Industry_Q_and_A_20170928_(STRYKER_MTS).pdf

Stryker MTS DRAFT RFP Industry Q & A

25 SEPT 2017 1

Industry Questions Government Response

Question: Will the Government release the following Technical Manuals to support the proposal effort?

TM 17-6910-722-10/20 - C7 Power Pack TM 9-2355-311-10-3 - Operator's Manual for Mortar Carrier Vehicle M1129A1 TM 9-2355-311-10-7 - Operator's Manual for Antitank Guided Missile Vehicle M1134 TM 9-2355-321-10-3 - Operator's Manual Mobile Gun System M1128

Clarification: There is no intent to release any additional technical manuals. All required technical manuals are included with the provided IETMs. Operator manuals are not separately published.

25 SEPT 2017 2

Industry Questions Government Response

Statement - In the SOW, Section 1, Page 6 it states: “This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the effort required for designing, developing, integrating, testing, managing, documenting, and delivering the Stryker Phase V Training System. The Phase V is intended to provide the following at the Fort Lee, VA facility”:

a. “Five (5) high fidelity, fully instrumented, Hands On Trainers (HOTs) for the Stryker Main Gun System (MGS) with associated individual training tasks”

Question – Given that there is a requirement for 5 MGS HOTs and the SOW, Section 1, Page 7 is states: “Tactical hardware will be provided to the winning offeror as GFE to be used to build the trainer. The following list indicates the GFE Hardware that will be available”:

- “4 (each) MGS and 1 (each) MGS Turret for MGS HOTs”

Will all the additional crew compartment equipment be provided along with the GFE standalone turret for each MGS?

Clarification: The SOW and the CLIN structure explains how the GFE will be handled and shared. When CLINs are awarded, SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1.

Scope ‘The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised. ‘

SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1. Scope Tactical hardware will be provided to the winning offeror GFE to be used to build the trainer. The following list indicates the GFE Hardware that will be available:

4 (each) MGS tactical Vehicles and 1 (each) MGS tactical Turret for MGS HOTs

5 (each) ATGM tactical Vehicles for ATGM HOTs

5 (each) MC tactical Vehicles for MC HOTs

1 (each) Complete tactical C7 Power Pack Assembly for PTT

The Government will provide four (4) complete MGS vehicles and one (1) MGS Turret for developing the MGS HOTs. The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised. Based on the final design, additional crew compartment tactical equipment required but not currently available with the GFE standalone turret will be provided as GFE for the development of MGS HOT number five (5).

25 SEPT 2017 3

Industry Questions Government Response

3 Statement - In the SOW, Section 1, page 7 it states: “The threshold accreditation boundary for cybersecurity will be all systems interfaced to the DTT classroom TMS (including the DTTs and the Phase V ATGM and MGS HOTs). The objective requirement is to interface existing HOT and PTT devices to the DTT classroom TMS, harden those systems to meet cybersecurity requirements, and include those systems within the MTS accreditation boundary.”

Question - Is it the intent to require software and hardware upgrades to the existing HOT and DTT computers to meet this requirement?

Clarification: There is no intent to require software and hardware upgrades to the existing HOT and DTT computers to meet this requirement

Statement: Section L.2 SECTION L: GENERAL INFORMATION – Line Item i), Sentence 3 states:

“Each of the three tables must be filled forming a complete Data Rights Attachment that must be included in the technical proposal.”

Question: Please clarify – Are Tables 1, 2, and 3 within Attachment 4 required to be submitted as a standalone attachment or as tables integrated into the body of the Technical Volume? If the tables are integrated into the body of the Technical Volume, are they considered part of the page count?

Clarification: The data rights attachment must be included in the managment proposal but will not be considered part of the management volume page count.

5 Statement: Section L.4.2 VOLUME II: Factor 2:

Management states: "The Offeror shall identify any intellectual property rights and technical data rights for all deliverables that deviate from the desired Government Rights as identified in Attachment 4.”

Question: 2) What information are Offerors required to submit in Volume II Management regarding Attachment 4?

Clarification: The Offeror shall identify any intellectual property rights and technical data rights for all deliverables that deviate from the desired Government Rights as identified in Attachment 4.

25 SEPT 2017 4

Industry Questions Government Response

6 Statement: Section L.3.1 Page Size and Format -- Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 states: “Pages shall be single spaced with portrait orientation.”

Section L3.1, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 states:

“Tables, charts, graphs and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than 10-point and may be landscape.” The first “shall” statement indicates that Offerors can only use portrait orientation. The second “may” statement indicates Offerors can use landscape orientation for tables, charts, graphs, etc.

Question: If the Government is permitting the use of landscape pages, are Offerors limited to 8.5” x 11”, or is it permissible to use a 11” x 17” landscape page? If so, does an 11” x 17” page count as 1 or 2 pages?

Clarification: In accordance with Section L, Page size shall not exceed 8.5” x 11”.

Statement: Section L.3.2 File Packaging – Paragraph 1, Sentence 5 states: “Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including Sub-Factors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any.”

Question: Is it the Government’s intention for each Sub-Factor within Volume I Technical to be contained in a separate electronic file from the other Sub-Factors? Or does the Government intend for Volume I to be one electronic file with all Sub-Factors therein?

Clarification: All sub-factors shall be in one electronic file. Attachments may be submitted in separate files

Statement: Section L.4.4 is titled VOLUME IV:

Factor 4: Price. However, Section L 4.4, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 states: “Volume III, Cost Volume, should be clearly marked

‘VOLUME V – COST PROPOSAL, RFP W900KK-

17-R-0016.’”

