery quantities and locations over a five year period of performance, which will require over-estimation of the required travel effort and will not provide the overall best value to the Government. We recommend the Government include a Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLIN for Site Survey, Operator Training and ICS for purposes of Price Evaluation for the ID/IQ.
| No, if the upgrade/refresh is for the weapons on an existing fielded system(s), then the survey and 1 month ICS is not required. Section B.1, Range Pricing, of the RFP has been updated. The only exception at this time is the M26 as this would be a new weapon to the field. Therefore, for the M26 New Equipment Training would be at Fort Benning, Fort Dix, and CLS Contractor. | ||||
| 15 | RFP | Would the Government incorporate the FAR Clause 52.251-1 Government Supply Sources into the RFP? | Yes, FAR Clause 52.251-1, Government Supply Sources, has been added. | |
| 16 | RFP Section L | Section L.5.4 states “All Offerors, both small and large businesses, are required to submit 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 value in each 12 months of performance beginning upon contract award.” | ||
| Is the intent of Section L.5.4 for the Offeror to meet a goal of 30% of the incremental contract value each year? As written, L.5.4 could be interpreted in a few different ways. | The Offeror is required to submit 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 value, beginning upon contract award. However, the Awardee's actual goal will be based on 30% of the Delivery Orders value awarded in each 12 months of performance. | |||
| 17 | PWS 3.4.5, System Operational Test (SOT) | Question 148 from the Government states that production representative prototype will be delivered to Contractor’s location. PWS paragraph 3.4.5 states that System Operational Test (SOT) will occur at Ft. Benning. Will the Government please clarify the locations of the production representative prototype and SOT? | The Functional Qualification Test (FQT) will be conducted at the Contractor’s facility. This test is conducted utilizing the production representative prototype. Once this FQT is passed, then SOT will be performed at FT. Benning with a production representative. | |
| 18 | Section I Clauses | 1. The RFP includes FAR 52.244-6, SUBCONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEC 2010). Upon review of this clause and the RFP, the Government requires “to the maximum extent practicable, the Contractor shall incorporate, and require its subContractors at all tiers to incorporate, commercial items or nondevelopmental items as components of items to be supplied under this contract.” However, the RFP also includes FAR 52.227-3, PATENT INDEMNITY (APR 1984). |
2. Pursuant to FAR 27.201-2(c)(1), insertion of the clause at 52.227-3 is solicitations and contracts that may result in the delivery of commercial items is warranted unless “Part 12 procedures are used” (FAR 27.201-2(c)(1)(i)).
3. Per FAR 12.101 POLICY under PART 12–ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS, Agencies shall, in pertinent part, “require prime Contractors and subContractors at all tiers to incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable commercial items or nondevelopmental items as components of items supplied to the agency.” (FAR 12.101(c)). Please note that this is the same language from 52.244-6, which is in the RFP.
4. Per FAR 12.102 APPLICABILITY, “Contracting officers shall use the policies in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; Part 14, Sealed Bidding; or Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition.
5. In this case, FAR Part 15 is being utilized. See RFP, Section M.1.1. Based upon FAR 12.102, FAR Part 12 procedures may be used in conjunction with Part 15 procedures.
6. Please advise if the Government will remove FAR 52.227-3 from the RFP since FAR 27.201-2(c)(i) states that 52.227-3 shall not be used if FAR Part 12 procedures are used.
If the Government will not remove FAR 52.227-3, please advise if the Government would be willing to incorporate 52.227-3, ALT 1 and agree to listing all commercial and nondevelopmental items to which the patent indemnification shall not apply. 1. FAR 52.244-6, SUBCONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEC 2010), is used in solicitations and contracts that may result in the delivery of commercial items. The Government believes Offerors may use some commercial items, i.e. computers, screens, projectors, compressors, etc.. See FAR 2.101 for the definition of a "Commercial item”
2. The EST II is being procured under FAR Part 15.
3. Agree that is the FAR's policy.
4. Please see FAR 12.000, Scope of Part "This part prescribes policies and procedures unique to the acquisition of commercial items." The EST II does not meet the FAR's definition for being a commercial item.
