RFP_Industry_Q_and_A_20171020_(STRYKER_MTS).pdf

Stryker MTS FINAL RFP Industry Q & A

20 October 2017

# Industry Question Government Response

In the required delivery schedule table, Option CLIN 0003AB is listed for delivery NLT 11 months after option is exercised, the same as for CLINs 0002AA-AD.

However, CLINs 0003AB - AE are listed for delivery 15 months after option is exercised. Is this intentional or should the NLT delivery be the same (15 Months) after option is exercised for CLINs 0003AB-AE?

Extract from the table follows:

0003AB 1 EACH * Options 0003AB-0003AE will be reviewed after CLIN 0003AA CDR. Deliver NLT 11 months after option is exercised.

0003AC 1 EACH *Option: Deliver NLT 15 months after option is exercised 0003AD 1 EACH *Option: Deliver NLT 15 months after option is exercised 0003AE 1 EACH *Option: Deliver NLT 15 months after option is exercised

Revision: The RFP will be amended to reflect the correct delivery dates for the CLINs.

Based on prior Government answers to industry questions, we are confident that one entry in Section L.4.3 was missed during updates to the RFP and the time frame for all past performance information is now 5 years. Can you please confirm? Summaries and extracts from L & M follow:

Per L.4.3, The past performance time frame for the Prime/Offeror was increased from three (3) years in the DRFP to five (5) years in the RFP. The performance time frame for the Major Subcontractors was not changed and remains at the DRFP level of three years.

From Section L.4.3:

“Offerors shall submit a list of at least three (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts . . ., in performance and/or completed during the past five

(5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Offerors shall submit a list of at least three (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts on which its Major Subcontractor(s) served . . . in performance and/or completed during the past three years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

Section M.3.3 only provides one time frame for recency, changed from 3 to 5 years for both Offeror and Major Subcontractors (page 103 and last paragraph of M.3.3 on page 105).

Revision: RFP Section L.4.3 will be updated to “Offerors shall submit a list of at least three (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts . . ., in performance and/or completed during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Offerors shall submit a list of at least three (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts on which its Major Subcontractor(s) served . . . in performance and/or completed during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

At the end of paragraph 3.3.1.1 there are a number of IETM procedures listed that the student may need to perform to verify the repair, depending on the fault he was troubleshooting. Within each one of these procedures, there are typically a number of additional procedures, which are listed in the References. For example, in the procedure for Operate Commander’s Display Unit, there is a step to perform target designate. Are these subtasks required as part of the operational simulation or only those tasks that directly relate to the faults that the students are troubleshooting?

Clarification: The system checkout shall consist of the IETM tasks and subtasks functionally simulated to the degree necessary to ensure that the associated systems are operational.

Subtasks not directly related to fault may be implemented as button-tasks.

There is no "X" in the "Automatically Scored on MGS HOT" column indicating TTL ID 44 "FIRING CIRCUITS TROUBLESHOOTING" isn't automatically scored. This is not consistent with scoring associated with prior "FIRING CIRCUITS TROUBLESHOOTING" entries, or with prior entries of "Replace Turret System Electronic Unit (TSEU) assembly, brackets and resilient mounts" in the Faulted Part" Column.

Is this an oversight?

Revision: SRD Appendix D, TTL ID 44 has been revised by placing an "X" in the "Automatically Scored on MGS HOT" column to indicate that TTL 44 shall be automatically scored.

An amendment to the RFP is forthcoming to reflect this update.

How are we to submit the Executive Summary required in the general instructions (extract included below)? Is it its own file or is it included as front matter in Volume I? If it is included in Volume I, can you confirm that it does not count against the 75 page limit?

"The Offeror shall provide a transmittal letter and an Executive Summary of the overall proposal, to include all proposed teaming arrangements. The transmittal letter shall state that the Offeror is able to meet all program requirements and to confirm receipt and acknowledge acceptance of all amendments."

We assume this to be different than the Executive Summary called for in the Volume V which contains some of the same information, however, appears to be a summary of the price volume only as opposed to the overall proposal (extract provided below).

"General Information and Executive Summary: This section sets the stage for the cost proposal submission;

the offeror must include information under this tab to provide the evaluator a clear understanding of the cost proposal. . . . Include an Executive Summary that introduces the proposed contractor team and cost proposal submission, to include a list of all subcontractors/team members, . . . and the functional areas they have been designated to provide support under."

Revision: The RFP will be amended in L.1 Section L: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS para. #3 first (1st) sentece: "The Offeror shall provide a transmittal letter and an Executive Summary of the overall proposal, to include all proposed teaming arrangements and shall be included in Volume V 'Contracting Information' only.

2. Executive Summary called in Volume V is different from the one in Section L.1.

Is the last requirement in Past Performance “Section 1 - Contract Descriptions” misplaced?

