QA_Draft_RFP_20170623.pdf

Abrams Engine Diagnostic and Troubleshooting Trainer (ED/TT) - W900KK-17-R-0044 Draft Solicitation

Question and Answers (Q&A)

Question 1:

Are the transmission pressure tester assemblies to test ports Main, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and G2 going to be provided, and is this procedure going to be required?

Answer: NO. The procedure will not be required.

Question 2:

Is the Battlefield Override switch and the drain valve handle required as a space constraint in the driver’s compartment?

Answer: YES. Not functional, but as a space constraint.

Question 3:

Is the fire bottle and fire extinguisher bottle pressure gauge required as a space constraint in the driver’s compartment?

Answer: YES. Not functional, but as a space constraint

Question 4:

Are the Engine and Crew fire extinguisher T-handles required as a space constraint?

Answer: YES. Not functional, but as a space constraint.

Question 5:

The M1A2 SEP v2 do not contain an RVSS and CCU, however, the IETMs lists these two components. Are the RVSS and CCU required as a space constraint or is functionality required?

If functionality is required, please provide details of this functionality.

PEOSTRI: The RVSS and CCU are not required as a space constraint nor is their functionality is required.

Question 6:

Lesson FS-5 requires left and right fuel tanks as part of the lesson steps. Are all 3 fuel tanks required to be provided for this trainer? If so, what is the required functionality for the right and left fuel tanks? Will we be required to purge the fuel tanks?

Answer: The Government does not want to dictate a material solution. The contractor is being asked to develop a solution where the trainer responds to student inputs and realistically replicates the behaviors as observed on the Abrams Tank. Actual purging of the fuel tank(s) is not required.

Question 7:

Assuming all troubleshooting procedures originate from the IETMs. As for the Theory of Operations, Table 3.2.6 is it intended that they use the -10s hardcopy or the IETMS for these tasks?

Answer: The IETM should be used. The IETM and -10 hardcopy manuals contain the same information

Question 8:

In the lesson tables (Tables 3.2.5.1), the third column calls out a Volume and WP reference.

What are these and where are they located? We have not been able to find any WP reference in the IETMs.

Answer: All lessons came from TM 9-2350-388-23-1-1 and TM 9-2350-388-23-1-2. The malfunction list has been revised to allow selection of 80 total lessons, 60 Practical Lesson and 20 Examination.

Question 9:

Are the TPs that are called in the lesson tables the only TPs that will be used for the troubleshooting lessons? If a manual troubleshooting lesson leads to a TP, will that be included?

Answer: The TP in the lesson tables are not the only TP that will be included in troubleshooting lessons. If a manual troubleshooting lesson leads to a TP, then that TP will also be included in the lesson.

Question 10:

Although Section F provides the Period of Performance (POP) for each CLIN, no indication has been provided for targeted date of execution for the Options. This information is required in order to provide an accurate representation of schedule and resource requirements, would you please provide targeted or No Later Than (NLT) dates for the execution of the Options?

Answer: Draft RFP has been revised to include Section F.3 to provide information in regards to the estimated period to exercise the options.

Question 11:

The RFP has identified 9 trainers as modification of existing units and 2 trainers as complete builds or “new” trainers. Which of the CLINs will be modification and which new?

Answer: There are 9 existing Engine Diagnostic and Troubleshooting Trainers that consist of tactical Abrams Tank components and Trainer unique components (ie… battery box, fuel tanks,…etc). The Tactical components are the same from trainer to trainer. The Trainer unique components are not. One common design for all eleven trainers is expected to provide the Government with the most cost effective life cycle support strategy. The Government does not want to dictate what is to be modified and what is complete build. Contractors will have the freedom to factor that into their individual approaches to satisfy the contractual requirements in a cost effective manner.

Question 12:

Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) is required for both trainer approaches (Modified or New) we have assumed that all NRE will be applied to the CLIN 0001 to ensure a complete Data Package for use in the First Article Inspection.

Is this a correct to assume that all NRE is to be applied to CLIN 0001?

Answer: Yes, all NRE is expected to be completed under CLIN 0001. This will ensure the first two devices are tested and function properly, documented properly, operators and maintainers trained properly. This will also ensure the design is documented properly and provisioned for lifecycle sustainment properly.

Question 13:

In the RFP Section L, paragraph L.4.4 VOLUME IV: Factor 4: Small Business Participation, b: is it states:

“Small Business Participation Plan that shall clearly demonstrate a viable plan for meeting or exceeding the Small Business Participation goal of no less than 15% of the total contract value in the 18 month base period and each of the 12 month options.”

It also in the same paragraph states:

“The plan shall clearly demonstrate the annual dollars to be provided to the small businesses equaling or exceeding the 15% of the total contract effort.”

In the RFP Section M.3.4 FACTOR 4 – Small Business Participation Plan it states:

“Proposals not meeting the required Small Business Participation percentage goal of no less than 15% of the total contract value in the 18 month base period and each of the two 12 month options may be considered unacceptable.”

This same goal is repeated in the subsequent sub-paragraph M.3.4.f using the same terminology.

Is it correct to assume that the participation will be based on the execution of the total contract value to include Options, and not on expenditure of annual dollars?

Answer: The 15% applies to the value of the 18 month base period and each option period and not only to the total value of the contract. As result, the 15% participation requirement applies to the cumulative obligated dollars awarded in each contract period. Please note correction made to the Draft RFP to change from "12 month options" to "18 month options." This change is consistent with the period of performance as set forth in Section F.

Question 14:

Does the gov’t have rights to the M1A2 Abrams SEP V2 Turret HOT technical data, and if so will that be available to the bidders and/or to the winner of this procurement?

Answer: Yes, the Government have rights to the M1A2 Abrams SEP V2 Turret HOT technical data. GFI list will be updated to include this data.

Question 15:

Ref: Attachment 2, SRD Tables 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2 Do all of the LRUs listed in SRD Table 3.2.1.1 and the wiring harnesses listed in SRD Table

3.2.1.2 need to support remove and replace tasks, or only the LRUs that are removed and replaced as a result of a diagnostic/troubleshooting task?

Answer: Turret LRUs and Cables do not need to support Remove and Replace tasks

Question 16:

Ref: DRFP, L.3.a The Draft RFP states in section L.3.a:

A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Contents feature in Microsoft (MS) Word. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

Will the government please clarify:

• Is the government requesting that offerors create a master table of contents in addition to a table of contents within each volume? If so, where should the master table of contents be placed?

Answer: No, a master table of contents for the whole proposal is not required. Section L revised to clarify the requirement.

• Because this proposal will be submitted online, will the government please explain what it means by tab indexing?

Answer: Section L revised to remove the tab indexing requirement.

Question 17:

Ref: DRFP, L.3.a Considering that the Technical, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation volumes are strictly page limited and also have 1-inch page margin requirements, will the government consider removing the requirement that there be a blank line between each paragraph of our responses?

Answer: No

Question 18:

Ref: DRFP, L.3.a and b The last sentence of section L.3.a states (relative to tables): “These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copies of proposals submitted.”

Section L.3.b states that the entire proposal is to be submitted electronically using DVD/CD- ROMs.

Please confirm that offerors should submit proposals electronically only.

Answer: Yes, offerors should submit proposals electronically only. Section L has been corrected.

Question 19:

Ref: DRFP, L.3.a and b We have some confusion about proper format of documents to use in our proposal submittal.

Will the government please clarify the document formats in which proposals should be submitted?

Section L.3.a states: The signed Standard Form (SF) 33, SF30 and Section K – Certifications and Representations may be submitted in Adobe.pdf file format.

Section L.3.b provides additional instructions about the version of MS Office files to be used in proposal responses, including the statement in L.3.b.i that all files “shall be directly supported by Microsoft (MS) Office 2013…” Section L.3.b.ii states “A PDF version of all electronic documents produced and submitted in native format shall also be included as a control copy.”

Does the government just mean that:

• If the offeror wishes to submit documents in Microsoft office formats (Word, Excel, PPT, Project), they should be in version 2013 and that documents submitted in PDF should be in Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or later.

And

• All documents that are submitted in native Office formats should also be provided in PDF format as a control copy (including the IMS).

Answer: Both statements are correct.

Question 20:

FAR 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment is inserted in this FFP solicitations. Is this an oversight? FAR clause 52.216-7 is inserted in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement contract or a time-and-materials contract is contemplated.

Answer: Clause has been removed from the RFP

Question 21:

DRFP, Page 62 Clauses incorporated by reference. Where can we find full text of DFAR 252.203-7996 (Dev) inserted in the solicitation?

Answer: Clause is now incorporated in full text.

Question 22:

Ref: Attachment 3 GFP Smartform.

Are these all of the components that make up the current Engine Trainers?

Answer: This list contains more than the current engine trainers

Question 23:

Ref: Attachment 3 GFP Smartform

1) List on page 2 indicates 11 Pulse Jet Valves. Is it correct that there are 11 sets of 9 valves available?

Answer: Yes

Question 24:

Ref: Attachment 3 GFP Smartform.

Please clarify as compared to 9 Pulse Jet systems. What is the difference?

Answer: GFP SmartForm updated to delete the "9 Pulse Jet Systems"

Question 25:

The base award is clearly two units; First Article and Initial Production Unit. After that are the options. Regarding the options: Are they awarded one at a time, possibly in partial lots, or will it be in complete lots?

Answer: The intent is to exercise partial lots if full funding is not available at the time to exercise the option. Section B has been revised to clarify Government intent.

Question 26:

It says “Lot of 1 to 5” (CLIN series 1001) and then “Lot of 1 to 3” (CLIN series 2001).

Does this mean the government will award all 5 devices with CLIN 1001, or is it possibly any number between 1 and 5?

Answer: Contingent on availability of funds, it is the Governments intent to award between 1 to 5 in the first Option year and between 1 to 4 in the second Option year.

Question 27:

Is the 18 months delivery schedule for all units in a lot? Meaning both prototype and first production are to be delivered 18 months After award of CLIN 0001?

Answer: Yes, the 18 months period applies to both prototype and first production.

Question 28:

Same question for production lots: Are all units 1 to 5 delivered within 18 months of award of CLIN 1001? (etc.)

Question 29:

Will the GFP quantity 9 be allocated to the first 9 units?

Answer: Allocation of GFP is contingent on offeror’s approach. The Government will not dictate how GFP should be utilized.

Question 30:

How soon after award will the GFP be available?

Answer: At award

Question 31:

Will all GFP be available for a given lot all at the same time?

Question 32:

Who is responsible for transportation of GFP from its current location to the contractor’s integration site?

Answer: The contractor is responsible for the Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation from and to the sites.

Question 33:

Will the government provide engine packing and shipping materials?

Answer: No, best commercial practices are required

Question 34:

Is there a time constraint for transfer of possession / removal of GFP from its current location?

Question 35:

Ref: SOW What are the requirements for periodic meetings such as IPT meetings after the prototype unit?

Answer: Depends on the contractors approach

Question 36:

Ref: SOW What are the requirements for PAC/SRR/PDR/CDR or EDR for production units?

Answer: As appropriate for the production phase of the contract

Question 37:

Ref RFP Document and SOW There is no CDRL sub CLIN(s) for the production units. What is the recurring CDRL requirement?

Answer: CDRL CLIN added for production options

Question 38:

Ref: Attachment 4 GFI The ACSL does not appear to be in this list. What is the arrangement for obtaining that data?

Answer: GFI list will be revised to add the Abrams Common Software Library (ACSL)

Question 39:

Ref: Attachment 4 GFI Does that data come with a license cost that needs to be reported in Attachment 5?

Question 40:

Ref: Attachment 3 GFP This list appears to be missing other LRUs that are necessary for conduct of training (iDID, iCDU, iHMPU). Previous Q&A indicated additional LRUs would be provided. Would the government please explain?

Answer: It is not planned to provide tactical LRUs. The contractor is expected to develop trainer unique versions of these LRUs

Question 41:

Does the current LET have an AIM that can be reused? If so, how many?

Answer: No, current Engine Trainers don’t have AIM.

Question 42:

Does the current LET have Steering Control cable, Shift Selector Assembly (SSA) and Steering and Throttle Assembly that can be reused? If so, how many?

Answer: Yes, the Government has seven engine trainers with controls. They have the steering control cable, shift selector assembly, and steering throttle assembly but they are M1A1 parts.

They are not the same as the M1A2 SEP v2 Control

M1A2 SEP v2 NSN P/N Steering Control Cable 2590-01-198-8856 12343998 Shift Selector Assembly 2520-01-142-8251 12311017 Steering and Throttle Assembly 2530-01-342-5899 12347440

M1A1 Steering Control Cable 2590-01-198-8856 12343998 Shift Selector Assembly 2520-01-142-8251 12311017 Steering and Throttle Assembly 2520-01-180-5552 12288735

Question 43:

Ref: L4.2 a and c Paragraph L4.2.a regarding the Past Performance volume states that offerors are to provide a list of similar contracts on which we have performed over the past 5 years; and another list of such contracts that any of our major subcontractors have performed.

Paragraph L4.2.c provides the order to be followed for the past performance volume. It does not indicate where the list from paragraph L4.2.a belongs.

Please indicate where in the past performance volume the list of contracts identified in L4.2.a should be placed.

Answer: List of contracts indicated under L.4.2 (a) shall be included as part of Section 1 following the instructions in paragrapgh L.4.2 (c).

Question 44:

Ref: L.4.2 Factor 2 Price And L4.2 Vol 3 Factor 3 Past Performance Please note that Section L has duplicated number L.4.2. Volume III Past Performance should be L4.3.

Answer: Section L has been revised to make this correction

Question 45:

Ref: L4.2b (Note) (Price vol) When must the copies of licenses associates with commercial technical data and commercial software be provided to the government?

Answer: Offeror shall submit copy of the licenses with its proposal. Section L has been revised to include this requirement under Volume I, Technical (See Section L.4.1.3).

Question 46:

The Pulse Jet System (PJS) is listed as GFE, but the current LET is a panel trainer. Does the Government intend to provide the components missing from the existing PJS Panel trainer needed to comprise a fully functional PJS?

Answer: PENDING

Question 47:

Table 3.2.1.2 and Table 3.2.1.3 in the SRD; Seem to be missing the cables 2W700-9 and 2W701-9 which are required for lessons. Will the Government add these two cables to the list?

Answer: Yes the cable is part of the PJS pulse control unit. SRD has been revised to add the two cables to the list.

Question 48:

Will the government be providing one set of all the necessary test equipment to conduct the troubleshooting lessons to support the development and testing phases (i.e. BOB with all cables and adapters, Transmission pressure tester assembly, PJS Test hose assembly, etc.)?

Question 49:

Is a transmission part of each of the 11 power packs that are being provided as GFE?

Answer: Yes, the transmission is part of the power pack. However, the Government only has seven(7) power pack available for GFP.

Question 50:

The existing GFE list identifies 11 Tiger Engine 1500s. Does the Government intend to provide these in addition to the 9 LETs? Will all engines be of the same configuration?

Answer: Yes, the Government intends to provide the 11 Tiger Engine in addition to the 9 LETs.

All engines will be of the same configuration.

Question 51:

Cable 3W104-9 is used extensively in the transmission lessons, but it is not listed in Table

3.2.1.2 in the SRD. Does this cable need to be added to the list?

Answer: No, this cable goes from the Power Disconnect Panel to the NBC Bleed Air Vale The NBC system is not required on the Trainers.

Question 52:

Table 3.2.1.3 shows Cable 3W105-P32 being connected to 2W103-7. We believe that this is an error and should be 2W114-J1. Is this a correct assumption?

Answer: This is not an error, the 3W105-P32 goes for the Engine Inlet Air Temperature to the 2W114-J1 Power Pack Disconnect Panel.

Question 53:

Table 3.2.6 – the WPs numbers and descriptions listed do not match up with the description in the manuals. Should we assume that the descriptions of the Theory of Operation are correct?

Answer: SRD has been updated to reflect correct titles

Question 54:

Draft RFP, Section M2.1 deems the Technical Volume significantly more important than any other volumes. The 25-page limit on the Technical Volume is extremely limiting due to the broad nature topics to be addressed. All technical, logistics, program management, and data rights are to be discussed within this section. Since this offering is not under STOC II, the development life cycle processes of bidders (development, integration, test approach) is also under evaluation but there is little room to elaborate on these topics or provide process diagrams. We suggest a minimum of 50 pages to allow for adequate coverage of all required topics.

Answer: Section L updated to change from 25 to 30 page limit.

Question 55:

Draft RFP, Section L – Are we allowed a compliance matrix and, if added, would the compliance matrix go against the page count?

Answer: A compliance matrix is not required to be submitted.

Question 56:

Draft RFP, L4.1.1.1 (d), requires the bidder to discuss the bidder’s past experience with similar training systems within Subfactor 1 of the Volume 1 (Technical Approach). Volume 3 is solely dedicated to Past Performance and has a limit of 20 pages. Due to the extremely tight page limitation in Volume 1 and the likely duplication of information in Volume 3, we respectfully request the Government delete the requirement to discuss past experience in Volume 1. If the past experience topic needs to remain in the Technical Volume, we suggest removal of the last two sentences in this section starting with “The Offeror shall provide the information . . .” These two sentences and the numbered list seem like they should be under the Past Performance (Volume III) rather than in the Technical Approach section. Also, please clarify if the bidder will be evaluated twice on past experience/performance, once in the Volume 1 evaluation and again in Volume 3 evaluation.

Answer: This requirement will not be deleted from the solicitation criteria. Experience and past performance are not the same, so the bidder will not be evaluated twice for past performance.

Question 57:

Draft RFP Section L3, states that foldouts count as two pages. We suggest that foldouts count as one page to allow for detailed graphics to be presented that reflect the maturity of the bidder’s design approach.

Answer: Page count increased by 5 to 30 pages to account for foldouts

Question 58:

Draft RFP, L3(b) – The last sentence in this paragraph directs the use of separate files for subfactors. Paragraph L.4 lists three subfactors for the technical volume. Please confirm that the technical volume should be broken into three separate files or clarify the requirement.

Answer: Yes, technical volume should be broken into three separate files.

Question 59:

The Draft RFP has two sections labeled L.4.2, “L.4.2 VOLUME II – Factor 2: Price” and “L.4.2 VOLUME III – Factor 3: Past Performance”. Please clarify if the second L.4.2 should be L.4.3.

Answer: Paragraph number corrected.

Question 60:

Draft RFP, L.4.2. Volume II, (b) – The note at the end of this paragraph requires the contractor to provide “copies of all licenses associated will all commercial technical data and computer software the offeror proposes to deliver to the Government”. We assume these licenses are to be provided at the end of the program not as part of the proposal. Please confirm.

Answer: Offeror shall submit copies of the licenses with its proposal. Section L has been revised to include this requirement under Volume I, Technical (See Section L.4.1.3).

Question 61:

Draft RFP, L.2(l) and DRFP L.4.4(b) – The former paragraph requires a Small Business Subcontracting Plan from large businesses only while the latter requires one from both small and large businesses. Please clarify.

Answer: Paragraph L.4(b) refers to the Small Business Participation Plan. The Small Business Participation Plan is different from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Question 62:

Draft RFP, Section B. If all production options are exercised, there will be a total of 11 ED/TT training systems built. SOW 3.1.7 states that the existing Engine Trainer will be provided as GFE. Assuming there are only nine existing Engine Trainers, please clarify the GFE being provided for the last two production units (10 and 11).

Answer: There are 9 existing Engine Diagnostic and Troubleshooting Trainers that consist of tactical Abrams Tank components and Trainer unique components (ie… battery box, fuel tanks,…etc). The Tactical components are the same from trainer to trainer. The Trainer unique components are not. One common design for all eleven trainers is expected to provide the Government with the most cost effective life cycle support strategy. The Government does not want to dictate what is to be modified and what is complete build. Contractors will have the freedom to factor that into their individual approaches to satisfy the contractual requirements in a cost effective manner.

Question 63:

Draft RFP, Section B – Please confirm if CLIN 0005, Rights in Data, was intended to be an option.

Answer: Yes, CLIN 0005, Rights in Data, is intended to be an option. Each offeror's completed Data Rights Attachment (Attachment 5) can include costs to acquire additional data rights for specific data deliverables, which create the content of the data rights option.

Question 64:

Draft RFP, Section B – CLINs 2001AD and 2002AC are not identified as option CLINs (OPTION text is missing). The parent CLIN for each is identified as an option. Please clarify if these two CLINs are options.

Answer: Both CLINs are options. Section B has been revised to make the correction.

Question 65:

Section L.4.2 (should be L.4.3, Volume III, Past Performance), paragraph (a) states the bidder is to submit a list of contracts they performed and also a list of contracts our major subcontractor(s) performed. Section 1 says the bidder is to include the three most relevant contracts. Please clarify if the bidder is to provide three contracts for the prime plus three for each major contractor or a total of three for the whole team.

Answer: Section L.4.3 (c) has been revised to delete the number of contract efforts to be submitted for past performance evaluation.