5. FAR Part 12 continues to state "as appropriate for the particular acquisition."
6. The Government will not be removing FAR 52.227-3 from the RFP as this acquisition is being conducted under FAR Part 15. The EST II does not meet the FAR's definition of a commercial item. The EST II contains some commercial items and software, but it also contains items and software that will be, or have been, developed or modified to meet the needs of the Government. These changes are not considered to be minor. Please note that FAR 2.101 definition of "commercial" (4) states: "Any combination of items meeting the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), or (5) of this definition that are of a type customarily combined and SOLD in combination to the General Public."
19 RFPAttach2B_BallisticDataCollection_050813
| Tab “Base Ballistics” and Tab “Variations due to Altitude” | The range values in the Tab “Base Ballistics” and Tab “Variations due to Altitude” of RFP Attachment_2B_BallisticsDataCollection do not have a standard interval between ranges (they are non-regular increments with sequences like 200M, 230M, 245M, 280M, 300M, 325M). Can we fill out this spreadsheet in 25M (or 5M or 1M) increments or does the Government request the exact range values specified? | The Offeror needs to fill out the spreadsheet based on their physics model and their proposed increments. |
| 20 | RFP Attachment 2A_DemoPlan_050913, section 3.1.7.1 |
Section # 3.1.7.1 Test Setup Page # 11 Section 3.1.7.1, Page 11. It stated - “The Offeror shall set up and configure the system in accordance with table 15 steps 1-7. Both the Offeror and the Government will verify table 15, Steps 1-11. The table 15 conditions are set prior to initial ballistic sampling and each subsequent ballistic sampling thereafter.”
| There is no table 15 in that document. Does Government mean to say Table 4 Test Setup? Please clarify. | Yes, this should be Table 4, not Table 15. The Demo Plan was updated. | |
| 21 | RFP Attachment 2A_DemoPlan_050913 |
Section # 2 Page # 4 & 5 Section 2, page 4 it is stated - "During the data collection, the Offeror shall modify input parameters to its physics model to capture output data. This data shall be recorded in the RFP Attachment 2B “Ballistic Data Collection” spreadsheet by the Offeror, and provided to the Government upon completion of the two hour event for future evaluation."
However, on page 5, it is stated – "Output data shall be recorded by the Offeror in the RFP Attachment 2B “Ballistic Data Collection” spreadsheet at an altitude at sea level and a temperature of 70˚F. The completed spreadsheet shall be submitted with the proposal."
Is Government expecting us to fill out RFP 2B at Sea Level and 70F and submit that with the proposal and the additional 6 tests (with modified input parameters) and resulting spreadsheets will be turned in to the Government at the end of the data collection. If it is required to submit the table(s) with the proposal, will the table be counted against the total page count? Please clarify. The "Ballistic Data Collection” spreadsheet (RFP Attach 2B) needs to be filled out and submitted with the proposal. During the demonstration, the Government will request the parameter changes identified in the demo plan, and those will be the extra 6 data collection spreadsheets. These will not count against the total page count of the submitted proposal.
The additional 6 tests (with modified input parameters) and resulting spreadsheets will be turned in to the Government at the end of the data collection.
| 22 | RFP Attachment 2A DemoPlan 050913 3.1.7.1_Table 4 Test Setup | In the answer to Question 181, Government stated “the bottom edge of the target must be on top of the virtual terrain. Virtual terrain must be level with the firing line elevation” | ||
| However, according to step 9 and 10 in the Demo Plan, Section 3.1.7.1, Table 4 Test Setup, the gun is to be level and with the muzzle at 97.155cm. There is no way to aim at the center of a 5 meter tall target with the muzzle leveled at 97.155cm. Please clarify | Table 4 of Attach 2A, Demo Plan, is the initial Test Setup. The weapon is not being fired at this point. Table 5 and the remaining Tables describe the steps for the weapon to be aimed, which may not be 97.155cm. | |||
| 23 | RFP Attach 2A DemoPlan 050913 3.1.7.1_Table 4 Test Setup 3.1.4_Table 3 Required Test Equip | In the answer to Question 175, Government stated “The optical adapter referenced in the demonstration procedures has been removed and will not be used for evaluation”. However, the Caldwell optical adapter is still mentioned in the Section 3.1.4, Table 3 of Demo Plan. Please clarify. | The Caldwell identified in table 3 is the modified bench rest for mounting of the simulated M16A4. This is not the optical adapter as it was removed from the RFP. | |
| 24 | PWS C.3.7.6 | Section 3.7.6 of the PWS discusses the ongoing Obsolescence Management Program, however Section 3.7 is Site Activation (installation of training equipment) which does not typically have an ongoing support component. |
Should Section 3.7.6 be located instead in Section 3.8 System Technical Support or Section 3.2 Systems Engineering? PWS section 3.8, System Technical Support, includes logistics functions not specified with the PWS.
