QA_RFP_20170706.pdf

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

Question and Answers (Q&A)

Question 1: (Draft RFP 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: Yes

Question 2:

What level of fidelity is required for the iCDU? Does the CITV screen have to turn on or just be part of a mocked up panel. Do we need to have I/O to all of the CITV related buttons or just the buttons and switches we need to execute the lessons? What menus are required for the iCDU?

Are cables required for the iCDU to use in troubleshooting and probing?

Answer: The CDU shall provide functionality for running BIT and FIT. The Tactical Display and CITV screens shall support menus from ACSL needed for BIT/FIT. The screens shall simulate functionality for Power up, BIT and FIT, Cautions and Warnings. The CITV screen shall illuminate to simulate these functions and provide a static CITV image when appropriate. I/O is only required for the buttons and switches needed to execute the lessons.

Question 3:

Which fuel tanks are required? What fuel management functionality needs to be added? Will the fuel pumps and sensors be active physically? Will fuel transfer and shutoff be required?

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 for fuel transfer functions and troubleshooting and realistically replicates the behaviors as observed on the Abrams Tank. A fuel pump will need to be active for live engine operation. An indication of fuel levels in the front tanks and rear tank shall be provided at the iDID. The indicators for the fuel tanks shall read appropriately for the initial condition of the fault and shall behave as necessary to simulate the faulty component and according to student inputs and the troubleshooting steps.

Fuel Shutoff is required for trainer safety (See SRD).

Question 4:

It is understood that cable disconnect detection is required. Is it a requirement that the same existing cable pins used in the tank for disconnect detection be used for all disconnects within the trainer?

Answer: No, It is not a requirement to use the same pins as the tank for cable disconnect detection. The Government does not want to dictate a material solution. The contractor is being asked to develop a solution where the trainer monitor's cable disconnects and provides a status to the student that realistically replicates the behaviors necessary for the troubleshooting tasks as observed on the Abrams Tank.

Question 5:

There are a number of driver’s compartment components that are not listed in the SRD. Please clarify which components should be included in the driver’s compartment and their fidelity level.

Answer: The list provided in the SRD is not intended to be the full list of LRUs required for the ED/TT. The contractor is being asked to develop a hardware solution that supports the troubleshooting tasks. LRUs that are required for the fault troubleshooting procedures chosen in the contractor's design shall be included in the ED/TT design at the level of fidelity required to train the tasks. If an LRU is required to provide appropriate feedback to the student to simulate a fault or repair, then it should be included in the design. If an LRU is required for a probing task, then the fidelity shall support full completion of the task and the signal feedback necessary to continue with the correct troubleshooting path in the IETM. The M1A2 Hands on Trainer (HOT) is an example of the level of fidelity required.

Question 6:

Is the NATO connector required to be present and functional and where should it be located?

Answer: There is a NATO connector on the HPDU. The level of functionality should be determined by the troubleshooting tasks in the contractor's design. No other NATO connector is anticipated to be involved diagnostics of engine related components.

Question 7:

Our current analysis indicates that cables which connect to the slip-ring may be required for troubleshooting. Does the slip-ring need to be added to the SRD or just the cables and a mockup of the slip-ring be provided? Where would the slip-ring be located?

Answer: If cables connected to the slip-ring are required in a troubleshooting task, then a mockup of the slip-ring is required at the fidelity necessary for realistic completion of the task.

The slip-ring mockup would be located as it is in the tank, behind the HPDU.

Question 8:

Please confirm that all of the battery cables required and listed in the SRD?

Answer: Cable 2W170 will be added. Cables 2W103 and 2W142-7 will be removed.

Question 9:

Can you please provide clarification on the Past Performance? Page 54 of 73 Section L.4.3 Volume III - Factor 3 Past Performance. In Bold you have five (5) years. But on the Attachment 7 Past Performance Evaluation first paragraph states (within the past three years).

Answer: Attachment 7 has been corrected and posted in FBO

Question 10:

Reference: Table 3.2.5.1 ECS-1 is listed in two different places in the table; one with two lessons and one with three lessons. Should these be combined into one lesson group?