Question: Please clarify, should the Price Volume be labeled “VOLUME IV – PRICE

PROPOSAL, RFP W900KK-17-R-0016”?

Revision: RFP section L.4.4 has been updated to reference Volume IV.

25 SEPT 2017 5

Industry Questions Government Response

9 Statement: Section M.3.1.1 Subfactor 1.1:

Design Approach, Line Item a) states: “Whether the design is technically sound, meets the functional and performance requirements of the Stryker MTS Phase V SOW (PEO-STRI-17- W016) and the Performance Specification (PRF- PT-684), and will provide suitable platforms for training the tasks identified in PRF-PT-684 in accordance with the technical manuals.”

Question: Is the Government’s intention for Offerors to respond to all SOW and Performance Specification requirements?

Clarification: The Offeror’s proposal does not need to directly address each and every SOW and SPEC requirement.

However, the Government will assess whether there are any requirements that obviously will not be satisfied by the proposed design.

10 Statement: M.3.1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Technical Experience states: "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant and recent roles and participation in the design, development, integration, testing, fielding, and support of maintenance trainers and simulations and the extent to which that experience lowers the risk associated with satisfying the technical and schedule requirements of the Stryker MTS Phase V program."

Question: Does the Government intend for contracts cited under Subfactor 1.2: Technical Experience in Volume I and the contracts cited in Volume III Past Performance to be performed or completed within the same timeframe or are the 5-year (Vol. I) and 3-year (Vol. III) timeframes intentional?

Revision: RFP M.3.1.2 Subfactor 1.2:

Technical Experience, section M.3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance and attachment 7 have been updated to clarify a five (5) year time frame for both.

Question: If the First Production is the only HOT CLIN that is not an option, are we providing only a spare parts package for one HOT at a time? The Government will realize overall cost savings if we are able to procure spares at a lower cost for a larger production effort.

Clarification: Each spare parts CLINs will be awarded when and if the corresponding HOT production CLIN is awarded.

25 SEPT 2017 6

Industry Questions Government Response

12 Statement: SOW 3.3.4 Development Software Support Environment (SSE) states "The contractor shall ensure that the Software Support Environment (SSE) and the computer hardware and software are compatible, and that the software support system will facilitate the changing and upgrading of the software modules."

Question: If Offerors is to provide an SSE, is this effort included in the First Production CLIN?

Likewise, are spare parts for the SSE included in the First Production spare parts package?

Revision: Delivery of the SSE has been added to CLIN 0001 in section B. Delivery of SSE spare parts has been added to CLIN 0007AA in section B.

13 Question: Are Offerors required to address Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) as part of the solicitation effort? If so, what is the means to address OCI (i.e. an OCI Mitigation Plan or other submittal)?

Revision: RFP Section H.5 OCI section has been deleted

Statement: 252.215-7009 PROPOSAL

ADEQUACY CHECKLIST (JAN 2014)

"The offeror shall complete the following checklist, providing location of requested information, or an explanation of why the requested information is not provided.

In preparation of the offeror's checklist, offerors may elect to have their prospective subcontractors use the same or similar checklist as appropriate.

Question: Is the proposal adequacy checklist required with the initial proposal submission or only for ECP proposal submissions after award of the base contract?

Clarification: Checklist is required under the initial proposal submission

25 SEPT 2017 7

Industry Questions Government Response

15 Statement: SOW Section 1 SCOPE states "The Stryker MTS systems shall comply with the latest Cybersecurity requirements. The operating system(s) for the trainer shall be an approved Secure Host Baseline-Army (SHB-A).

The threshold accreditation boundary for cybersecurity will be all systems interfaced to the DTT classroom TMS (including the DTTs and the Phase V ATGM and MGS HOTs). The objective requirement is to interface existing HOT and PTT devices to the DTT classroom TMS, harden those systems to meet cybersecurity requirements, and include those systems within the MTS accreditation boundary."

Question: In reference to meeting the Stryker MTS Cybersecurity requirements, is there an existing System Security Plan? If so, will the Government provide it within the Bidders Library?

Clarification: A Security Plan (SP) is a new requirement to meet current cybersecurity requirements and one does not currently exist. However, Phase IVa will created this new SP Cybersecurity requirement and will be shared once completed (3QFY18). However, bidders have been supplied with adequate information from the Phase V Technical Data Package (e.g. current DTT hardware and software and Phase 4.0 cybersecurity information) shared. The current and in development cybersecurity to the DTTs (Phase IVa) has minimal to no hardware and/or software impacts to affect the bidders to build a proposal.

Question: Section L: L3.1 Page Size and Format - Are Offerors allowed to use 11x17 pages landscape for tables?

Clarification: Section L3.1 requires 8.5" x 11"

Question: Section L: L3.6 Proposal Volumes:

Instructions specify that pages are to be one-sided but does not indicate how many hard copies, if any are to be submitted. Are offerors required to submit paper copies of the proposal in addition to the two CD/DVD sets?

Clarification: Paper copies of the proposal are not required and have been removed

25 SEPT 2017 8

Industry Questions Government Response

18 Statement: Section L: L4.2 Volume II: Factor 2:

Management states

"The Offeror shall include a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that identifies specific milestone dates and dependencies for all tasks required to design, develop, test, and deliver all Training Devices identified in the Stryker MTS Phase V SOW (PEO-STRI-17-W016) in accordance with the Section B and Section F. The Offeror’s IMS shall be provided in the proposal as a Microsoft Project 2013 file.