PWS section 3.7 includes other logistics function, not just installation of training equipment. PWS section 3.7.6 is in correct location - no updates are necessary.
25 RFP, Section B.1 & L.5.2.4 Section B.1 states, “The pricing for the Technical Refresh of EST systems, and Fire Team EST II systems, shall reflect all the applicable efforts required for the supplies and services required to: manufacture; test; deliver; install (See Section F) each system/weapon; provide system training (Operator and initial Maintainer Training courses (PWS 3.5.6)); provide interim Contractor support (PWS 3.6); system/weapon warranty; and requisite documentation.”
a. Should the word “warranty” be removed from this sentence?
Section L.5.2.4 states, “The Offeror shall discuss in detail their proposed approach for meeting logistics support requirements for effective system operation, maintenance, and life cycle support; logistics influence of Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) design parameters, warranty; spare and repair parts selection; and minimizing the use of unique/special tools and support equipment.”
| b. Should the word “warranty” be removed from this sentence? | All transferrable commercial (COTS) warranties should be identified and transferred to the Government. | |
| 26 | RFPAttach2B_BallisticDataCollection_050813 |
| Tab “Variations due to Temp” | In regards to RFPAttach2B_BallisticDataCollection_050813, spreadsheet tab labeled “Variations Due to Temperature” : The two given values in the table (at 10C and 29C) do not correspond to the values in ARDEC firing tables FT 5.56 A-1, July 1996. Will the Government be supplying the current ARDEC tables for the M16A4/M855 in regards to temperature effects on muzzle velocity? | The Government revised the spreadsheet sample data to correlate with the ARDEC table. The GFE ARDEC table released by the Government is correct and will not be updated to include any additional data. | ||
| 27 | RFP Section C, Para 1 | Section C, Para 1 states - "The Awardee will receive two (2) 10-lane heavy legacy EST systems with simulated weapons and available Government Furnished Information (GFI). The GFI will include all available Government Purpose Rights (GPR)/releasable data, to include operator and maintenance manuals, Interface Control Document (ICD) for simulated weapons (produced by Cubic), a revised ICD for simulated weapons (produced by FATS), M320 drawing packages, the M141 Bunker Defeat Munitions (BDM) drawing package, and LAGS II drawings (unstabalized gunnery). These EST systems are for verification of the technology refresh. The Contractor will develop a production representative prototype system and supporting documentation for the Verification, Validation & Accreditation (VV&A) of training capabilities In Accordance With (IAW) the SRD. Upon Government approval, the upgraded systems will become the U.S. Army baseline EST II system." Will the Government be providing a "revised ICD for simulated weapons (produced by FATS)" to the Awardee? | The Government will NOT be providing a revised ICD for the simulated weapons produced by FATS. The Government does not have a revised ICD for the simulated weapons produced by FATS. The Government has provided to Offerors the "redacted ICD" for the simulated weapons produced by FATS. |
However, Meggitt has informed the Government that they will commit to enter into a royalty free, personal, non-exclusive non-transferable license agreement and separate Non-Disclosure Agreement for the complete ICD with the successful Awardee, limited to the EST weapons developed and delivered by FATS under Lots 0 to 5 1/2 (weapons that may undergo tech refresh) for the purpose of the EST II program ONLY. It is up to the Awardee, if they chose, to enter into a royalty free, personal, non-exclusive non-transferable license agreement and separate Non-Disclosure Agreement with Meggitt.