EES-10 appears to be a duplicate of ESS-10. We are unable to find an EES designation in the IETMS. Is it correct to assume this should be ESS-10? If they are duplicates, what is the impact of the overall number of lessons?

Answer: Yes, for a total of 5 ECS-1 lessons. EES is a typo should be ESS. The SRD will be corrected.

Question 11:

Reference Question 70 from June 23, 2017 Your response to this question will drive the development of additional turret components that are required to interact with the Weapon System and Gun Positioning Tests. These additional components are not required for any of the lesson tasks associated with the Engine Diagnostic and Troubleshooting Trainer tasks as defined in the SRD. To execute this requirement, as described, will require the addition of the following technical elements:

� Turret compartment o Gunner’s handles o GPS Panel o Loader’s station � System Engineering � Software functionality � Electrical and hardware design � Software and hardware integration � Test, documentation, and spares Performing this task will significantly increase cost, as well as schedule risk. A more cost effective alternative would be to leverage the Abrams HOTs which were designed to perform the INTER FIT test. Would the Government consider removing this requirement from ED/TT?

Answer: INTER FIT on the iGCDP is only for the turret. The menu does not have any engine components. iGDCP and INTER FIT will be deleted from the SRD.

Question 12:

RFP L4.4 Factor 4 c. (6)) L4.4 Factor 4 c. (6)) states: “Extent of Commitment: The Offeror shall provide documentation regarding individual and enforceable commitments to utilize any SB firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors. Copies of such commitments should be provided as part of Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan.”

QUESTION: Does the government accept Letters of Commitment as sufficient evidence of “enforceable commitment”?

Answer: See Section L .4.4c.(6) and Section M.3.4b to determine what is sufficient evidence to support a Plan that 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 18 month options. 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.

Question 13:

RFP L4.4 Factor 4 c. (6)) The very first line in L.4.4. Volume IV: Factor 4: Small Business Participation states: “Note:

Letters of commitment and teaming arrangements are excluded from page count for this volume.”

QUESTION: This statement indicates that Letters of Commitment from small business subcontractors are required although there does not appear to be any further instruction. Would the government please confirm whether this is indeed a requirement?

Answer: See Section L .4.4c.(6) Extent of Commitment: The Offeror shall provide documentation regarding individual and enforceable commitments to utilize any SB firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors. Copies of such commitments should be provided as part of Offeror's Small Business Participation Plan. AND Section M.3.4b Extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones).

Question 14:

SOW 3.1.10 and 3.1.10.1 These SOW paragraphs address overseas travel and performance or delivery of products in a foreign country.

QUESTION: Will the government please confirm that these paragraphs of the SOW are not applicable to this effort?

Answer: Overseas travel doesn't apply to this requirement. SOW will be revised to remove these 2 paragraphs

Question 15:

RFP L.4.3.c-Sec3 This section states: “…The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government SOW or SRD subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing more than 30% of the total proposed price.”

It appears that the requirement is to replicate the same contract information for offerors and major subcontractors that is provided in L.4.3.c-Section 1 (example: company name, address, CAGE code, DUNS).

QUESTION: Is this a correct interpretation of the requirement? If so, in order to conserve space in this page-limited volume, would the government consider allowing offerors to forego listing the repeated information and, instead, simply list the applicable government SOW or SRD subparagraph number(s) pertinent to the work that the offeror and major subcontractors will perform? The SOW or SRD paragraph numbers are the only data points not provided in the preceding section.

Answer: Turret LRUs and Cables do not need to support Remove and Replace tasks In section 3 the offeror shall demonstrate the level of relevant past performance from its subcontractor.

Section 3 is not intended to replicate the information in Section 1 as Section 1 only requires key information about the contracts that the Government intend to use to obtain past performance information from other sources as prescribed in Section M of this solicitation, para c(3).

Question 16:

RFP L.4.3.c-Sec3 This section states that “… offerors shall explain how the past performance work specifically relates to the work that will be performed by the subcontractor.”

QUESTION: Should this requirement be worded to indicate “… performed by the proposed affiliate/ subsidiary/ parent company or major subcontractors”?

Answer: No. This paragraph only relates to proposed subcontractors. Offeror can use Section 2 to explain past performance for its affiliate, subsidiary, or parent company.