W900KK-18-R-0037_Draft_RFP_Questions_with_Gov't_Responses_-_3_Aug_18.xlsx

W900KK-18-R-0037 Draft RFP

This pertains to CPFF CLINs only.

4 L.4.1.3 Subfactor 1.3, Product Line Support & Configuration Management Processes [SOW Refs: 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3] "The Offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and a level III Integrated Master Scheduled (IMS) that reflects its understanding of the program requirements for TEV, TV, TWV Phase I, TWV Phase II, MV and SV DOs that may be performed concurrently." Request that the IMP/IMS be limited to D01. The proposed IMS provides the Government insight into the contractor(s) ability to support required delivery of multiple DOs under this contract; it cannot just be limited to DO1. Therefore, the Offeror(s) shall provide an IMS to show that they can successfully execute 4 DOs,TEV, TV, TWV PH I and TWV PH II concurrently.

5 L.4. PROPOSAL VOLUMES This section Ref:s manpower charts but these are not required elsewhere in section L. Please clarify. Removed manpower charts Ref: in Final RFP.

ACSL is Ref:d and updated in TV & TEV SRD.

ACSL shall be provided when the approved version is avaiable for distribution in conjunction with the award of the TV-specific DO.

Please bring page limit concerns for this volume to the Government's attention if the Contractor(s) feel they are insufficient.

11 Section B/Attachment 10 There appears to be some disconnects between RFP Section B and Pricing Attachment 10 as well as disconnects in Attachment 10 itself, request that the government review.

Examples:

CLIN 1014 Quantity Section B Range E 5 - 8 Attachment 10 Range E 4 - 8

CLIN 3008 Quantity Section B Range D 25 - 30 Attachment 10 Range D 21-30

CLIN 3008 Quantity Section B Range D 25 - 30 Attachment 10 Range D 21-30

Please confirm the description for CLIN 2011 and 2012 on the TPP should have 18 Systems, not 28 Systems.

In Attachment 10 Total Proposed Price Spreadsheet CDT, line 66 Description indicates 18 systems whereas Units column indicates 9 Ea.

Ref: revised Section B for updates.

12 L.4.2.3 Cost/Price Proposal May subcontractors provide their information in sealed package directly to the prime offeror for incorporation into the prime offeror’s proposal? Yes.

"WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, THE GOVERNMENT MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND THAT THE TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE PROVIDED, OR ANY PRODUCTS OR RESULTS OF THE USE THEREOF, shall MEET THE OFFEROR'S REQUESTS; OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION; ACHIEVE ANY INTENDED RESULT; BE COMPATIBLE OR WORK WITH ANY SOFTWARE, SYSTEM OR OTHER SERVICES; OR BE SECURE, ACCURATE, COMPLETE, FREE OF HARMFUL CODE OR ERROR FREE.

ALL SOFTWARE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICEABILITY AND/OR SUITABILITY OF THE SOFTWARE FOR CONTRACT PERFORMANCE. ANY MODIFICATION AND/OR CORRECTION OF DEFECTS TO THE SOFTWARE SHALL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE."

16 shall the Government be providing a copy of the Discrepancy Repots (DR’s) associated with the current TWV update being performed? Ref: SVD for DRs list

17 At the pre-solicitation conference the Government stated that the TWV devices were currently running on s/w load version #2 and that version #4 was soon to be released. The Government further advised that s/w version #4 included many improvements. Can the Government please shed any light on what happened to s/w version #3? From a Configuration Management perspective, we can’t understand why version #3 is being skipped? v.8.3.4 = one combined deliverable for spiral 2/3 SW versions

TDP provided is not for "built-to-print" purposes.

Ref: individual Variant SOWs.

24 Is the statement in Section M of the RFP that refers to “experience with SE CORE terrain databases and OneSAF” applicable on a sustainment type of contract? Furthermore, this requirement appears to overly restrictive and may significantly limit the competition? Section L states:

"The Offeror shall describe its technical approach for integrating GFI. Successful previous experiences in integration with GFI, such as OneSAF and SE Core products to meet CDT requirement is desired and should be described as part of the technical approach."

25 In the best interest of a Full and Open competition, would the Government consider providing the required SE Core databases as GFE? Yes.

SE Core DBs shall be delivered as GFI after contract award.

Should the the contractor desire prior to contract award, submit a request via Distribution Agreement to SE Core.