From L.4.3 Section 1

1) The Offeror shall provide the following project-related information for each contract/subcontract identified:

a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance

k) Final, or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

l) In accordance with FAR 52.245-1, the offeror shall submit a Property Management Plan (PMP) as part of the proposal. The PMP will not be evaluated but must be included to meet the requirement of a valid proposal.

Should the PMP have been added as a requirement within Volume II, Management, rather than Volume III Past Performance?

Revision: RFP L.5, Contracting Information

Content under L.4.3 Subparagraph l) has been moved to L.4.5, Contracting Information.

forthcoming to reflect this change.

Section 3.3.1.1.Item 26 calls out "26. VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL OPERATIONS [VDT]" for the

MGS.

The filter options provided in Appendix F (p. F-2) indicate that the MGS is equipped with a VDET, not a VDT.

Could you please clarify the configuration of the

MGS?

Revision: The Performance Specification, Appendix F.1 has been revised to indicate selection of the following MGS IETM Selection Filter Option:

"Vehicle is not equipped with VDET"

Section L.3.6 Table 1 lists a 10 page limit for the Management Volume (Vol II).

We request this be increased to 20 pages to allow offerors to adequately address all requirements listed in L.4.2a).

Clarification: No, the page limit for Volume II will not be increased.

In Section 3.2.5., p. 30, the SOW states: "All current Windows XP and Windows 7 Operating Systems (OS) for the Stryker MTS shall be upgraded to the Windows 10 OS. . . . The accreditation boundary for Cybersecurity shall be the entire Stryker MTS."

In Paragraph 1, Scope, p. 6, "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."

We would like to confirm the Section 3.2.5 requirement above is the objective requirement and is not to be addressed nor priced in this proposal.

Clarification: Section 3.2.5 of the SOW that states "All current Windows XP and Windows 7 Operating Systems (OS) for the Stryker MTS shall be upgraded to the Windows 10 OS The accreditation boundary for Cybersecurity shall be the entire Stryker MTS" is the objective requirement.

There is no intent to require software and hardware upgrades to the existing HOT and DTT computers to meet this Objective requirement and therefore the RFP does not include a CLIN for the Objective cybersecurity requirement and the effort should not be priced or part of the proposal

Should the prerequisite "COMMANDER'S AND GUNNER'S DISPLAYS TROUBLESHOOTING" under TTL ID 2 have an "X" in the "Automatically Scored on MGS HOT" column? It is the only prerequisite task listed in the table with an "X" in that column and it is inconsistent with the identical prerequisites under TTL ID 3 and 4, with identical IETM Paths that do not have an "X."

Revision: The following Appendix D TTLs have been updated to indicate automatic scoring of the included Prerequisite Tasks:

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77

Can the 105mm gun tube extend beyond the footprint requirement when operated during troubleshooting procedures?

Clarification: Yes the MGS gun tube can extend beyond the footprint as long as safety is not compromised and task on the tube itself can be performed; including traversing the turret, collimator replacement, bore evacuator removal and installation, etc.

SOW 1: Scope: Will the GFE standalone turret be delivered to the winning contractor with a turret stand?

Clarification: The GFE turret will not be delivered with a turret stand.

General Question: Will trainer validation of operational checks be limited to demonstrating the stated fidelity and those operational tasks directly related to the TTLs or will the HOTS be required to support operational characteristic beyond those identified in the Fidelity requirements and the TTL items in a free-play or free-run modes?

The SOW and PS seem to open the possibility of systems that do not support TTLs being brought into play, either in free-play or more likely, free-run scenarios.

SOW, p. 23, Para 3.2.1.1 (System Definition Stage) “The contractor shall establish the definition of the system with a focus on system products required to satisfy operational capabilities defined in the System Requirements Documents (SRD) PRF-PT- 684.”

Per the PS, p. 8, para 3.3.1 “A free-run scenario is not listed in the TTL; is not selectable by the instructor; and has no scoring capabilities but will alert the user when a hazardous condition has occurred.”

PS: P. 10, Para 3.3.1.1 “The system checkout shall consist of the following IETM tasks to the degree necessary to ensure that the associated system is operational:” In the free-play mode, the student can deviate from the IETM path, possibly bringing systems not required for the training task into play.

Clarification: Free-play and free-run functionality shall be limited to the same functionality implemented to support executing the TTLs therefore, trainer validation of operational checks will be limited to demonstrating the stated fidelity and those operational tasks directly related to the TTLs.

Will the Government provide inert ammunition as GFE? If so, what types?

Clarification: Yes one inert HEAT round will be provided when needed.

General Question: Will the following vehicle systems be required to be operational even if they are not in the training task requirements: climate control system, Full function intercom stations and functionality, Embedded Training mode, Tactical Engagement Simulation System, NBC, CTIS, Height Management, C4 capabilities and functionality, Navigation (EPLRS, GPS), Radio Communications and Vehicle Intercommunications, AFES panel, and Driver Camera? Will I/O be required?