28 RFP Section L.5.2 Some SRD/PWS requirements are not specified within the proposal layout defined in RFP Section L. Can we assume that those PWS/SRD requirements that are not called out within the Section L sub-factors do not need to be addressed in our proposal write-ups, but instead our compliance should be noted in the Compliance Matrix? Given the page count limitations defined in RFP Section L.5.2 and the requirement for supporting info/narrative to be provided for each requirement, it would be difficult to meet the page count limitations otherwise. The corresponding Section L.5.2 requirement is listed below – related text denoted by BOLD font). “L.5.2, The Offeror shall prepare and submit a Technical Volume containing no more than the number of pages outlined in Table L-1. This volume provides Offerors with an opportunity to provide their overall technical approach to meet the requirements of the ID/IQ, in particular to demonstrate how they WILL meet the requirements and specifications of Delivery Order 0001 (DO 0001). This volume SHALL be sufficiently specific, detailed, and complete as to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror has a thorough understanding and knowledge of the technical approach and associated risks to provide an EST II. The evaluation approach is discussed in Section M of the RFP. Statements that the Offeror understands and will perform the listed functions without supporting information/narrative are inadequate. Paraphrasing or reiteration of the SOW or parts thereof is similarly inadequate, as are phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well-known techniques WILL be used.” Providing appropriate supporting information WILL permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal and ensure all elements required are addressed. The Offeror SHALL respond with a separate, complete, and detailed write-up for each sub-factor within the Technical Approach volume. The Government has provided, within RFP Section J Attach 10, a copy of the SOW representative of work anticipated to be ordered under the first DO against the resultant contract.” Please see answer to question 8.
The Offeror's technical proposal shall address Factor 1 and its subfactors.
29 PWS 3.1.2, Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Is it the Government’s intent to have the Contractor provide the IMS in full accordance with DID DI-MGMT-81861 and all the accompanying documentation that the DID requires, including IMS narratives and Schedule Risk Assessments? Or is the Government’s requirement for a monthly IMS delivery that depicts the items specifically called out in SOW paragraph 3.1.2? No, CDRL A003 delineates the IMS requirements. Blk 16 details how DID DI-MGMT-81861 is to be tailored.
PWS 3.1.2 augments CDRL A003. Therefore, a Contractor would follow PWS paragraph 3.1.2 and CDRL A003, as tailored.
| 30 | PWS 3.7.1 | We assume that the Government will have limited to no use of any excess legacy equipment which is not consumed into a tech refresh. To store this GFE material and disposition it will add costs that add no value. Can the Government provide advanced direction to scrap all excess GFE so these additional costs are not included in the pricing? | This answer is dependent upon the Offeror's approach. If an Offeror's tech refresh approach does not require the use of any GFE, then the Government will coordinate the disposition of the EST equipment to be dispositioned with the individual sites and the ICLS Contractor. If an Offeror's approach cannibalizes the EST equipment to be tech refreshed, then the Contractor shall request disposition instructions thru the ACO/PCO. The Government cannot provide any further information on disposition as it is dependent upon the Offeror's approach. |
| 31 | PWS 3.7.4 | Are the TASC and military Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services involved with the disposal process? | Excess property will be disposed of in accordance with FAR, DFARS, and AFARS Parts 45. |
| 32 | Will Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS 2) be available for integration into EST II through the U.S. Army Enterprise License to include runtime licenses for each fielded EST II system? If so, what VBS2 modules are available for development and fielding? Is there a cost to the developing Contractor for integrating VBS2 into their proposed solution? | No, VBS2 is not being provided as GFI. This does not preclude the Offeror from proposing and pricing VBS2 as part of their technical refresh solution. |
Currently VBS is in source selection for the next contract and support for current release is unknown at this time.
33 Section F Clause 5152.245-5005 PLACE OF DELIVERY - Government FURNISHED MATERIAL (PEO-STRI) (SEP 2006) When will the GFE expended AT4 tubes, expended BDM tubes, M320s and M26 weapons be supplied? Prior to delivery order release or how many days after delivery order issue? This has an impact on the Offeror delivery schedule. Can the Offeror define where to deliver these GFE parts? Section F 5152.245-5005 has been updated to state: "The initial Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) that will be provided to the Awardee is identified in Attachment 4 RFP Section J. The GFE delivery for DO 0001 will start within sixty days after the DO award. For Tech Refresh efforts, the Government will provide the applicable GFE systems and simulated weapons that will require the refresh sixty days after the respective DO is awarded. For the AT4, BDM, M320s, and M26 development, the Government will provide GFE expended AT4 tubes, expended BDM tubes, M320s, and M26s commencing sixty days after the respective DO award. Depending upon the amount of GFE needed for these weapons, the delivery of the GFE may be staggered. If GFE is staggered, then delivery will also be staggered, i.e. weapons due twelve months after receipt of the GFE. Furnishing of the GFE and subsequent delivery schedule will be specified in each DO."