26 Are you working to rectify any known deficiencies in the current CDT baseline? shall there be any known deficiencies that bidders must address as part of their proposed approach? CDT does not currently have a baseline. The intent of the CDT VPL contract is to achieve a single SW solution/baseline for all variants.

The Government continues to resolve existing deficiences until CDT TWV EFO contract close.

The are no known deficiencies Offerors must address in their proposed approach. The Government recommends Offerors shall propose a technical solution to comply with SOWs and SRDs requirements.

27 Does current baseline have DIACAP or RMF certification? Please specify which one. DIACAP is the current CDT TWV SW version.

CDT TV, TEV, SV and MV are PIT-S certified.

USMC systems require complete replacements, currently no certifications exist and shall establish a baseline.

28 Can bidders assume that the ODS replacements for USMC shall be a 1-for-1 replacement? For example, Hawaii has a dual mobile currently, shall this site get a new mobile configuration? No.

Ref: updated Section B.

USMC is not conducting a 1 for 1 swap.

29 Are the required geospecific databases available from SE Core? For example, FT. Bragg Training Area, FT. Benning TA, etc. Do they meet user requirements? After contract award, the Government shall provide the SE Core DBs .

High emphasis areas shall be used for training.

30 Section 3.12.1 Motion Systems Is it necessary to reduce velocity runaway conditions in both extension and contraction to eliminate damage to the equipment/personnel? The SOW does not clearly spell that out. The bumpers on the current unit appear to only prevent damage during contraction. The motion system shall meet CDT VPL requirements for: safety, logistics, and vehicle dynamic.

B. The motion system shall settle to the parked position in the case of an emergency or main power is los,.

C. CDT requirement; the proposed motion base platform should meet industry standards for safety and operation.

The system shall settle to the lowest postion allowing for the safe ingress / egress of the training device.

Industry believes that Naval simulators and flight simulators have great hardware and software system commonality with and share the same device characteristics with driving simulators. These other types of simulators utilize motion, visual and aural cues, simulated and stimulated components, and other capabilities that provide real world training environments for the warfighter.

Industry proposes that relevant performance is best gauged by the wording, "Simulation Training Devices." Can "Simulation Training Devices" be used to describe relevant past performance for scope and complexity in all cases?

CLIN 2011 and 2012 describes 18 TWV systems.

CLIN 1013 is correct with 8 TV systems and CLIN 3001 is correct with 10 TV systems.

CLIN 5001 shows 10 MV systems.

The Final RFP shall address and correct Draft RFP errors that.

36 L.4.2.3. In the RFP section L.4.2.3. COST/PRICE PROPOSAL, How is the “separate editable MS Excel 2013 compatible spreadsheet including all CLINs for each calendar year” different from the CY tabs in the TPP? What additional information is required for the MS Excel 2013 spreadsheet that isn't already in the TEP CY tabs? MS Excel 2013 spreadsheet includes formulas and links used in calculations to develop the total cost and price by CPFF CLIN.

Contractor shall provide cost proposal as stated in the RFP.

There may be limited duplication of effort. However, the information is still required.

37 Is there a list of the current system deficiencies being worked on in the current contract and their status? The Government continues to resolve existing deficiences till the end of the current CDT TWV EFO contract.

The are no known deficiencies that Offerors must address in their proposed approach.

The Government recommends that Offerors shall propose technical solutions to comply with SOWs and SRDs requirements.

38 What shall be the differences between the Army Phase I TWV trainer and the USMC Phase II TWV trainers?

shall the USMC be providing different vehicle dynamics and visual databases as GFE? SRD contains TWV PH I requirements.

No.

Ref: TWV PH II, Sec. 1.3 and 3.0.

39 Is the mobile trailer used by the Army TWV trainer the same dimensions as the USMC mobile trailers? There are no TWV PH 1 DO MTF requirements.

USMC requirement is for a mobile variant.

Final_CDT VPL SRD Common, Section 3.15.17.5, 20180803 identifies the curernt external dimension requirements for the mobile system trailer dimensions.

CDT VPL technology refreshes and concurrency DOs may require changes to dashboard designs/re-configurations.

USMC requirement, full system replacement.

42 Who manufactured the current TWV dashboards? Dashboards developer/manufacturer: Control Products Corporation

Integrator: Raydon Corp.

Per requirements, IAW with the Visual SRD.

46 Are the current vehicle dynamics models sufficient to meet the governments needs?

If not, shall new vehicle dynamics data be supplied? Yes for Army requirements. GFI use is stated in the TDP disclaimer.

USMC vehicle variants with vehicle dynamic capability and characteristics are pulled directly from TACOM/VAMOSC.

USMC shall provide the vehicle characteristics manuals for the identified USMC variants.

a. Tank Variant (TV)

b. Tank Engineering Variant (TEV)

c. Tactical Wheeled Variant (TWV)

d. U. S. Army and USMC Mine Resistance Ambush Protected (MRAP) Variant (MV)

e. Stryker Variant (SV)

f. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)

g. High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)

h. Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR)

i. Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) (i.e. MKR18, AMKR18, MKR16 and AMKR16)

j. Capable of incorporating future vehicle variants training systems

The USMC has known requirements for driver trainers that are not included in the above list:

a. Medium Truck (e.g. MK31, Airfield Trucks)

b. Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV)/ Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV)

c. Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)

d. MRZR-D4 Diesel

e. M1101/M1102 Trailer, Light Tactical; M353 Trailer, General Purpose; M105, Trailer Cargo 1 ½ Ton; MK593 6 Ton 4 Wheel Cargo Trailer; M149A2 Water Tank Trailer; Engineer Equipment Trailer (EET), M777, Howitzer, MK/AMK970, Aircraft Refueler shall these variants be specified in the final RFP, either in the base or options, or left in the “Capable of incorporating future vehicle variants training systems” category and subject to an ECP?

Ref: Final_CDT VPL SOW DO X TWV Phase 2_20180803

Sections 1.3 Background and Section 3.0 Requirements.

49 L.4.1.3.c and M.3.1.3.c RFP Sections L.4.1.3.c and M.3.1.3.c identify requirements and evaluation criteria for an integrated IMP and IMS. The final two sentences of M.3.1.3.c—‘ The Offeror’s programmatic approach shall be evaluated based on its proposed approach to addressing requirements synthesis to its Agile Scrum development process. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated based on its subsystems and final system testing successes to its proposed maintenance and operations concepts’ do not align with the L.4.1.3.c requirements. Recommend moving these two evaluation criteria sentences to the appropriate technical Subfactor. Ref: Sections M.3.1.3.c and L.4.1.3.c for updated language.

The Government concurs that there are other development methods able to support this contract.

50 SRD Section 3.1.3.11.2, e, #2 – RITM Table example in Section 7: Resident Individual Training Management (RITM) Report Example includes Privacy Impact Information (PII). shall the Social Security number and last four number of the Social be required to be included in the RITM? The CDT VPL shall collect name, EDIPI, email of instructors, and trainees only.

The system shall not capture PII.

Total Proposed Price Spreadsheet (Attachment 10) is the only Government provided form for the Price/Cost Volume. Refer to section L for format specifics.

Ref. IAW L.4.2.3 Cost/Price Proposal - This information shall be submitted utilizing the requirements of FAR 15.408, Table 15-2.

"Flight simulators" fall under "Simulation Training Devices."

54 SOW-2017-001, Base Version 1.1.2, Para. 3.3.5.7.4 Training and Certification Ref:: "The contractor shall train and certify CS personnel that shall perform CS functions in accordance with DoD 8570.01-M.

Question: Is there a minimum level of certification CS personnel must have?

DoD Approved 8570.01M Baseline Certifications can be found at https://iase.disa.mil/iawip/pages/iabaseline.aspx.

55 SOW-2017-60, TWV Phase 1, Version 1.0, Paragraphs, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Ref:: In paragraphs of 1.1 and 1.2, the TWV Phase 1 effort is referred to as "DO X". In paragraph 1.3, the TWV Phase effort is referred to as DO 3."

Question 1: In the SOWs where a particular effort has a specific DO number, does this indicate the order in which the Government shall award each effort?

Question 2: Is DO 3 the correct number for the TWV Phase 1?

Question 3: shall any of the DOs be awarded concurrently? Ans 1: Updated DO 3 in TWV PHI SOW to state "DO X". Ref: Sec. 1.3.

Ans 2: Possibly. CDT VPL is an IDIQ contract. Post contract award and at DO award, each DO would be assigned a DO number.

Ans 3: Possibly.

56 Section I - Contract Clauses Question 1: The Draft RFP includes FAR Clause 52-232-16 Progress Payments. We request that DFAR 252-232-7004 DoD Progress Payment Rates be incorporated into the Final RFP as well.

Question 2: Additionally, on a contract of this magnitude, when the same ACRN is used on all CLINs, the inability to close out payment on each CLIN can amount to significant dollars. This requires a small business to carry the residual from each CLIN to contract completion. Recommend the following clause be included to clarify how Progress Payments are liquidated:

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/PAYMENT DATA:

The following was modified: PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS DFARS PGI 204.7108 DFAS Special Payment Instructions:

The Contracting Officer has determined that none of the standard payment instructions identified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of DFARS PGI 204.7108 are appropriate for the following reasons: this contract contains complex funding with both multiple ACRNs and CLINs. If the contractor requests progress payments, requests should be at the individual CLIN level and submitted as separate progress payment requests. The contractor may submit only 1 progress payment request per month, per request. (ex. CLIN 0001 is PPR0001A submitted monthly, while CLIN 0002 is PPR0001B and submitted monthly.) As CLIN deliveries are completed and accepted by the PCO, the contractor shall submit the final invoice and the contractor shall be entitled to payment of the approved amount, of which these payments shall not be subject to liquidation for any other CLIN.

ALL FFP CLIN invoices shall be submitted, no more frequently than on a monthly basis. These invoice payments shall not be subject to liquidation against any other contract CLIN.

All COST CLIN claims shall be submitted using cost vouchers, no more frequently than on a monthly basis, these payments shall not be subject to liquidation against any other contract CLIN." Answer 1: 252-232-7004 will be added to the RFP and resulting award if made to a small business.

Answer 2: The special payment instructions will not be added at this point. If award is made to a small business and the Government determines special payment instructions are needed, they will be added prior to award.

57 Can the Government provide assurance that the for current variant of CDT software is compliant with all cybersecurity requirements defined in the RFP? No.

CDT VPL requires the Contractor to update all CDT systems to meet current cybersecurity requirements.

58 PRF-PT-685 v1.1, 3.9 Major Component Characteristics states “All CDT STS and IOS shall use government furnished applications software as defined in Figure 14, CDT Software Functional Modules.”

a. Does the Government consider AAR/AS software applications to be similarly be reused?

b. shall the Government permit alternative approaches; for example, the delivery and maintenance of new IOS capabilities to replace the existing software set?

Ans a.: No.

Ref: Sec. 3.9 of Common SRD.

PRF-PT-685 language updated, "All GFIs provided are for reference only. There is no mandate to use/reuse, so long as all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied."

Ans b.: Yes.

IAW the functionality requirements identified in the SOWs and SRDs.

59 The RFP states that the CDT devices must be capable of interfacing to external systems (ref. PRF-PT-695 v1.1 sections 1.1 and 3.2.1.4). “The CDT system shall also be expected to interoperate with external systems in the future”. Can the Government provide additional information relating to operation with external systems outside of the current CDT scope, we are particularly interested to know how the Government expects to address security, cross-domain security, exercise, and federation management in the future? Languaged updated.

CDT VPL does not have requirements to interoperate with external systems.

60 PRF-PT-685 v1.1, Appendix A, 3.3.1.3.2 CIG Software Interface stated that “the CDT/CIG interface shall be CIGI v3.6+ compliant”.

a. Can the Government indicate for, each variant, the status of existing CDT CIGI 3.6+ compliance?

b. Additionally what is CIGI 3.6? The only version supported as a Ref: standard is version 4.0 (SISO-STD-013-2014). The previous version was version 3.3. There is no version 3.6 and version 4.0 is the only version in the DoD ASSIST list."

Ans a.:

In 2010, CIGI 3.0 version were on CDT variants. CDT VPL requirement is to establish a common baseline that utilizes the latest CIGI version.

Ans b.:

Ref Sec. 3.3.1.3.2 Visual SRD: Language updated. Specifically reference CIGI 4.0+ compliance.

61 PRF-PT-685 v1.1, 3.1.2 Crew Training states that a single IOS shall support up to 6 STS+AS in the ‘Integrated Mode’, or 8 STS combinations in ‘Network Mode’ and ‘Hybrid Mode’. Can the Government clarify the distinction between ‘integrated’, ‘network’, and ‘hybrid’ modes? Ref: Commom SRD Sec. 3.1.3. for updated language.

A single IOS shall be able to control/monitor up to 8 STS in an Integrated, Networked, or Hybrid combination.