It shall also be provided as a portable document format (PDF) file. The Offeror shall fill in their proposed delivery schedule in the table provided in Sec. F."

Question: Is a hard copy of the IMS required with the proposal. If so, does the IMS count towards the management volume page count?

Clarification: Hard copy of the IMS is not required. The IMS does not count towards the Management Volume page count.

IMS shall be in Microsoft Project 2013 format file and searchable PDF format file.

19 Statement: Section L4.3 Volume III: Factor 3:

Past Performance states that “offerors shall submit a list of at least (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts on which they served as either the prime, as a major subcontractor, or as part of a Joint Venture, in performance and/or completed during the past 3 years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.” This section then is followed by “Offerors shall submit a list of at least (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts on which its major subcontractors served as either the prime, as a major subcontractor, or as part of a JV, in performance and/or completed during the past 3 years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

Question: Is the latter statement in reference to subcontractors in previously mentioned contracts or subcontractors that we intend to use on the Stryker effort?

Clarification: The offerors shall list the Major Subcontractor(s) to be used on the Stryker Phase V Program.

25 SEPT 2017 9

Industry Questions Government Response

20 Statement: Page 1, paragraph 1 - Section 1 SCOPE, states:

“This specification expands on the fielded MTS by adding Hands On Trainers (HOTs) for the Mobile Gun System (MGS), Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) vehicle, and Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MCV). One Part Task Trainer (PTT) for the C7 Power Pack Assembly, is also required.”

Page 5, paragraph 1-3, Section 3.1 System Wide Design, states:

“Although there are unique requirements for each of the three classes of Stryker trainers (DTT, PTT, HOT), the software approach to supporting them shall use a common framework to support the simulation modeling.

The DTT and HOT trainers are provided with an Executive (Exec), Instructor Operators Station (IOS), Display and Control (D&C), Training Management System (TMS) and Model components. These five primary software components are integrated to provide the software simulation in the DTT and HOT. The Stryker MTS software architectural design is defined in PCN 12930.

To support communication between the IOS and the Student Workstation (SWS), the current systems are networked using a 1-Gigabit Ethernet connection. For the HOTs added in Phase V, each HOT SWS shall be networked wirelessly to its corresponding IOS. Since the TMS is the central repository for class, lesson, and student performance data, it shall be networked to all three classes of devices. Each IOS added to the MTS in Phase V shall interface to the TMS located in the DTT classroom via a 1- Gigabit Enternet connection. The DTT devices shall be on a separate subnet in order to keep the real-time Ethernet transfers confined to just that device. The PTTs and HOTs shall be on a second subnet for the same reason.

25 SEPT 2017 10

Industry Questions Government Response

To support the physical interaction required on the HOTs, this system shall have a hardware interface to the Input/Output (I/O) that is used to instrument each device. The executive software shall transfer the appropriate I/O points to and from the real-time simulation. The DTTs are completely virtual, and as a result do not require I/O to or from the hardware on the HOTs. The C7 Power Pack Assembly PTT and MCV HOT will not be instrumented and does not connect to any IOS or the TMS. The following is a functional block diagram of the current Stryker MTS components and MTS interfaces.”

Question: The PRF contains conflicting descriptions and requirements for the MCV HOT. Will the Government please clarify the requirement for instrumentation and connectivity for the MCV HOT?

Revision: Performance Specification 3.1 System Wide Design The performance spec has been updated to clarify that the MC HOT is not instrumented nor networked to any other system. No IOS is required for the MC variant.

21 Page 1, paragraph 3, Section 1.2 System Overview, states:

“In the case of the PTT, a specific subsystem, such as the brakes is targeted, and realistic components of that system are instrumented to be an active part of the simulation.”

Page 5, paragraph 1-3, Section 3.1 System Wide Design, states:

“Although there are unique requirements for each of the three classes of Stryker trainers (DTT, PTT, HOT), the software approach to supporting them shall use a common framework to support the simulation modeling.

The DTT and HOT trainers are provided with an Executive (Exec), Instructor Operators Station (IOS), Display and Control (D&C), Training Management System (TMS) and Model components. These five primary software components are integrated to provide the software simulation in the DTT and HOT. The Stryker MTS software architectural design is defined in PCN 12930.

25 SEPT 2017 11

Industry Questions Government Response

To support communication between the IOS and the Student Workstation (SWS), the current systems are networked using a 1-Gigabit Ethernet connection. For the HOTs added in Phase V, each HOT SWS shall be networked wirelessly to its corresponding IOS. Since the TMS is the central repository for class, lesson, and student performance data, it shall be networked to all three classes of devices. Each IOS added to the MTS in Phase V shall interface to the TMS located in the DTT classroom via a 1- Gigabit Enternet connection. The DTT devices shall be on a separate subnet in order to keep the real-time Ethernet transfers confined to just that device. The PTTs and HOTs shall be on a second subnet for the same reason.

To support the physical interaction required on the HOTs, this system shall have a hardware interface to the Input/Output (I/O) that is used to instrument each device. The executive software shall transfer the appropriate I/O points to and from the real-time simulation. The DTTs are completely virtual, and as a result do not require I/O to or from the hardware on the HOTs. The C7 Power Pack Assembly PTT and MCV HOT will not be instrumented and does not connect to any IOS or the TMS. The following is a functional block diagram of the current Stryker MTS components and MTS interfaces.”

Question: The PRF contains conflicting descriptions and requirements for the C7 PTT.

Will the Government please clarify the requirement for instrumentation and connectivity for the C7 PTT?

Revision: Performance Specification 3.1 System Wide Design The performance spec has been updated to clarify that the C7 PTT is not instrumented nor networked to any other system. No IOS is required for the C7

PTT.

25 SEPT 2017 12

Industry Questions Government Response

22 Statement: Section B, SLIN 0011AA describes the following for this line item's FFP effort:

“Perform all Cybersecurity analysis, implementation, and documentation efforts IAW PEO-STRI-17-W016 and Specification PRF-PT- 684 necessary to consolidate the MGS HOT and DTTs into a single accreditation boundary and achieve Stryker MTS Cybersecurity accreditation.”

Question:

1. Does the Government IGCE include replacing any hardware or having to make any software modifications for the DTT effort?

2. Will the Government please provide a list of the hardware and current Operating Systems for the DTT that are in the boundary of the Cybersecurity accreditation?

Clarification:

A Security Plan (SP) is a new requirement to meet current cybersecurity requirements and one does not currently exist. However, Phase IVa will created this new SP Cybersecurity requirement and will be shared once completed (3QFY18). However, bidders have been supplied with adequate information from the Phase V Technical Data Package (e.g.

current DTT hardware and software and Phase 4.0 cybersecurity information) shared. The current and in development cybersecurity to the DTTs (Phase IVa) has minimal to no hardware and/or software impacts to affect the bidders to build a proposal.

Option for CLIN 1AB may be awarded after CLIN AA CDR. Text says “Deliver NLT 11 Months after option is exercised. If more than one option is exercised there will be off set deliveries by 4 months for each additional option exercised. For example: Option 0001AB and 0001AC are exercised at the same time.

0001AB delivery 11 months after and 0001AC 15 months after.” Can offerors assume that Option CLIN 1AB will not have to be delivered before CLIN 1AA (which is NLT 18 MACA)

Revision: RFP has been revised for Sections Band F. Please refer to the current posted RFP.

All of the CLINs have been restructured and with the associated Delivery Schedules.

CLINs 1AA, 6AA, and 11AA are included in this section at Time of Award and their table heading states “OPTION”. Is it possible that the Government would award this contract without turning on all 3 of these “options”? e.g. is it possible the initial award could include only 1AA MGS HOT First Production but not 6AA Spares or 11AA Cybersecurity?

Revision: The RFP has been revised for Sections Band F . CLINs 0001, 0007AA and 0012AA will be awarded at the same time.

25 SEPT 2017 13

Industry Questions Government Response

CLIN 006AL references MCV instead of MC. It is understood that MCV is Mortar Carrier Vehicle and is synonymous with MC, but recommend changing MCV to MC for consistency with the rest of the documents.

Revision: RFP has been revised and associated documents to be consistent with use of acronyms. MC is for Mortar Carrier (MC)

1. Should there be a CLIN 0011AC for MC Cybersecurity?

2. Would be added to the list of CLINs and added to the Options on page 28 for the MC HOT First Production

Clarification:

1. No. The MC HOTs devices are not instrumented.

2. The MC HOTs and PTT devices do not contain any computers, networking, electronics or data processing equipment and therefore have no cybersecurity requirements.

Section L.4.1.2 Technical Experience (past 5 years) L.4.3 Past Performance (past 3 years) :

What information should be the same and different in these similar sections? Should the relevant period for each section be 5 years?

Clarification: All references related to experience and past performance have been changed to 5 years.

Section L.4.3 and Section L.4.1.2: Is there a maximum number of citations? Do the citations have to be from the offeror (prime) or can they include teammates (subcontractors)? Will the Government review relevant CPARS and should projects with CPARS be represented differently in Volume III?

Revision: In Section L.4.1.2, there is no maximum number of submissions for Technical experience, however in Section L4.3, there is a minimum of at least 3 Government and/or Commercial contracts. The Government will review CPARS and Questionnaire responses submitted and there is no difference in the way that CPARS and non CPARS contract are to be submitted in Volume III.

Section L.4.3 Should only Volume III section III propose the organizational structure of subcontractors?

Clarification: RFP has been revised.

Please refer to the current posted RFP for all requirements concerning the organization structure of subcontractors.

M.3.1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Technical Experience What types of experience lower risk the most?

Experience building Stryker-related maintenance training systems? Building maintenance training systems for the Army?

Clarification: M.3.1.2 Subfactor 1.2:

Technical Experience The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant and recent roles and participation in the design, development, integration, testing, fielding, and support of maintenance trainers and simulations and the extent to which that experience lowers the risk associated with satisfying the technical and schedule requirements of the Stryker MTS Phase V program.

25 SEPT 2017 14

Industry Questions Government Response

M.3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance Shouldn’t the relevancy definition focus on “maintenance training systems” (e.g., “Relevant efforts are defined as contracts performed for the design, development, and fielding of Simulation-based Maintenance Training Systems”)?

Clarification: Relevant efforts for past performance are defined as contracts performed for the design, development, and fielding of any Simulation-based Training Systems.

M.3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance Shouldn’t content be included with scope and magnitude when determining relevancy?

Clarification: The definitions of relevancy are used and reference on the Army Source Selection Manual. The RFP clarifies the definition of relevancy (very, somewhat or not) on the deltas of the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The team believes the term ‘content’ includes scope and magnitude.

L.4.2 VOLUME II: Factor 2: Management Is the separate IMS included in the Volume III page limit?

Clarification: The IMS does not count towards the volume III page limit.

There are tasks lists provided for all HOTs, but not the C7 PTT. Shouldn't there be a table of procedures to be supported by the C7 Engine

PTT?

Revision: Performance Specification

3.3.1.4 C-7 Power Pack Fidelity

Requirements

The Specification has been revised to clarify the C7 requirements.

35 L.4.3 VOLUME III Factor 3: Past Performance (page 104) says 25 pages for past performance;

Table 1: Volume Titles and Contents (page 102) says 20 pages for past performance. Which is correct?

Revision: RFP has been revised for clarification to show 25 pages for Past Performance page limit.

M.3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance (page 112) states three (3) years. Attachment 7 Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form (page 1) says five (5) years. Which is correct?

Revision: RFP has been revised for clarification to show M.3.3 Factor 3 and L.4.3 Past Performance have been updated to reflect 5 years.

Last entry in table on page 29 of Draft RFP says 0007; Spare Parts MC First Production. Should read: 0007; Spare Parts PTT C-7. (Spare Parts MC First Production are 006AL)

Revision: RFP has been revised for Sections Band F to read CLIN 0007AL Spare Parts MC First Production.

25 SEPT 2017 15

Industry Questions Government Response

A Technology Refresh is mentioned in Section

3.4 of the SOW. What CLIN (s) do we bid for this effort? Does this include the legacy Hull HOTs and RWS HOT and their associated computers and devices?

Revision: Statement of Work 3.3.8 Technology Refresh

The SOW has been updated to reflect that the Technology refresh is an objective requirement. There will be no CLINS included in the solicitation for Technology Refresh. It should not be priced or included in offeror's proposals.

Page 3 Item 0001

1. CLIN Structure - why is CLIN 0001 a FFP CLIN when it is composed of FFP (0001AB - 0001AE) and CPFF (0001AA) elements?

Revision: RFP has been revised for Sections Band F CLIN 0001 has changed to CPFF and all other CLINs are FFP.

Page 3 Item 0001

2. If CLINs 0001AB through 0001AE are options, then why is CLIN 0001 FFP when it's only non-optional component (0001AA) is

CPFF?

Revision: RFP has been revised for Sections B and F CLIN 0001 has changed to CPFF and all other CLINs are

FFP.

3. As there have been large-scale changes in scope, GFE, funding, and project timeline since our site visit, when is Industry Day?

Clarification: An Industry Day was conducted in November 2016. Currently, the FedBizOps site provides all changes to the current version. No additional Industry Days are anticipated.

25 SEPT 2017 16

Industry Questions Government Response

Page 6 Paragraph 1.a.

4. If the requirement is to deliver 5 MGS HOTs, why are only 4 MGS being supplied as GFE? Is the MGS Turret to take the place of the 5th

MGS?

Clarification: The SOW and the CLIN structure explains how the GFE will be handled and shared. When CLINs are awarded, SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1.

Scope ‘The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised. ‘

SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1. Scope Tactical hardware will be provided to the winning offeror GFE to be used to build the trainer. The following list indicates the GFE Hardware that will be available:

4 (each) MGS tactical Vehicles and 1 (each) MGS tactical Turret for MGS HOTs

5 (each) ATGM tactical Vehicles for ATGM HOTs

5 (each) MC tactical Vehicles for MC HOTs

2 (each) Complete tactical C7 Power Pack Assembly for PTT

The Government will provide four (4) complete MGS vehicles and one (1) MGS Turret for developing the MGS HOTs. The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised. Based on the final design, additional crew compartment tactical equipment required but not currently available with the GFE standalone turret will be provided as GFE

Page 3 Item: 0001AA

5. Is the CPFF CLIN 0001AA to be delivered from the MGS Turret GFE? Or one of the complete MGS?

Clarification: The CLIN structure has been revised, CLIN 0001AA is now CLIN 0001. The First production MGS HOT should be developed using the first tactical delivered MGS.

25 SEPT 2017 17

Industry Questions Government Response

SOW Page 7 Paragraph 1

6. If the MGS Turret GFE does not include all components necessary, where will the balance of the required GFE come from?

Clarification: The SOW and the CLIN structure explains how the GFE will be handled and shared. When CLINs are awarded, SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1.

Scope ‘The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised.”

SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1. Scope Tactical hardware will be provided to the winning offeror GFE to be used to build the trainer. The following list indicates the GFE Hardware that will be available:

4 (each) MGS tactical Vehicles and 1 (each) MGS tactical Turret for MGS HOTs 5 (each) ATGM tactical Vehicles for ATGM HOTs 5 (each) MC tactical Vehicles for MC HOTs (each) Complete tactical C7 Power Pack Assembly for PTT The Government will provide four (4) complete MGS vehicles and one (1) MGS Turret for developing the MGS HOTs. The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised. Based on the final design, additional crew compartment tactical equipment required but not currently available with the GFE standalone turret will be provided as GFE

SOW Page 7 Paragraph 1

7. Is all GFE available at the start of work, or is it made available as options are exercised?

Clarification:

The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised.

25 SEPT 2017 18

Industry Questions Government Response

46 CLIN 0001 is listed as FFP, Mobile Gun System Trainers to "Produce, deliver and test (5) Mobile Gun System (MGS) Hands On Trainers (HOT’s) IAW PEO-STRI-17-W016 and Specification PRF-PT-684."

CLIN 0001AA is listed as CPFF, MGS HOT First Production to, "Produce, deliver, and test a Mobile Gun System (MGS) Hands On Trainer (HOT) and provide Instructor/Operator and Maintenance Training IAW PEOSTRI-17-W016 and Specification PRF-PT-684."

CLINs 0001AB-AE are FFP, MGS HOTS 2 - 5, to "Produce, deliver and test a Mobile Gun System (MGS) Hands On Trainer (HOT) IAW PEO-STRI- 17-W016 and Specification PRF-PT-684.

Is CLIN 0001AA really CPFF? And if so, how does one total CPFF and FFP Sub-CLINs in a manner that results in a FFP for the complete

CLIN?

If CLIN 0001AA is intended to be CPFF, would it not make more sense to have this as a stand-alone CLIN (e.g., CLIN 0001) and have CLIN 0002 (sub-CLINs 0002 AA - AD) be the FFP Production CLIN associated with MGS HOTs 2- 5?

The CPFF term is also found on pp. 28, 107 & 113.

Revision: RFP has been revised for Sections B and F CLIN 0001 has changed to CPFF and all other CLINs are FFP.

More specifically, all SLINs associated with this question are now under CLIN 0002.

In the SOW, on page 57, section 3.5.4.2 paragraph 1 states: "The SCA event is conducted by the CS independent certifier to assess the overall security posture of the system prior to CPI/GPI." There does not appear to be any definition of CPI/GPI within the

SOW.

Question: What do these acronyms stand for?

Revision: Statement of Work 3.5.4.2 Security Control Assessment (SCA) Event

This paragraph has been reworded to State: "The SCA event is conducted by the CS independent certifier to assess the overall security posture of the system prior to Government IPAT".

25 SEPT 2017 19

Industry Questions Government Response

48 Does the Stryker MC HOT connect to an IOS?

The below sentences from paragraphs 3.1 and

3.10.4 provide conflicting answers.

1) 3.1 System Wide Design (two sentences above the functional block diagram at bottom of page) The C7 Power Pack Assembly PTT and MCV HOT will not be instrumented and [do] not connect to any IOS or the TMS.

2) 3.10.4 Computer Communications Requirements (last sentence) One IOS shall communicate to all five HOT workstations per MGS, ATGM, and MC variant.

Clarification:

1) Paragraph 3.1 is correct.

Revision: Performance Specification

3.10.4 Computer Communications

Requirements

2) Paragraph 3.10.4 has been amended to remove any reference to the MC variant.

49 In the section on System External Interface Requirements in the Technical Specification it talks about the connection between the TMS and each IOS. "The system design shall allow use of the facility fiber optic network to communicate between the TMS and each IOS located in the high bay."

Question: With the TMS and IOS’s being attached to the facility network, will this be considered a connected system?

Clarification: The use of the existing fiber optic cabling has no implications for cybersecurity. The Trainer will be considered a "stand-alone" system.

50 CLINs 0011AA & BB call out the Cybersecurity efforts "necessary to incorporate the [MGS & ATGM variants] into the Stryker MTS accreditation boundary."

Per the SOW, p. 7, para. 1., Scope: "The Stryker MTS systems shall comply with the latest Cybersecurity requirements. The operating system(s) for the trainer shall be an approved Secure Host Baseline-Army (SHB-A). The threshold accreditation boundary for cybersecurity will be all systems interfaced to the DTT classroom TMS (including the DTTs and the Phase V ATGM and MGS HOTs)."

Question: Is the current TMS, to include the DTTs compliant with the latest Cybersecurity requirements?

Clarification: The current TMS associated with each classroom is compliant. The TMS associated with the current Hull HOT and PTTs is not compliant.

25 SEPT 2017 20

Industry Questions Government Response

51 Could the Government please clarify the requirement (extract provided below)? As written, it appears that the winning contractor will be performing work on the facilities and or tasking the on-site contractor and the garrison command to perform tasks in support of the future installation. "All installation preparatory work" is rather broad. Our experience with the outcome of site surveys has been this tasking has been the responsibility of PEO STRI/ACC as we have no authority to task on-site personnel, nor to perform modifications to government owned facilities that fall under the Garrison Command.

"3.3.8 Installation Prior to the arrival of the system at each site, the contractor shall perform all installation preparatory work; including advising and assisting on-site personnel in any modifications they may be performing."

Revision: Statement of Work 3.6.2 Installation Program The SOW has been updated to state:

"Prior to the arrival of the system at each site, the contractor shall perform all trainer-related installation preparatory work including advising on-site personnel in any facility modifications they may be performing. The contractor shall not be responsible for modifying Government owned equipment or facilities."

52 Section 3.3.2 Training Execution Modes as seems to indicate that automated scoring takes place during free play mode. Doesn't scoring only take place when the student is executing in the sequence as defined in the IETM?

As currently written: "The ELOs identified in the TTL will be available for training on the designated devices, as indicated in the list.

These tasks (i.e., preprogrammed scenarios) can be run only in free play mode (a.k.a.

“scored”) mode.

Perhaps the following modification to the prior version better captures the requirement:

The ELOs identified in the TTL will be available for training on the designated devices, as indicated in the list. These preprogrammed scenarios can be run in either a free play mode or lockstep (a.k.a. "scored") mode. The free play mode allows the student to deviate from the expected path of execution. The lockstep mode prevents the student from deviating from the sequence of steps of the given task as defined in the IETM.

Clarification: The definition of ‘free-play’ for Stryker MTS is defined in the System Requirements Document version 2.1

Training Execution Modes

The Enabling Learning Objectives (ELO) identified in the TTL will be available for training on the designated devices, as indicated in the list. These tasks (i.e., preprogrammed scenarios) can be run only in free play mode (a.k.a. “scored”) mode. The free play mode allows the student to deviate from the expected path of execution. The MTS is also capable of running without the selection of any task in the TTL. This is considered a “free-run scenario”. If no lesson is currently active, the trainer defaults to a free-run mode.

25 SEPT 2017 21

Industry Questions Government Response

53 In section 3.2.9.1 paragraph 2 the SOW states:

"The contractor shall ensure that the security requirements and procedures are met in accordance with all required DOD and Army regulations per the Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability levels specified for the system."

Question: Is there any indication on what the final RMF Security Classification will be, based on the Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability levels of the proposed system?

Clarification: The expected Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability levels are: Low, Low, Low.

54 Could the Government please clarify the requirement (extract provided below)? As written, it appears that the winning contractor is required to upgrade existing Hull HOTs & RWS, Brake, and Suspension PTTs, which do not fall within the Scope as listed in Paragraph 1, Scope, nor is there an associated CLIN that reflects or enables pricing of this work.

"3.4 Technology Refresh The contractor shall develop, provide, and install the hardware, software, supplies, services, and technical documentation necessary to provide a technology refresh on fielded Stryker MTS devices. The purpose of the technology refresh is to replace the obsolescent Stryker MTS hardware and system software (as provided in the Technical Data Package) to the latest sustainable level."

Clarification: There will be no CLINS included in the solicitation for Technology Refresh. It should not be priced or included in offeror's proposals

Revision: 3.3.8 Technology Refresh The SOW has been updated to reflect the Technology refresh for the Hull HOTs are not going to be priced at this time. When adequate requirement become available, the Government may negotiate a CLIN post award for that work.

25 SEPT 2017 22

Industry Questions Government Response

55 Is it the SSE or the SSP that provides the following? SSE is defined at the beginning of the paragraph as providing resources that enable PDSS activities. The next two sentences extracted from the section differ only in the use of SSE and SSP.

The SSE shall provide the resources (i.e., source code, executable code, maintenance software, data base and scenario generation tools, documentation, installation hardware, installation software, etc.) to be distributed to operational sites for the purpose of maintaining computational systems in a fully operational condition.

The SSP shall provide the resources (i.e., source code, executable code, maintenance software, data base and scenario generation tools, documentation, installation hardware, etc.) to be distributed to operational sites for the purpose of maintaining computational systems in a fully operational condition.

Revision: Performance Specification

3.3.10 Software Support Environment

(SSE)

The Performance Specification has been updated to remove the duplicated paragraph.

Who is responsible for providing One 5 ton crane?

"One 5 ton overhead crane in the high bay will be provided to allow movement of the MGS turret components."

Clarification: The contractor is responsible for providing the overhead crane or a forklift.

Revision: Performance Specification

3.11.2.2 HOT/PTT Specific

The Performance Specification has been updated to remove the reference to the "5 ton".

Statement: Section L: L4.2a

To ensure a level field for evaluating the proposal, can the Government define which personnel/positions it considers to be "key" as called out in the last sentence in the Solicitation Section L.4.2 a)?

"The offeror shall provide a narrative detailing the experience for all key personnel."

Clarification: The Offerors shall identify in their proposal all personnel that are considered key to the success to the Phase V program and provide a narrative detailing the experience for these key personnel.

25 SEPT 2017 23

Industry Questions Government Response

SOW Page 7 Paragraph 1 The SOW states the following items as GFE;

“4 (each) MGS and 1 (each) MGS Turret for MGS HOTs” Is the government’s expectation that the offeror will produce simulated physical devices for the remaining balance of MGSs (qty 1/5) and MGS Turrets (qty 4/5)?

Clarification: The SOW and the CLIN structure explains how the GFE will be handled and shared. When CLINs are awarded, SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1.

Scope “The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised. “ SOW version 2.1 Paragraph 1. Scope Tactical hardware will be provided to the winning offeror GFE to be used to build the trainer. The following list indicates the GFE Hardware that will be available:

4 (each) MGS tactical Vehicles and 1 (each) MGS tactical Turret for MGS HOTs 5 (each) ATGM tactical Vehicles for ATGM HOTs 5 (each) MC tactical Vehicles for MC HOTs (each) Complete tactical C7 Power Pack Assembly for PTT The Government will provide four (4) complete MGS vehicles and one (1) MGS Turret for developing the MGS HOTs. The appropriate GFE will be made available as options are exercised. Based on the final design, additional crew compartment tactical equipment required but not currently available with the GFE standalone turret will be provided as GFE

25 SEPT 2017 24

Industry Questions Government Response

59 Solicitation Page 27-30 paragraphF.2 Draft RFP, Section F.2 Option CLIN Award Schedule -- Please clarify how options will be awarded. For example, the first option block contains sub-CLINs 0001AB, 0006AB, 0001AC, 0006AC, 0001AD, 0006AD, 0001AE, 0006AE, 0002AA, 0006AF, 0010, and 0011AB. We assume that the 0001/0006 pairs (e.g., 0001AB and 0006AB) will be awarded simultaneously. We further assume that the AB pair would be awarded first, then the AC pair, AD pair, and then AE pair as funding permits. We further assume that whichever of these sub-CLINs are to be awarded would be awarded simultaneously, i.e., you wouldn't award the AB pair one time and then later award the AC pair. Please confirm or correct our assumptions.

Revision: RFP has been revised for Sections B and F. All options will be awarded based on availability of funding.

If options are awarded, they will be awarded in the order listed in Section F.2.

Solicitation Page 102 paragraph L.3.6 RFP, L.3.6 Proposal Volumes -- The paragraph immediately before Table 1 contains the sentence "Pages are to be one-sided." We assume this is a typo since the proposal is to be delivered in electronic form.

Please clarify.