Question 66:

The SRD, 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.1 provide tables that delineate the Troubleshooting Procedure Tech Manual Volume and Work Packages (WP) for the 60 lessons but do not identify which troubleshooting paths to follow through the WP nor do the tables identify the faulted components. Many Troubleshooting WPs have hundreds of possible alternative paths that require very different troubleshooting activities and different LRU replacements. One bidder could choose to have just a few steps simulated within each WP troubleshooting path to support the SRD prescribed lesson; another bidder could provide a robust solution that enables the students to work through many steps interfacing with various LRUs, cables, measurements, displays, and tools. On a hands-on type training system such as ED/TT, this difference can mean a radical difference between bidder’s design, cost, tactical/simulated approach, complexity and directly impact the quality of the training provided to the student. The Draft RRP Section B defines these trainers as FFP yet there appears to be an open-ended scope for WP paths and faulted components. We suggest the Government provide the troubleshooting WP paths and identify faulty components so that an apples-to-apples bid can be provided by all bidders. If that is not feasible, we respectfully suggest the Government require bidders to propose 60 troubleshooting WP paths assumed in their design/price so the Government can assess the viability of their simulation and have a means of limiting additional Government costs to incorporate reasonable paths after contract award.

Answer: The Government recognizes need to be bounded, however, Government offers time as means of bounding each lesson. . The SRD has been revised in paragraph 3.2.5 to bound the scope of the lessons to an average of 35-45 minutes.

Question 67:

SRD, 3.1.2.1 (d) states for the Driver’s compartment, “Entry shall be from the top similar to the Tank, however, a closing hatch is not required.” SRD 3.2.6 requires the ED/TT to support:

WP 0051 Enter Driver’s Station

WP 0051 specifies entering the driver’s station through the loaders hatch, not the driver’s hatch. There is no requirement to provide a loader’s station. Please clarify the requirement to perform WP 0051.

Answer: Perform WP 0051 is still a requirement. Confirmed there is no requirement to provide a Loader's Hatch for the ED/TT as there is no turret required. Student must enter through Driver's Hatch to perform WP 0051. It would be acceptable for the student to enter through the Driver's Hatch since entering the Driver's station is not central to the troubleshooting lesson.

Similar changes may be required for other lessons.

Question 68:

SRD, 3.1.2 (h) and (j) provide requirements for the ED/TT to interface and respond per the vehicle when utilizing Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE), standard test sets, kits, tool sets and special tools. Who is responsible to provide the test sets, kits, tool sets, and special tools for use by the student during training? If this equipment is not considered as deliverables as part of the contractor’s proposal, will a set of this equipment be provided to the winning contractor for integration and test purposes?

Answer: GFP list will be updated to add non-common TMDE that might be unique to the Abrams ED/TT.

Question 69:

SRD Section 3.1.2 (l) states, “Normal classroom security shall be required”. Please clarify what is meant by normal classroom security.

Answer: Building and classroom security is not a requirement of the contractor. Facility security is provided by the Government. The statement is for information purposes only to relay the requirement that the training device is unclassified.

Question 70:

SRD, 3.2.3 requires “The ED/TT shall support the test to be run for each specific Tank system identified in the following Table.” The last two lines of the referenced table seem inconsistent with the remainder of the scope of the ED/TT. These two IFITs seem potentially better suited for the Abrams HOT trainer rather than the ED/TT since outside of these requirements, the ED/TT does not require a turret compartment, GCDP, handles, GPS, loader’s station, mirrors, HTPS, etc.

Please confirm that running the Weapon System FIT and Gun Positioning System FIT using the GCDP and other turret equipment is indeed required on the ED/TT since it will drive additional turret equipment and functionality that is not required for any other ED/TT operations/lessons.

Answer: The GCDP is required to run INTER FIT in the ED/TT. The SRD has been revised to clarify.

Question 71:

Please confirm if the items delineated within the GFI list provided on 5/31 is available in its entirety during the proposal phase, to bidder’s approved to receive the technical data package.

Answer: Yes, Technical Data listed in the GFI list is available during the solicitation phase.

However, the Government does not intend to provide it all at once. Offerors must identify the data items needed when developing their proposals. Offerors are on notice that a Distribution Agreement must be approved by the contracting officer in order to receive the GFI.

Question 72:

Please confirm if the GFI list “Restore Disc SPS M1A1 SA D/T” will be provided as a stand-alone product with installation instructions that enable running the software independent of other Abrams D/T software or hardware. Please provide any platform specific requirements to install this software. Also, is there an M1A2 version that could be provided instead of the M1A1 version?

Answer: Yes, M1A2 version is included with the disc.