62 PRF-PT-685 v1.1, 3.1.1 Stand-Alone Driver Training sated that a single IOS shall support up to 6 STS instances. Whilst section 3.1.2 Crew Training ; a single IOS shall support up to 6 STS+AS in the ‘Integrated Mode’, or 8 STS combinations in ‘Network Mode’ and ‘Hybrid Mode’. Can the Government comment on the reasoning for differing numbers of devices that the IOS shall support between these requirements, and indicate the significance of 6 instances or 8 instances in each case? Ref Commom SRD Sec. 3.1.3 for updated language.

A single IOS shall be able to control/monitor up to 8 STS in Integrated, Networked, or Hybrid combinations.

63 SOW-2017-025 (TEV SOW)/SOW-2017-069 (MV SOW)/SOW-2017-068 (SV SOW)/SOW-2017-059 (TV SOW)/SOW-2017-060 (TWV Phase 1 SOW)/SOW-2017-067(TWV Phase 2 SOW) section(s) ‘Continuous Technology Refresh’; The requirement states: “The contractor shall perform the analysis to determine which components should be refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced”, and similarly “Technology Refresh shall utilize current version of the Government-owned software (e.g. OneSAF and SE Core) and any applicable legacy SW and/or HW designs in which the contractor chooses to implement, but not required, to meet or exceed all requirements identified in the CDT SRD, PRF-PT-685”. Can the Government comment on the apparent inconsistency with PRF-PT-685 v1.1, 3.9 Major Component Characteristics, where it is stated that “All CDT STS and IOS shall use government furnished applications software as defined in Figure 14, CDT Software Functional Modules.” Ref: Common SRD Sec. 3.9 and Visual SRD Sec. 3.2.1.3.2 for updated language.

64 Can the Government provide CDT architecture documentation, such as DODAF (or similar) models or views? Current CDT architecture differs per variant.

CDT VPL objective is to establish a common baseline and common architecture per SRDs.

TDP is avaliable upon request.

GFI use is stated within the TDP disclaimer.

ODS TDP is not available.

65 PRF-PT-685 v1.1 3.16.2 SGS Requirements states that “The CDT SGS shall be capable of opening, editing and saving existing CDT scenarios in the original CDT scenario format.” Can the Government comment on whether or not it would be acceptable to convert existing scenario files to a new format for on-going use? Is this the intent of the requirement “The CDT scenario generation system shall be capable of opening, modifying and saving existing CDT scenarios to make them compatible with any new CDT scenario format changes from any IOS or CDS station”? SOWs updated to address required quantities for new training scenarios and terrain database.

Ref: Common SRD Sec. 3.16.2.

PRF-PT-685 updated to state; "The provided SGS GFI is for Ref:s only and there’s no mandate to use/reuse, as long as all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied."

When the offeror proposes reusing legacy CDT SGS, backward compatibility shall apply.

66 PRF-PT-685 v1.1 3.16.2 SGS Requirements stated that “Scenario files generated using the CDT scenario generation system shall be backwards compatible with the existing CDT Class Manager and runtime software.”. Can the Government please indicate the intent of ‘backwards compatibility’ in this requirement, considering that the RFP as a whole Ref:ks to establish a common software baseline moving forward. SOWs updated to address required quantities for new training scenarios and terrain database.

Ref: Common SRD Sec. 3.16.2.

PRF-PT-685 updated to state, "The provided SGS GFI is for Ref:s only and there’s no mandate to use/reuse, as long as all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied."

When the offeror proposes reusing legacy CDT SGS, backward compatibility shall apply.

67 Can the Government provide any test results showing the device transport delay, ideally showing the relative timing from STS student input (either steering, braking, or throttle control) and the software model, visual and motion responses. Are there any noticeable timing differences between each variant CDT devices? There Government does not posses test results referencing device transport delay.

Ref: Common SRD Sec. 4.2.

The Common SRD Verification Method updated to reflect 'Analysis' only.

68 Are there frequency response chirp tests for each axis available for any of the existing motion system/base frame combinations? No.

CDT VPL does not have the requirement to perform frequency response chirp tests.

USMC requirement, full system replacement.

69 Are there any other USMC or Army vehicles that are being considered for addition to the final RFP, e.g., USMC Abrams Tank? (Ref:s: SOW_Base, Section 1. Scope) Army, there are no additional vehicle requirements at this time.

USMC vehicle variant requirement as written: Cougar, Buffalo, MAT-V, AAV, LAV, LVSR, MTVR, HMMWV, JLTV and UTV.

Ref: Final_CDT VPL SOW DO X TWV Phase 2_20180803 Section 1.3 Background and Section 3.0 Requirements. The ACV is a future variant, and shall be requested through ECPs as required.

70 RFP Section A (p. 2 of 140) sentence, “Delivery Order (DO) 0001 issued concurrent to award of this contract meets the Government’s IDIQ minimum requirement. Are we correct to assume DO 0001 (RFP Section A) is identical to DO 01 (TPP, TPP Worksheet)? Yes.

71 RFP Section A (p. 2 of 140) sentence, “Delivery Order (DO) 0001 issued concurrent to award of this contract meets the Government’s IDIQ minimum requirement. To establish a common baseline, a non-recurring up front cost is expected in order to consolidate, reconcile, merge, and design common hardware and software solutions that shall serve as the base for all CDT systems. Is it the Government’s intent that sufficient funding is allocated to DO 0001 / CLIN 0001 to cover the NRE to establish a common hardware and software baseline capable of supporting all vehicles and variants at the start of the program? (Ref:s: SOW_Base section 1.2 Goal and Objectives, RFP Section A, RFP Section B., CLINs 0001 – 00013.) CLINs 0002, 0003 and 0004 of DO 1 shall establish the Product Line Architecture serving as the basis for product line development for the CDT VPL.

72 RFP Section A (p. 2 of 140) sentence, “Delivery Order (DO) 0001 issued concurrent to award of this contract meets the Government’s IDIQ minimum requirement. Assuming the common baseline development costs are spread across DOs 01, 02, and 03, each with differing Periods of Performance, it is unclear when during the Period of Performance the government expects delivery of a common baseline to all CDT systems, nor does there appear to be a supporting CLIN that directs delivery of the approved single baseline to all locations. Can you provide clarification? CLINs 0002, 0003 and 0004 0f DO 1 shall establish the Product Line Architecture serving as the basis for product line development for the CDT VPL.

Ref: SOWs Secs. 3.11.

'Engineering & Logistic Support' CLIN for each DO is created to address ommon/updated baseline delivery to sites/locations that have were technology refreshed or fielded; maintaining a single baseline to all locations.

73 RFP Section A (p. 2 of 140) sentence, “Delivery Order (DO) 0001 issued concurrent to award of this contract meets the Government’s IDIQ minimum requirement. RFP REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE, TPP. Can the government provide any further guidance or information about the relative award dates for Delivery Orders 01, 02, 03? For example, award of DO 01, 02, and 03 at contract award date shall require DO 03 to be delivered first, followed by 01 and then 02. DO1 shall be awarded at contract award and is the minimum guaranteed buy.

TPP represents the Government's most likely buys.

74 For purposes of proposing and scheduling NRE and delivery of systems, can the government provide guidance on the expected award dates or desired delivery dates? DO1 shall be awarded at contract award and is the minimum guaranteed buy.

TPP represents the Government's most likely buys.

75 We would like to confirm the Government intends to award complete Delivery Order increments (DOs 01 – 06), including all associated CLINs listed in each DO? DO1 shall be awarded at contract award and is the minimum guaranteed buy.

TPP represents the Government's most likely buys.

76 We would like to confirm the Government intends to award the DOs in the listed DO sequence? DO1 shall be awarded at contract award and is the minimum guaranteed buy.

TPP represents the Government's most likely buys.

77 RFP Section B, REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE (RDS), and TPP, TPP Worksheet. There Ref:ms to be a mismatch between Quantities listed in the above documents. Can you please clarify quantities? E.g.:

a. RFP Section B lists MAX QUANTITIES in terms of 1 Lot (e.g., TEV), UNDEFINED (TV, and TV Spares, CDT TWV Tech Refresh, etc.), 1 Each (TEV New Equipment Training, TWV Phase One Tech Refresh Spares, etc.)

b. RDS lists quantities in terms of 01 Lot, or 01 Each, none listed as “undefined”;

c. TPP Worksheet, Lines 48, 49 (CDT TWV) calls for 28 Systems in the Description column, and 18 Ea in the Units Column. Line 82 (MV) calls for 10 Systems under description, and 19 Ea under Units. Line 94 (SV) calls for 19 Systems, and Line 100 (SV Spares Units calls for 1 Lot (inconsistent with all other Spares lines, but consistent with both CLIN 5007 and the RDS). Ref: revised Section B for updates.

The Government is not providing a list of legacy components associated with each of the above DOs the Government intends to have refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced.

The Government provided the Equipment Inventory Records for all legacy systems.

Utilizing data provided in the TDP, the Offeror shall perform their own legacy system's reuse analysis to derive a proposed technical approach "with rationale" to support replace/reuse recommendations ensuring all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied IAW the CDT VPL SOWs and SRDs.

USMC effort is for full replacement of the legacy systems and shall not utilize legacy systems for inclusion.

79 Our interpretation of RFP Section M Evaluation Criteria (M.3.1.1 Subfactor 1.1 d.) and Government comments at the FLW pre-solicitation conference indicates we shall be evaluated on our analysis of “which legacy components should be refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced.” However, we shall not be allowed to conduct a complete analysis until after contract award.What metrics and component logistics data shall the Government provide to enable an analysis during the proposal phase? Could the Government clarify how they intend to evaluate an offeror’s analysis? Ans 1: The Government provided Equipment Inventory Records for all legacy systems.

Ans 2: IAW Section M.3.1.1.d, The Government intends to evaluate the Offer's analysis.

USMC effort is for full replacement of the legacy systems and shall not utilize legacy systems for inclusion.

80 Our interpretation of RFP Section M Evaluation Criteria (M.3.1.1 Subfactor 1.1 d.) and Government comments at the FLW pre-solicitation conference indicates we shall be evaluated on our analysis of “which legacy components should be refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced.” However, we shall not be allowed to conduct a complete analysis until after contract award. If the Government is unableproviding the requested information (component lists & usage/maintenance records) shall the Government consider removing “analysis” from the Section M evaluation criteria? Ans 1: The Government provided Equipment Inventory Records for all legacy systems.

Ans 2: IAW Section M.3.1.1.d, The Government intends to evaluate the Offer's analysis.

USMC effort is for full replacement of the legacy systems and shall not utilize legacy systems for inclusion.

81 Delivery Order 04 (Lines 54-68 of TTP, TPP Worksheet) appears to be nearly identical to Delivery Order 01 (Lines 23-37), with different CY of Order but the same CLIN numbers.Can the government clarify the differences between Delivery Order 01 and 04? Ref requirements language in each DO SOW. (i.e. Sec. 3.0)

DO 2 and DO 4 are exact CLINs. However, due to availability of funds, two DOs were required to satisfy TV requirements.

Each DO contains separate CLINs per vehicle variant.

84 shall the Government clarify the concurrency deliverable under RFP DO 01?

a. SOW_TEV Section 1.3 BACKGROUND states the Government has procured fixed site TEVs consisting of the a. JAB and b. TEV. This is the only mention of the JAB in SOW_TEV.

b. RFP Section B, CLIN 0001 calls for delivery of “Tank Engineering Variant-Ft. Leonard Wood, TEV Tech Refresh & Concurrency Upgrade IAW the TEV SOW section 3.0 (sic) (6 Systems).” There is no mention of JAB, or specifics associated with Concurrency Upgrades in SOW_TEV Section 3. REQUIREMENTS, nor in any other portions of the SOW_TEV. The cross Ref: in SOW_TEV Section 3. to “CDT SRD, PRF-PT-685” likewise yields no requirement to add the JAB, it only calls out configurations and capabilities, required aural cues, etc. Ans a.: The concurrency effort is the JAB update.

Ans b.: JAB requirements are defined and discussed in SRDs not SOWs.

Note** Definitions for Concurrency Upgrades, Continuous Tech Refresh and New CDT Vehicle Variants are defined in Section 3 of each SOW.

JAB requirements are identified in the SRD.

Offerors should estimate per SRD requirements.

87 In addition to the JAB Technical manual, numerous other technical manuals are unavailable for download to those outside .mil networks. shall the government provide all current operator level Technical Manuals for all vehicle variants, their accessories and attachments that are represented in the CDT VPL enabling analysis to support bidding? JAB is a new requirement and in current development, technical manuals are unavaliable.

JAB requirements are identified in the SRD.

Offerors should estimate per SRD requirements.

Due to Distribution C restrictions, vehicle variants technical manuals cannot be released.

Post award the Government is ableproviding Tech Manuals.

Emphasis on the use of GFI is stated in the disclaimer enclosed with the TDP.

88 The drawings and associated parts lists were not in the CDT TWV Technical Data Package (TDP) provided in December 2017. shall the government provide the missing data to support analysis of the current design? Yes.

Spiral 4 TDP, the latest CDT TWV TDP is avalaible upon request as of June 15, 2018.

89 shall the Government clarify the Tech Refresh (14 Systems) deliverable under RFP DO 03? Based on CLIN order, and Tech Refresh wording, one could infer the hardware portion of this effort is essentially a “build-to-print” delivery based on the designs associated with the ongoing CDT TWV program/systems shown during the FT Leonard Wood (FLW) Pre-proposal Conference. Is this the Government’s intent, or is the Government Ref:king an updated design, that shall meet both Army and USMC TWV requirements, including components that are common to the intended CDT VPL baseline? The Government does not have a "build to print" requirement.

Definitions for Concurrency Upgrades, Continuous Tech Refresh and New CDT Vehicle Variants are defined in each of the SOW in Section 3 and shall adhere to the CDT VPL Product Line Architecture.

90 As CLIN 2001, Tech Refresh, and CLINs 2002 – 2009 also contain the words Tech Refresh, are we to assume CLIN 2011, TWV Phase One Procure of 18 [Army] systems is essentially a “build to print” of the Tech refreshed 14 systems delivered under CLIN 2001? The Government does not have a "build to print" requirement.

Definitions for Concurrency Upgrades, Continuous Tech Refresh and New CDT Vehicle Variants are defined in each of the SOW in Section 3 and shall adhere to the CDT VPL Product Line Architecture.

The TPP represents the Government's most likely buys.

CLIN # ordering is irrelevant. However, due to availability of funds, Government may consider delivering 18 "new" CDT VPL systems first for TWV PH I.

b. M915 A3 Line Haul Truck with M872A4 Flatbed Trailer

c. M915 A5 Line Haul Truck with M872A4 Flatbed Trailer

d. M1120A4 Truck with M1077A1 Palletized Load System (PLS) Flatrack and M1076 Palletized Load System Trailer (PLST)

e. HMMWV

f. BUFFALO

g. MRAP

h. MATV

i. HIMARS Base SOW includes all variants the Government is tracking as of today. Sections A thru D are Army, and sections E thru I are for USMC.

USMC vehicle variant requirement as written: Cougar, Buffalo, MAT-V, AAV, LAV, LVSR, MTVR, HMMWV, JLTV and UTV.

Ref: Final_CDT VPL SOW DO X TWV Phase 2_20180803 Section 1.3 Background and Section 3.0 Requirements. Ref: Final_CDT VPL SOW Base_20180803 Section 1.3 USMC requirements D, F, G, H, I.

The ACV is a future variant, and shall be requested through ECPs as required.

95 Based on SRD_TWV1 Section 1.1.2, there are 13 dash panels required for each TWV variant in for Phase I (M1083A, M1120A4, M915A3, M915A5, HMMWV, MTVR, MK23 MTVR w/MAS, Buffalo, JLTV, MRAP, M-ATV, LVSR, and HIMARS). Based SRD Appendix E section 1.1.2 there are 9 dash panels required for each TWV variant in Phase II (HMMWV, MTVR, MK23 MTVR w/MAS, Buffalo, JLTV, MRAP, M-ATV, LVSR, and HIMARS). shall each cab associated with DO 03 TWV PH 1 require its own complete set of each of the 13 dash panels, and each cab associated with DO 05 TWV PH II require its own complete set of 9 dash panels? Is there a requirement to design USMC dash panels and dynamics during TWV1 tech refresh DO3? TWV Phase I has 4 differing dashes. The remaining dashes are for TWV Phase II.

Ref. Base SOW for USMC Tech Refresh scope to be priced out post award if required.

Ref. Common SRD Sec. 1.2f (1-8).

USMC TWV PH II, the requirement is for 8 differing dashes.

96 SOW_Base Section 1.3 BACKGROUND, p. 5. Does the following sentence apply to the current CDT product line, or to the CDT VPL that shall be created during the course of this program? “All current CDT product line functionality and performance maintained unless an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) submitted and approved by the Government.” Upon issuance of the CDT TWV TDP, we were informed the prior/current systems…