Revision: Of those listed, the MGS and ATGM HOT shall be capable of simulating only the vehicle intercom system.

The following requirement has been added to the Performance Specification, Section 3.3.1:

The MGS and ATGM HOT shall be capable of simulating the vehicle intercom system.

If the function is not tied to a training task requirement, there is no need for it to be operational or require I/O.

However, the turret related vehicle intercom is required.

General Question: Gauges on the Driver's Instrument Panel (DIP) - Since there are no requirements for engine training or interaction except for starting the engine (simulated), is there a requirement to for the DIP to display nominal gauge positions for simulated engine operation?

Clarification: Yes the gauges on the DIP must be simulated.

General Question (pp. D-8, D-25, D-29, D-34):

Turret Power Distribution Panel (TPDP) – Do we need to have Digital Inputs for all 30 Circuit Breakers (CBs) or only those required based on lesson functionality? Can we provide Digital Outputs to pop only the CBs that are required to pop based on lesson functionally?

Clarification: Only those circuit breakers that are required for completing lessons need to be functional.

Is the offerer requied to to show all appropriate instruments, gauges, and menus from the crew compartment to enable the instructor to monitor student actions/reactions at all at one time or can the offerer display this data on tabbed pages to help organize similar functions and help reduce screen size?

Clarification: The IOS and tablet shall be capable of displaying all the information specified in the Performance Specification document.

The method of displaying the information is a design decision.

Upon Contract award, will the Government provide to the winning bidder the:

a. depot level manuals for the ATGM and MGS, and

b. vehicle component Interface Control Documents (ICDs) for the ATGM and MGS?

Clarification:

a. There are no depot level manuals for the ATGM and MGS.

b. The Government does not have the vehicle component Interface Control Documents (ICDs) for the ATGM and

MGS.

Will the Automotive Power Train Assemblies Maintenance Stand part number 10597374 be provided as GFE?

Clarification: Yes the Government will provide the Automotive Power Train Assemblies Maintenance Stand as

GFE.

C-7 Power Pack Fidelity Requirements: Is it the governments intension to start and run the C7 while on the engine stand?

Clarification: No there is no requirement for the C-7 engine PTT to start or run.

STATEMENT: Section L.4.3 Volume III: Factor 3:

Past Performance: Section 1, Line Item 1), Sub- Line Item l) states “In accordance with FAR 52.245- 1, the offeror shall submit a Property Management Plan (PMP) as part of the proposal. The PMP will not be evaluated but must be included to meet the requirement of a valid proposal.”

QUESTION(s):

1) Is the Property Management Plan to be submitted as an Attachment to the Volume III or as a standalone document?

2) If an attachment or a standalone document, is the PMP excluded from the Volume III page count?

3) Is there a DD-1423 associated with the PMP? If so, is there an assigned Data Item Description (DID) and format, or should it be submitted in a Contractor-determined format?

1&2):

3):There currently is no CDRL/DID for the PMP.

STATEMENT: W900KK-17-R-0016 Section F.2 – Option CLINs Award Schedule, page 27 and 28 show three 0007AL CLINs. Two 0007AL CLINs refer to “Spare Parts MC First Production” and the other 0007AL CLIN refers to “Spare Parts MC System 2”.

QUESTION: Should there be two Spare Parts CLINs for the MC first production? And should the spare parts CLIN for the second MC system reflect a different CLIN number?

reflect the CLINs for delivery and period of performance that match with their delivery and Spare parts.

STATEMENT: W900KK-17-R-0016 Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices, page 19, Item No 0010 (Contractor on-call support) states that “Estimated start date is after completion on CLIN 0008.” However, page 29, Time of Delivery table, Item No 0010 states that “Estimated to initiate after completion of CLIN 0009.”

QUESTION: Is Item No 0010 expected to follow after CLIN 0008 (PTT Spare Parts) or 0009 (Contractor on-call Support)?

period of performance.

STATEMENT: W900KK-17-R-0016 SECTION L.2:

GENERAL INFORMATION, paragraph (o) states that "Contractors having access to classified networks, software and technical data must have a SECRET clearance," however the DD254 box 11a shows that we will not have access to classified information.

QUESTION: Will access to classified information be required? If so, will the DD254 be amended to reflect that?

Revision: DD254 will be amended.

Contractors are required to have a security clearance because levels of testing including other areas within the Stryker Security Classification Guide require a secret clearance.

Security clearances can be scoped to contractors who only engage in these classified areas, which are monitored by the contractor FSO for this effort.

What, if any, software development tools are GFE to the contract awardee?

Clarification: All active licenses for the software development tools currently installed on the Government provided SSE will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI) to the contract awardee.

STATEMENT: The SOW references the AR 25-2 document. The current published version of the AR 25-2 document is from 2007.