Yes, an Offeror can define where to deliver the GFE AT4 tubes, expended BDM tubes, M320s and M26s to.
34 SRD 3.1.3.d: “Modular simulated weapon approach... If the Offeror’s approach meets the objective requirement to provide modularized weapons for the M4, M16, M26 and M320 as stated in SRD 3.1.3.d, does the Government desire for the Offeror to also price stand-alone combined weapons that are not modular in CLINs 23 and 34? By meeting the objective requirement, is it the intent of the Government that the Offeror not separately price CLINs 23 and 34? The Offeror shall propose a FFP for CLINs 0023 and 0034 as standalone weapon purchases that are modular and meet the SRD requirements.
Offerors are required to price all CLINs other than that specifically designated as NSP or TBN.
| 35 | PWS 3.7.1, Site Survey and Legacy Equipment Pickup | If the Offeror does not require the legacy equipment at their facility prior to installation, will the Government allow this equipment to remain at the sites? | Yes, the EST systems will remain operational as is until they are scheduled for a tech refresh. Then, based on the Offeror’s tech refresh solution, any equipment not used will be dispositioned according to the regulations through the Government. |
| 36 | PWS 3.6 | In the RFP PWS Section 3.6, the Government states that the Offeror shall provide one month of Interim Contractor Support (ICS) services for each new system or weapon; or for each technical refresh system or weapon fielding Is it the intent of the Government to require the one month of interim Contractor support in the case when only weapons are being refreshed to successfully transition the system Operation and Maintenance (O&M) to PM Field Ops life cycle support Contractor | No, if the upgrade/refresh is for the weapons on an existing fielded system(s) that has already been refreshed, then the survey and 1 month ICS is not required. RFP Section B.1, Range Pricing, and PWS 3.6 have been updated to clarify that a survey and 1 month of ICS is for systems and weapons delivered together. |
The only exception at this time is for new weapons, e.g. the M26 as this as it would be a new weapon to the field. Therefore, for the initial fielding of the M26 ICS would be provided by the Contractor for 1 month under the STS CLIN. The Government will issue Work Directives for the ICS for any new weapons developed.
| 37 | RFP Section L.3.3 | The RFP states in 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 The term “Before the individual volumes” can be interpreted in different ways. Will the Government please clarify exactly where the location of the executive summaries are to be located in each volume included in the proposal before the individual volumes (The foregoing is excluded from the page count). “ | RFP Section L.3.3 has been revised to state: "...An Executive Summary shall be provided as a top-level overview of the proposal, as part of Volume I (see L.5.1.1), and included in the proposal before the individual volumes (The foregoing is excluded from the page count). “ |
| 38 | RFP Sections B & L.5.5.1 | Section L.5.5.1 states, “The Offeror shall complete RFP Attachment 11 Excel Pricing spreadsheet of the ID/IQ contract for all CLINs with the exception of those CLINs identified as Not Separately Priced (NSP), Time and Material (T&M), or To Be Negotiated (TBN). In addition, the Offeror shall complete Section B CLINs for Delivery Order 0001 (Attachment 10) with the exception of those CLINs identified as Not Separately Priced (NSP), Time and Material (T&M), or To Be Negotiated (TBN).” |
Do we need to complete the Section B CLINs of the RFP (pages 2-25)? If “yes”, what Range Price quantity do we use to fill-in the “Unit Price” and “Max Amount” blank spaces? Do we only fill-out Attachment 11 and leave the Section B CLINs blank?
Offerors only fill out Attachment 11 and leave the Section B CLINs blank.
&"Times New Roman,Bold"W900KK-13-R-0007 / RFP Attachment 14 / Industry Questions and Government Answers to EST II RFP W900KK-13-R-0007
&9Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .