QA_RFP_20170712.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.

Question 17:

SOW 1.1

Please provide facility information for each of the 11 fixed site facilities. For each facility, please provide:

• Dimensions of each room and relative arrangement of multiple rooms, if applicable

• Location and sizes of doors, walls, entrances, obstructions, if any, and safety aspects

• Power availability / drop location for Fort Benning, Fort Lee, and Gowen Field facilities

Answer: Gowen Field does not currently have a facility for the ED/TT. They are planning to build one. The Government is providing a facility layout and photos of the Ft. Benning Facility and photos of the Ft. Lee facility for informational purposes. However, this does not contain all information needed. The contractor is required under SOW paragraph 3.3.6.1 to conduct a site survey at each of the three sites to insure the ED/TT is designed to operate within the current space constraints and identify any facility deficiencies which can be corrected by the Government prior to installation.

Question 18:

RFP Section B states 1 to 5 sub-CLINs could be exercised incrementally. That implies that, for example, sub-CLIN 1001AA could be exercised in April 2018 while sub-CLIN 1001AC could be exercised in Sep 2018 please confirm if that was the intended meaning of incremental exercising of sub-CLINs.

Answer: No. The Government will exercise the CLIN one time. The funding available at that time of exercising the option will determine the number of SLINs ordered. The Government does not intend to exercise any potential remaining SLIN at a later time.

Question 19:

RFP, Section L. No mention is made for delivery of a requirement to provide hardcopies of the proposal. Are any hardcopies required?

Answer: No

Question 20:

SOW section 3.1.7.1 states the Government will provide Tank LRU and Tank cable drawings but these drawings are not shown in the GFI list. Are these intended to be on the GFI list?

Answer: Yes

Question 21:

SRD Table 3.2.1.2 and 3.2..1.3 - Seven 1Wxxx-x (Turret) cables were added to the SRD that interface to the tactical iCDU and iGCDP. There are no identified fault procedures. In addition, these cables connect to other Turret LRUs that are not part of the trainer. Please confirm the need for these cables. SRD Table 3.2.1.2 and 3.2..1.3 - Seven 1Wxxx-x (Turret) cables were added to the SRD that interface to the tactical iCDU and iGCDP. There are no identified fault procedures. In addition, these cables connect to other Turret LRUs that are not part of the trainer. Please confirm the need for these cables.

Answer: The Government had included the cables for possible future upgrade. However, since there is no fault procedures associated, the cables will be remove from the SRD along with the INTER FIT test and the iGCDP.

Question 22:

GFP List (Attachment 4) - The Negative Bus Bar (2TB151) (PN: 12345709-1) is not on the GFE List. Is that item not part of the current Engine Trainer?

Answer: No, this cable 2TB151 is part of the auxiliary battery MOD installed for the 2A142 APU circuit breaker, terminal board. The APU is not part of this trainer.

Question 23:

GFP List (Attachment 4) – How many gallon capacity are the GFE Fuel Tanks?

Answer: The current Fuel tanks are approximately 35 Gallons. Approximately 50 gallons are used during one week of training. Each class utilizes the ED/TT for approximately one week.

The SRD will be modified to require 50 Gallon capacity.

Question 24:

Who is responsible for dispositioning existing Engine Trainer equipment that is not on the GFP List (Attachment 4) or used in the bidder’s design?7. Who is responsible for dispositioning existing Engine Trainer equipment that is not on the GFP List (Attachment 4) or used in the bidder’s design?7.

Answer: The Government and contractor will coordinate dispositioning for all GFE/P IAW Solicitation # W900KK-17-R-044, Section I, FAR 52.245-1, Government Property Clause. The contractor should not receive any GFE/P that is not on the GFP list. The contractor must submit disposition requests to the Government for all GFE/P (e.g... re-utilize in the ED/TT design, not re-utilize in ED/TT but item can be returned to the Army or disposal IAW FAR 52.245-1), and the Government will provide disposition instructions for all GFE/P based on these recommendations. The contractor will be responsible for completing disposition documentation for each GFE/P item and shipping GFE/P.

Question 25:

GFP List (Attachment 4) – The DECU sidecar is not listed as GFP, do you intend to provide it?

Answer: No. There is no sidecar on the M1A2 SEP V2 version of the DECU.

Question 26:

In cases where the QA_Draft_RFP_20170623 may expand the requirements or conflict with the RFP, SOW, and SRD, do you intend to update the final solicitation documentations reflect all Q&A answers?

Answer: Yes, the solicitation documents will be updated to reflect all Q & A answers.

Question 27:

There may be an error in the SRD, Rev 4, Table 3.2.5.1. The SRD calls out two different WPs (WP0173 and WP0174) for ESS-2 with the same function name

ESS-2

ENGINE SYSTEM CAUTION/WARNING MESSAGE DOES NOT APPEAR ON DISPLAY

WHEN A PROBLEM EXISTS

TM 9-2350-388-23-1-2, WP 0173

ESS-2

ENGINE SYSTEM CAUTION/WARNING MESSAGE DOES NOT APPEAR ON DISPLAY

WHEN A PROBLEM EXISTS

TM 9-2350-388-23-1-2, WP 0174

From TM 9-2350-388-23-1-1, WP0173 is for “ESS-1 Engine System Caution/Warning Message(s) Appears On Display”. Should WP0173 really be WP0174 or is the Malfunction/Symptom in error?

Answer: Yes, ESS-2 the WP should be 0174. The SRD will be updated to reflect this.

Question 28:

In the answer to Question #49 it is stated:

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.

In the ED/TT GFP list provide in the solicitation, it is stated that quantity 11 Tiger Engine 1500’s (part number 57K4107) will be provided. In the IETM 0120: Engine Assembly item 3, it appears that this is the Power Pack (engine and transmission) and also appears in TM 9-2350-388-24P- 1-1 pages 0002 00-1 and 0002 00-3.

Is the GFP list correct in stating that 11 Tiger Engine 1500’s (part number 57K4107) will be provided (engine and transmission) or is the answer to question 49 correct and only seven (7) Power Packs will be supplied GFP?

Tiger Engine 1500 Power Pack 57K4107 2835-01-465-7020 11

If only seven (7) Power Packs are to be supplied GFP, is the bidder responsible for quoting the remaining 4 Power Packs in the bid submittal?

Answer: No, the Government will provide all 11 power packs.

Question 29:

There appear to be changes from SRD revision 3 to Revision 4 that may be in error. In TM 9- 2350-388-10-1 (release 2/6/2009), 3.2.6, the descriptions do not align between the SRD and the TM noted above. The table below shows the some of the differences. This TM aligned with the SRD until SRD revision 4. It appears that these were changed in reference to Q&A question #53.

Is there a newer version of the TM released or is the SRD in error?

If there is a newer version of TM 9-2350-388-10-1, 9-2350-388-10-2, and 9-2350-388-10-3 can we get a copy? There appear to be changes from SRD revision 3 to Revision 4 that may be in error. In TM 9-2350-388-10-1 (release 2/6/2009), 3.2.6, the descriptions do not align between the SRD and the TM noted above. The table below shows the some of the differences. This TM aligned with the SRD until SRD revision 4. It appears that these were changed in reference to Q&A question #53.

Is there a newer version of the TM released or is the SRD in error?

If there is a newer version of TM 9-2350-388-10-1, 9-2350-388-10-2, and 9-2350-388-10-3 can we get a copy?

Answer: There are new releases of the -10 Manuals dated 29-Apr-2016. They will be provided as GFI.

Question 30:

The DID reference for the training CDRLs C008 and C009 is DI-ILSS-80872, which appears to be applicable for a self-paced, self-directed format. This is in conflict with the requirements for training outlined in the SOW, paragraphs 3.3.9 through 3.3.9.2. Does the Government intend for the training to be self-paced, self-directed or will there be a change to the DID reference on the CDRL documents that matches the requirements in the SOW?

Answer: CDRL C008 is for the ED/TT Instructor/Operator Training Course Materials along with all ED/TT Training Data Products required to support the hands-on training of maintenance personnel in the 91A, 913A & 815A Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) utilizing the ED/TT Trainer Tasks in accordance with SRD PRF-PT-00665. CDRL C009 is for the ED/TT Maintenance Training Course Materials along with all ED/TT Training Data Products required to support the hands-on training of maintenance technicians to support and maintain the ED/TT at the LRU level.

Does the Government intend for the training to be self-paced, self-directed?

Answer: Yes.

Will there be a change to the DID reference on the CDRL documents that matches the requirements in the SOW?

Answer: No.

Question 31:

SRD table 3.2.1.3:

There appears to be a typo that identifies cable 2W105-8/P1 as connecting to the RSM2 J4.

Should the cable be 2W104-8/P1?

Answer: Yes, the SRD will be updated to reflect this

Question 32:

Are all of the components that are in the SEP HOT V2 driver’s compartment required for the ED/TT, such as the NBC filter, dome light, and the vehicular personal heater?

Answer: Not all components from the SEP V2 HOT driver's compartment are needed for engine diagnostics/troubleshooting. However, the same level of realism as the HOT should be maintained through the use of functional components and mocked up components for space constraints.

Question 33:

XMSM-3 Manual Troubleshooting:

Cable 3W104 is connected to the transmission J1 and used in almost every lesson path in the lesson, but is not listed in Table 3.2.1.2. Please confirm that cable 3W104 should be listed in Table 3.2.1.2?

Answer: Cable 3W104 should be listed in Table 3.2.1.2. The SRD will be updated to reflect this.

Question 34:

Table 3.2.1.3 lists the following two (2) cables that connect to the Quick Disconnect Panel - 3W101/2-P1 and 3W101/2-P2.

In Table 3.2.1.2 these cables are listed as 3W102-1 and 3W102-2 which connect to different components.

Are both sets of cables supposed to be in the trainer or just the two that go to the Quick Disconnect Panel (QDP)?

Answer: Both sets of cables are required. See below for Schematics

Question 35:

Referencing iCDU and iGCDP:

Given the cables to these LRUs were added to the final SRD, do the iCDU and iGCDP need to be a high fidelity replication of the tactical boxes or would it be acceptable to build a lower fidelity box with the same functionality?

Currently, since it appears the cables are not required for probing in the lessons, how will they be used in the training so the offeror can more effectively design the trainer?

Will the CITV display, indicators, and pushbuttons be required?

Answer: The iCDU will need to be realistic in appearance and functionality. The Government had included the IGCDP cables for possible future upgrade. However, since there is no fault procedures associated, the cables will be remove from the SRD along with the INTER FIT test and the iGCDP. The CITV display, indicators and pushbutton will be required to the extent they are utilized in Power up/down, BIT, FIT and performing the troubleshooting procedures within the lessons.

Question 36:

Where is the server for the ED/TTs going to be located and how far is that from each of the classrooms?

Answer: The facilities support many options. It is expected that the contractor will provide recommendations base on optimum functionality of their particular ED/TT design.

Question 37:

"Reference Tiger Engine 1500, Power Pack Part # - 57K4107, NSN- 2835-01-465-7020:

Can we get a detailed list of the components for this NSN to ensure we address this item appropriately in our proposal?"

Answer: That list is not available.

Question 38:

Would the Government provide the technical engine manual for the 1500 Tiger engine available to offerors upon request?

Answer: The 1500 Tiger engine is a Line Replaceable Unit. The Government is not authorized to repair it. Therefore the Government does not own any manuals. The OEM performs all repairs on the engine.

Question 39:

A cable harness may have some un-used branches because the LRUs to which they are attached are not part of the ED/TT. In cases like this, would it be sufficient to meet the intent of the Government if only the required branches are fabricated; thus enabling all lesson requirements to be met?"

Answer: Yes, that would be acceptable.

Question 40:

RFP, Section L.4.3c, Section 1(5) requires contact information for the "Government contract administration activity Pre-Award Monitor" for each program identified within the Past Performance volume. Please clarify what the term "Pre-award Monitor" means in terms of what Government role or position on a past program this person would have and how they differ from the Administrating Contracting Officer in Section L.4.3c, Section 1(4).RFP, Section L.4.3c, Section 1(5) requires contact information for the "Government contract administration activity Pre-Award Monitor" for each program identified within the Past Performance volume. Please clarify what the term "Pre-award Monitor" means in terms of what Government role or position on a past program this person would have and how they differ from the Administrating Contracting Officer in Section L.4.3c, Section 1(4).

Answer: Pre-award Monitor represents the procurement office responsible for the pre-award activities such as solicitation and source selection process that correspond with the contract listed by the offeror. In most Government Agencies Pre-Award and Post Award activities are managed by the same office. However, there are some Government agencies that assign separate offices for Pre-award and Post award activities.