QUESTION: Will an updated version of the AR 25-2 be provided for this effort?

Clarification: The Government will provide the most current version of AR 25-2 that is available.

STATEMENT: The SOW states that "The contractor shall extend the Government-provided Program Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS) to lower levels in the contractor’s Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS)."

QUESTION: When will the PWBS be provided?

Revision: The Program Work Breakdown Structure (PWBS) will be provided as an attachment to the RFP.

forthcoming to reflect this.

Will the 1 (each) MGS tactical Turret for the MGS HOT be delivered by the government on a suitable temporary mount or does the contractor need to prepare a mount/stand to receive this GFE?

Clarification: No, a Turret stand will not be provided as GFE. The contractor will need to prepare a mount/stand for each MGS and each

ATGM HOT.

Training for the maintainers. Paragraph 3.3.6.1.2.f states the training will take place at the device site for the first device of each MTS variant. Although not stated, can we assume same for paragraph 3.3.6.2.g (C7 Power Pack)?

Clarification: SOW 3.3.6.1.2 f. states "Conducting one maintenance training course at the device site for the first device of each Stryker MTS variant. Training will take place at a time mutually agreed upon between the Government and the contractor."

C7 Power Pack Assembly is a PTT that is part of the delivered Stryker MTS devices.

Section B, ITEM NO 0001AA asks bidders to price the prototype of the MGS HOT First Production device under the CPFF pricing structure. The remaining ITEM Nos 0001AB through 0001AE all require FFP pricing. We appreciate the Government allowing bidders to provide for non-recurring engineering time on the prototype device however there is a great deal of risk remaining on the production devices. Until we know exactly what the prototype costs, there is no accurate way to predict the production model costs.

Question: Will the Government revise the pricing to be CPFF for all five (5) devices as there is no way to determine the Firm Fixed Price of production trainers without first creating the prototype?

Rationale: The rationale for this request is found within FAR 16.306(a) “Cost-Reimbursement Contracts” which states in part “…provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract. The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost, but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract. This contract type permits contracting for efforts that might otherwise present too great a risk to contractors…”

Clarification: Market Research for this program indicated that this program could be executed as a Firm Fixed Price with minimal risk. However, the Government chose for the First Production MGS HOT to be Cost Plus to minimize program risk.

The SVD section 4.0 states: “The procedure to build the SSE laptop is incorporated into CDRL

B004 SCOM”.

Question: When will the Government provide a copy of the SCOM document referenced in the SVD section 4.0?

Clarification: A copy of the SCOM will be provided to the winning contractor upon contract award.

Section 3.3.1 Fidelity Requirements: “The user shall be given the capability to perform pre-defined ancillary tasks (e.g., road test) in a single action.

These tasks are not the focus of the training, but may be required to be accomplished to complete the assigned task.”

Question: Will the Government provide a list of these tasks that have this requirement? Without it, we are unable to determine when to use the single action versus doing the actual task.

Clarification: The Government will not provide a list of these tasks that have this requirement at this time.

Identifying Button Tasks should be part of the contractor's Training requirements analysis and approved by the Government at the Systems Requirements Review.

Section 3.3.1 Fidelity Requirements: “The TMS shall provide the capability to select Troubleshooting ELOs that do not require the student to perform detailed maintenance actions (i.e., Single Action LRU Replacements), as dictated by the content of the TTL.”

Question 4.a: Is there a preferred method for Single Action Replacements and Graphical Button Click?

Question 4.b: Since the LRUs are all single action replacements, do these LRUs have to be removable from the device, or can they be fixed while still keeping the required fidelity to complete the task?

Question 4.c: Do we have to add weight for fidelity of the LRU box or will an empty box perform the required training task?

4a- No there is no preferred method for Single Action Replacements and Graphical Button Click.

4b- All LRUs shall be removable from the device even those that are designated as optional single action replacements.

4c- Actual weight and size of all LRUs shall be replicated.

Section 3.3.1 Fidelity Requirements: “The Maintenance Support Device’s internal batteries shall have limitless power.”

Question 5a: Can the Maintenance Support Device have a power cord?

Question 5b: Will the power cord be used and located in the HOT Hull only or are there additional applications for use?

Revsion: Requirement “The Maintenance Support Device’s internal batteries shall have limitless power.” has been deleted from SRD 3.3.1.

Section 3.3.1.4 C7 PTT Fidelity Requirements:

“Ability to separate the engine from the transmission using the Automotive Power Train Assemblies Maintenance Stand part number 10597374”

Question 6.a: Will the Government be furnishing the stand to develop the C-7 PTT?

Question 6.b: If the Government is not providing the stand, are contractors expected to furnish it themselves?

6a- Yes, the Government will provide a stand for the C-7 PTT.

6b- N/A

CDRL_Annex_to_Exhibit_C_PBTMs: Tables are different from current specification (dated 2015);

specifically Software Information, is missing from the Dash 10 and Dash 24. Current 40051-2C has it as required (Page 129).

Question 7.a: Was this intentional?

Question 7.b: If not, recommend this annex be updated to current (2015) specification.

Revision: Annex to Exhibit C has been updated.

Performance Specification (PS), Section 3.3.1.4, pages 13 and 14. The added C7 maintenance procedure categories add 208 new tasks. If the "CONNECT AND

DISCONNECT POWER PACK AND RUN-UP KIT

(C7)" task is required, is it the Government’s intent that the C7 engine runs when the run-up kit is connected?

Clarification: No, there is no requirement for the C7 engine PTT to run.

SOW, Section 3.2.8, p.42 – The subject section includes the following sentence, “The contractor shall provide the Government access to download and review the industry specifications used or referenced on all PDD.” Industry standards are generally provided under licensing terms that could interfere with this requirement. For example, ISO allows transfer of a paper copy but not an electronic copy. A license would have to be purchased for a specific person within the Government. Is this the Government’s intent?

Clarification: No, this requirement only pertains to equipment specifications not standards and therefore licenses will not have to be purchased.

RFP, Section F.2 – The following CLINs appear to be incorrect, compared to Section B:

a. In the “**When 0001 CDR …” table, page 27:

i. 0002AB should be 0002AA

ii. 0002AC should be 0002AB

iii. 0002AD should be 0002AC

iv. 0002AE should be 0002AD

b. In the “**When 0004AA CDR …” table, pages 27 and 28:

i. 0007AL should be 0007AM

ii. 0007AM should be 0007AN

iii. 0007AN should be 0007AP

iv. 0007AO should be 0007AQ period of performance that match with their delivery and Spare parts.

Performance Specification (PS), Section 3.3.1.4, pages 13 and 14. The added C7 maintenance procedure categories add 208 new tasks. Are all tasks in the IETM for these categories required, including tasks such as

"PREPARE ENGINE FOR

SHIPMENT" and “CONNECT AND DISCONNECT

POWER PACK AND RUN-UP KIT (C7)"?

Revision: SRD paragraph 3.3.1.4 was updated to "The C7 PTT shall be capable of performing any of the individual maintenance procedures defined in Appendix G for the following IETM categories:"

Appendix G C7 MaintenanceTraining Tasks was added to the SRD.

Industry_Q_and_A_20170928_(STRYKER_MTS), Q&A # 56, page 22 and PRF-PT-684, Section 3.4, page 26.

Reference to a 5-ton crane for MGS turret component movement was removed from the PS. Is it the contractor’s responsibility to provide an overhead crane at the Ft. Lee site to utilize during MGS maintenance tasks such as Performance Specification (PS) Appendix E, page E-1, TTL # 3 (105MM Cannon and Recoil Mechanism Replacement) and TTL #6 (Turret Removal/Installation)?

Clarification: No, the contractor is not responsible for providing an overhead crane at the Ft. Lee site.

RFP, Section L.4.4, para 3, page 97. Is it required for the subcontractors to create their own Section B editable spreadsheets, or is the prime offeror to consolidate pricing into one set of Section B editable spreadsheets?

Clarification: The Prime Offeror is to include all subcontractor costs in their proposal.

The major Subcontractors shall submit a proposal at the same level of detail as the prime.

The subcontractor's costs shall equal the costs reported by the prime.

All subcontractors should be listed with their proposed costs. All Subcontractor costs shall be identifiable and traceable in the Prime's proposal.

RFP, Section F.2, p.27 – In the “**When 0001 CDR …” table, should CLIN 0011 be removed? Section B states that CLIN 0011 applies only to the optional Contractor on-call support.

remove the duplicate CLIN 0011.

CLIN 0011 will be awarded along with CLIN 0009 and 0010 if awarded.

Performance Specification (PS) Appendix E, page E-1 – Does the Government require the placement of the removed turret into a turret stand during performance of TTL #6 (Turret Removal/Installation)?

If so, does the Government intend to provide turret stands to use at the Ft. Lee site to utilize for this purpose? Will one or more turret stands be provided for the contractor to use at their plant during integration and test activities?

Revision: Delete TTL #6 from SRD Appendix E.

Clarification: The GFE turret will not be delivered with a turret stand.

RFP, Section L.4.4, para 3, page 97 states, “The proposal shall include an editable spreadsheet for Section B and shall be submitted in the pricing volume. This spreadsheet shall be submitted unprotected and include all formulas used in calculations to develop the total cost and price by Line Item.” Please clarify to what level of detail you are requesting? Are you requesting a roll-up of the breakdown for labor, material, travel, shipping, etc. by CLIN/SUBCLIN or are you requesting the lowest level of detail for every CLIN/SUBCLIN? The level of detail will be at a minimum several hundred lines per CLIN/SUBCLIN?