Revision: RFP has been revised. The reference to one-sided has been deleted from the solicitation.

Solicitation Page 104 paragraphL4.3 and 102 paragraph L.3.6 RFP, L.4.3 Past Performance vs. L.3.6 Proposal Volumes -- The second sentence of Section L.4.3 specifies a max of 25 pages for the past performance volume while Table 1 of Section L.3.6 specifies 20. Please clarify the maximum number of pages for this volume.

Revision: RFP has been revised for clarification to show 25 pages for Past Performance page limit.

25 SEPT 2017 25

Industry Questions Government Response

Solicitation Page 106 paragraphL4.3 RFP, L.4.3 Past Performance, Section 4, item

(c) -- Please clarify the phrase "15 days after receipt of the request". Is the intent to be 15 days after we send the request, and is there a due date for making the request?

Revision: RFP has been revised for clarification L.4.3 Past Performance, Section 4, item (c) has been update to reflect no later than the solicitation closing date.

63 Attachment 7 Past Performance Page 1 1st paragraph and page 104 paragraphL.4.3 Attachment 7, PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM. The first paragraph specifies 5 years as the period for which past performance information is being requested. However, the RFP, Section L.4.3 specifies 3 years. Please clarify if the past performance is limited to the past 3 years or the past 5 years.

Revision: RFP has been revised for clarification to show M.3.3 Factor 3 and L.4.3 Past Performance have been updated to reflect 5 years.

Solicitation page 28-29 paragraphF.2 Draft RFP, Section F.2 Option CLIN Award Schedule -- In the final option block ("when 0003AA CDR is passed ..."), it seems the spares CLINs should be identified as 0006AM, 0006AN, 0006AP, and 0006AQ instead of 0006AL, 0006AM, 0006AN, and 0006AO.

Revision: RFP has been revised for Sections B and F.

All of the CLINs have been restructured and with the associated Delivery Schedule. SLINs now read 0007AM, 0007AN, 0007AP, and 0007AQ.

25 SEPT 2017 26

Industry Questions Government Response

65 Attachment 2 Specification Page 29-30 paragraph 3.9 and page 6 paragraph3.1 paragraph 3.9. The PRF requirements for storage temperature (-34°C to 52°C) and humidity (0-95%, non-condensing) are difficult to satisfy with commercial monitors, printers, tablets, Ethernet switches, wireless controllers and access points, and most I/O systems. The currently fielded Stryker MTS devices and network infrastructure do not appear to fully satisfy these requirements. For example, the “Current Stryker MTS Interfaces” COTS products identified in the diagram in PRF paragraph 3.1 show a HP 3500yl POE+24 port Ethernet switch that has a storage humidity spec of 15%-95% non-condensing and a 3COM 3850 wireless access point humidity spec that is 10 to 90% non-condensing. The existing Hull HOTs also contain COTS products that do not support the storage requirements. A few examples of non-compliant products are: UPS power supply DRP-480S-24, NEC MultiSync LCD2090UXi monitors, and the I/O system. In order to keep costs reasonable and avoid custom equipment, we respectfully request your review of this requirement and possible adjustment to be more consistent with requirements for other indoor high fidelity training systems. The suggested change for storage environmental conditions is -20°C to 52°C and 10% to 90% humidity.

Revision: Performance Specification 3.9 System Environment Requirements

The storage temperature requirement has been changed to "-20°C to 52°C".

The storage humidity requirements has been changed to "10% to 95%".

Attachment 2 Specification Page F-3 Paragraph Appx. F.2 PRF, Appendix F, there are no filter settings listed for the ATGM and MCV-B variants for the IEMTs. Please provide the IETM filter settings for these two variants.

Revision: Performance Specification F.2 IAV IETM Selection Filter Options for AGTM, ICV and MC

The Performance Specification has been updated to identify appropriate filter settings.

25 SEPT 2017 27

Industry Questions Government Response

Solicitation Page 104 Paragraph L.4.2.b RFP, L.4.2.b requires the IMS to be provided in PDF format. Please confirm that the IMS PDF does not count against the Management Volume page count.

Clarification: The IMS does not count towards the volume III page limit.

Solicitation page 104 Paragraph L.4.2.c RFP, L.4.2.c requires Attachment 4 tables to be provided. Please confirm that the filled in Attachment 4 does not count against the Management Volume page count.

Clarification: Attachment 4 does not count towards the Volume Page count.

69 Solicitation page 101 paragraph L.3.2 and Page 102 Paragraph L.3.6 Draft RFP, L.3.2. states, “Each proposal volume shall consist of the separate electronic file(s), submitted on separate DVD/CDs.” Is this to be interpreted that each volume is to be on a separate DVD/CD or that each separate electronic file is to be on a separate DVD/CD? In Draft RFP, L.3.6, What is the significance of some volumes requiring delivery of “2 DVD/CD Sets” for some volumes and just require “2 DVD/CDs” (no sets)?

Revision: RFP has been revised for Section L.3.2 will be updated and "Sets" deleted. Each Volume is to be loaded on separate disks. Offerors shall provide at least two DVD/CD-ROM (one original and one copy).

25 SEPT 2017 28

Industry Questions Government Response

70 Solicitation page 104 Paragraph L.4.3 L.4.3. The Government’s definition of “relevant complexity” seems much more narrowly focused than the complexities identified within the Stryker MTS SOW/PRF. The Government states, “relevant complexity means contracts for development of computer controlled Hands-On maintenance trainers intended to train troubleshooting and fault isolation skills based on Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals and networked into a Training Management System”.