Clarification: The level of detail should be at the CLIN level, not the SUBCLIN level. The level of detail depends on the costs proposed. The costs should be broken down by year.

If CLIN XXXX is a Firm Fixed Priced CLIN, then you would propose a

PRICE.

CLIN XXXX FY 2017

$10,000

CLIN XXXX FY 2018

$10,000

If CLIN XXX is a Cost Reimbursable CLIN, such as a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), then you would provide a cost breakdown by cost element, CLIN and year.

Labor, materials. Subcontractor costs, consultant fees, other direct costs (ODC), Facility capital cost of money, travel and etc. are to be broken down separately by CLIN and FY The following is an example of breaking down labor to its costs elements

CLIN

Fiscal Year (FY)

Labor Category

Labor Class

Subcontractor Y/N

Base Labor Rate

Escalation

Fringe Rate

Overhead Rate

General and Administrative (G&A)

Profit

Labor Hours

SOW, Section 3.1.18, page 22 – The SOW 3.1.8 states, “The contractor shall be required to have a SECRET facility clearance with no storage requirement and be in compliance with the security regulations and security requirements specified in the Contracts Security Classification Specifications, DD Form 254 and addendum sheets.” Does the Government anticipate providing classified data for the Stryker MTS Phase V?

Will the GFE vehicles and MGS turret contain classified equipment?

Revision: DD254 will be amended.

Contractors are required to have a security clearance because levels of testing including other areas within the Stryker Security Classification Guide require a secret clearance.

Security clearances can be scoped to contractors who only engage in these classified areas, which are monitored by the contractor FSO for this effort.

RFP, Section F.2, p.28 – CLIN 0007AL should be removed.

Revision: Agree, the RFP will be amended to reflect the removal of

CLIN 0007AL.

RFP, Section L.4.4, para 5, page 97 states, “The prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor/team member shall provide a copy of their cost proposal.” Are separate Price Volumes to be created by the prime offeror and the proposed major subcontractor/team member or are these to be combined into one Price Volume? If separate price volumes are required for the major subcontractors, are all price volumes to be submitted with the prime offeror’s proposal or are major subcontractor cost proposals to be submitted separately? Are the major subcontractor’s price volumes to adhere to all requirements as stated in Section L4.4 Volume

IV?

Clarification: One Volume. - The Prime will submit the Prime's proposal (which includes the Subcontractor's proposed costs) and the major Subcontractor's proposals.

Remember that the major Subcontractors are required to submit a proposal at the same level of detail as the prime - Yes the major Subcontractor's shall adhere to all Cost Volume requirements. The major Subcontractor's proposed costs should be easily identifiable and traceable.

If the major Subcontractor chooses to submit their proposal directly to the Government, they have that option.

The Prime is still required to include all Subcontractor's proposed costs in their proposal.

SOW, Section 3.2.5, pages 30-32. Which RMF Impact Level (Low, Moderate, or High) does the Government anticipate the Phase V HOTs and PTT devices will be?

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

RFP, Section L.4.4, para 4, page 97 states, “Cost information submitted shall be for the prime contractor and each proposed major and non-major subcontractor/team member, unless otherwise indicated. Detailed subcontractor/team member cost information containing proprietary rates and factors for individual cost elements may be submitted directly to the Government.” If subcontractors decide to submit cost information containing proprietary rates and factors for individual cost elements directly to the Government are these due on or before the due date of the proposal? Are there separate submission instructions to ensure these submissions clearly tie into to the prime offeror’s Price Volume?

Clarification: All Subcontractor proposals submitted directly to the Government are bound by the same time limitations as the Prime. The only additional submission requirements for a Subcontractor who is submitting their proposal directly to the Government is to ensure that the Subcontractor clearly labels their proposal with their name and the fact that they are a Subcontractor. The label shall also contain the RFP number, their CAGE Code and the name of the Prime whom they are supporting.

RFP Section L, page 80-86. Is it required to submit a separate proposal adequacy checklist for each subcontractor or one comprehensive checklist for the team?

Clarification: Per DFARS 252.215- 7009 Proposal adequacy checklist:

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.

Based upon the above, the Prime "may" elect to have their subcontractors fill out the checklist. It is not required for the subcontractor to fill it out, but it is good practice to have them fill it out as a self-check to ensure that the Subcontractor's proposal is also adequate and complete.

RFP, L.4.3, Section 1, page 95 – An additional item was added to the list of project-related information for each contract/subcontract identified within the Past Performance Volume. The new item (l) states, “In accordance with FAR 52.245-1, the offeror shall submit a Property Management Plan (PMP) as part of the proposal.

The PMP will not be evaluated but must be included to meet the requirement of a valid proposal.” How does the Property Management Plan relate to each Past Performance contract/subcontract? Is the Government asking whether or not each contract/subcontract provided a Property Management Plan? Or is the Government requiring a Stryker MTS Phase V Property Management Plan be submitted as part of the Past Performance Volume and if so, does this count against the 25-page limit for Volume 3?

RFP, Section F.2 Required Delivery Schedule, Page 28 – Option 0003AB states, “Options 0003AB- 0003AE will be reviewed after CLIN 0003AA CDR. Deliver NLT 11 months after option is exercised.”, Options 0003AC, 0003AD, and 0003AE state, “Option: Deliver NLT 15 months after option is exercised”. Please confirm if 0003AC through AE require a NLT 15 month or a NLT 11 month delivery after award.

confirm the correct delivery schedules.

RFP, Section L4.4, para 5, page 97 states, “The prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor/team member shall provide a copy of their cost proposal.” It is unclear as to the term cost proposal. Is its use synonymous to pricing/cost volume, or editable spreadsheet, or is there another interpretation? Please clarify as to what is being requested. Are the major subcontractor/team member’s cost proposal (whatever its interpretation) to be submitted with the prime offeror’s submission or if it contains proprietary rate information can it be submitted directly to the government?

Clarification: The term "cost proposal" has been revised to read “cost/price proposal” and shall include the editable spreadsheet and a word document (General Information and Executive Summary) that explains the costs in detail. The word document shall support the cost spreadsheet. It is important to discuss pricing methodologies, assumptions and especially cost savings. For example, if a cost is proposed low and the proposed cost is low because the Offeror has a new technique or gadget that saves money, then the word document should explain this in great detail.

Subcontractors proposal submission question - please refer to the answer for question 50 and 52.

PRF-PT-684, Section 3.3.1.4, page 14, second list, item f. Helipump. There is no Helipump listed in the IETMs.

Should this be Heui Oil Pump?

Revision: The Specification, Section 3.3.1.4, has been updated to state:

"Heui Oil Pump".

SOW, Section 3.4, p.53 – The subject paragraph includes the following sentence: “If changes to the trainer design are required to facilitate or ease the maintenance burden, design changes shall be proposed, developed, documented and incorporated into the trainer.” How and by whom will the requirement for such design changes be determined? Could some bounds be defined?

Clarification: Design changes may be identified by users, contractors, or other Government personnel. All proposed changes will be approved and implemented via the ECP process.

PRF-PT-684, Section 3.3.1.4, page 14, item (i) at top of page. The IETMs calls out

STAND,MAINTENANCE,A:

AUTOMOTIVE POWER TRAIN: PN: 10597370,

which is different than the part number listed in the Stryker MTS specification. Is PN 10597374 a new configuration for the maintenance stand?

Clarification: The PN listed in the MTS Specification is correct.

Industry_Q_and_A_20170928_(STRYKER_MTS).pdf, Q&A #104, page 37 – The answer to the subject question, the Government stated “Spare part quantities should be based upon a one year time frame.” Please confirm this statement. The Stryker MTS will be in service for much longer than one year and spares could become unavailable in the second year.

Clarification: A sustainment contract will cover spare parts after the first year.

RFP L.4.3, Volume III: Factor 3, page 95. The RFP states, “Offerors shall submit a list of at least three (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts on which its Major Subcontractor(s) served as either the prime, as a major subcontractor, or as part of a Joint Venture, in performance and/or completed during the past three years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

Is it correct to assume the 3 year limitation on past performance references from major subcontractors is in error and should be 5 years as it is for the Prime?

Revision: RFP Section L.4.3 will be updated to “Offerors shall submit a list of at least three (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts . . ., in performance and/or completed during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Offerors shall submit a list of at least three (3) Government and/or Commercial contracts on which its Major Subcontractor(s) served . . . in performance and/or completed during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

PRF-PT-684, Appendix C, page C-1, TTL #3, this replacement task in the IETM refers to the base and pintle mount on the skate ring for the Commander’s machine gun.

Is TTL #3 the correct task reference?

Revision: The Specification Appendix C has been updated to list the following tasks for the MC HOT:

CRADLE ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

CYLINDER ROLLER BEARING ASSEMBLY

REPLACEMENT

ELEVATING GEAR ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

ELEVATION GEAR ASSEMBLY (LOWER ANGLE

DRIVE UNIT) REPLACEMENT

ELEVATION GEAR ASSEMBLY (UPPER ANGLE

DRIVE UNIT) REPLACEMENT

MORTAR ASSEMBLY REMOVE/INSTALL

PERFORM PULLING BACK OPERATION

POINTING DEVICE REPLACEMENT

RECUPERATOR ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

RECUPERATOR OIL & NITROGEN FILLING

REPLENISHER ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

TRAVERSING GEAR ASSEMBLY (UPPER ANGLE

DRIVE UNIT) REPLACEMENT

TRAVERSING GEAR ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

TUBE ASSEMBLY (REPLENISHER) REPLACEMENT

Industry_Q_and_A_20170928_(STRYKER_MTS), Q&A # 82, page 31. The answer for the MC HOT states, “The MC Variant support structure must match the outside dimension of the mortar bearing retaining plate”.

The PS Appendix C, MC MAINTENANCE TRAINING TASKS, page C-1, includes maintenance tasks performed at locations within the MC vehicle other than the mortar platform. For example, Appendix C requires maintenance tasks for equipment at the commander’s station (TTL #4 “Replace Commander’s Interface (MFCS)”) and driver’s station (TTL #6, “Replace Driver’s Display, Plates, and Isolators”). Please clarify the Government’s expectations for the MC HOT structure to facilitate tasks that must be performed at locations within the MC vehicle other than the mortar platform itself.

Revision: The Specification Appendix C has been updated to list the following tasks for the MC HOT:

CRADLE ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

CYLINDER ROLLER BEARING ASSEMBLY

REPLACEMENT

ELEVATING GEAR ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

ELEVATION GEAR ASSEMBLY (LOWER ANGLE

DRIVE UNIT) REPLACEMENT

ELEVATION GEAR ASSEMBLY (UPPER ANGLE

DRIVE UNIT) REPLACEMENT

MORTAR ASSEMBLY REMOVE/INSTALL

PERFORM PULLING BACK OPERATION

POINTING DEVICE REPLACEMENT

RECUPERATOR ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

RECUPERATOR OIL & NITROGEN FILLING

REPLENISHER ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

TRAVERSING GEAR ASSEMBLY (UPPER ANGLE

DRIVE UNIT) REPLACEMENT

TRAVERSING GEAR ASSEMBLY REPLACEMENT

TUBE ASSEMBLY (REPLENISHER) REPLACEMENT

C001-C003, CDRL C003 COTS Manual, Block 16, item 6. CDRL sheet states “REPRODUCIBLE PDF

FILES

(GENERATED FROM THE XML SOURCE FILE)”. Is the expectation for COTS Manuals are to be produced with an xml editor?

Revision: COTS shall be produced in a searchable pdf file. CDRL C003 has been updated

C001-C003, CDRL C002 System Maintenance Manual (SMM). Will the Army be providing a Formatting Output Specification Instance (FOSI)/Document Type Definition (DTD) to use as a template/style sheet to ensure document consistency across all of their subcontractors?

Clarification: PEO STRI will not be providing FOSI DTD. MIL-STD 40051- 2C shall apply.

A003, A004, A009, A00A, A00H-A00M, B001-B004, C001-C002 CDRL sheets show the Research Parkway address for PEO STRI instead of the Science Drive address.

Clarification: The address listed is correct.

PRF-PT-684, all Appendicies. Pages A-1 through F-

3. Will the Government provide the IETM required “tools and special tools” at the Ft. Lee site to perform the maintenance tasks as specified in the TTLs? If so, is a set to be provided GFE to the contractor for integration and test purposes at their plant?

Clarification: No special tools have been identified at this time to perform the required maintenance tasks. If any special tools are identified, the Government will provide them as GFE upon approved request.

C001-C003, CDRL C002 System Maintenance Manual (SMM), Block 16, item 1. References Table A-II in Annex to Exhibit C should be to Table A-IV. The Table A-II should be for the OUM.

Revision: CDRL C002 (SMM) has been updated.

C001-C003, C001 Operator Users Manual (OUM) and C002 System Maintenance Manual (SMM), Block14. The CDRL sheets state, “REPRODUCIBLE PDF AND

XML FILES SHALL BE DELIVERED VIA

ELECTRONIC MAIL

TO THE GOVERNMENT TEAM MEMBERS

IDENTIFIED AT THE POST AWARD CONFERENCE”.

Please confirm that the OUM and SMM are to be XML-based Electronic Technical Manuals.

Clarification: CDRL C001 (OUM) and CDRL C002 (SMM) shall be delivered in reproducible pdf and xml files.

Referene: Section L 3.1 Page Size and Format - Can the government please confirm that a Glossary of Acronyms is not required/desired?

Revision L3.1 has been revised to state:

'All acronyms shall be spelled out on their first use per their respective volumes. An acronym list can be included (if needed). A Table of Contents and/or Table of Acronyms will not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.'

Section L3.1 Page Size and Format - Will the government allow 11x17 pages? And if so, will one 11x17 page count as one page towards the page limitations?

Clarification: No, the Government will not allow 11x17 pages. Page size and format requirements are provided in RFP Section L3.1, Page Size and Format which states:

'MS Word files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer - 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” '

RFP Section B, page 3. Would the government accept a proposal in which the prime offeror submitted a FFP cost for Item No 0001?

No, the Government will only accept CPFF proposals for CLIN 0001.