W900KK-18-R-0037_RFP_Questions_with_Gov't_Responses_-_26_Oct_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 will allow the Government to have insights regarding the abilities of the contractor(s) to support delivery of multiple DOs required under this contract; therefore, it cannot just be limited to DO1. Therefore, the Offeror(s) will now only be required to provide an IMS that can show they can successfully execute 4 DOs, e.g. TEV, TV, TWV PH I and TWV PH II concurrently.

5 L.4. PROPOSAL VOLUMES This section references manpower charts but these are not required elsewhere in section L. Please clarify. Removed the reference to manpower charts in Final RFP'.

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.

See 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.

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 Will the Government be providing a copy of the Discrepancy Repots (DR’s) associated with the current TWV update being performed? Refer to the SVD for the list of the DRs.

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? Spiral 2/3 SW version is v.8.3.4 and it was one combined deliverable.

Reference 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? In Section L, it 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… after contract award, SE Core DBs will be delivered as GFI. Otherwise, if the contractor wants to request prior to contract award, then they will have to submit the request via Distribution Agreement to SE Core.

26 Are you working to rectify any known deficiencies in the current CDT baseline? Will there be any known deficiencies that bidders must address as part of their proposed approach? Currently, there is no CDT baseline. The intent of this contract is to get a single SW solution/baseline for all variants.

The Government is continuing 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 all Offerors shall propose a technical solution to comply with the SOWs and SRDs requirements.

27 Does current baseline have DIACAP or RMF certification? Please specify which one. Current CDT TWV SW version is DIACAP. CDT TV, TEV, SV and MV are PIT-S certified. USMC systems require complete replacements, therefore, no certifications currently exist and will establish a baseline.

B. In case of an emergency situation or if main power is lost, the motion system shall settle to the parked position.

C. CDT requirement is the motion base platform proposed should meet industry standards for safety and operation. The system shall settle to the lowest postion to allow for the safe ingress and 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 shows 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 Draft RFP contains errors that will be corrected in the Final RFP.

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? The MS Excel 2013 spreadsheet will include all formulas and links used in calculations to develop the total cost and price by CLIN for CPFF CLINs. Contractor shall provide cost proposal as stated in the RFP. There may be limited duplication of effort, however, the required information is still a requirement.

No. See 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? TWV PH 1 DO does not have any MTF requirements.

USMC requirement is for a mobile variant. Final_CDT VPL SRD Common 20180803 Section 3.15.17.5 identifies the curernt external dimension requirements for the mobile system trailer dimensions.

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

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

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 Reference: 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 will award each effort?

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

Question 3: Will any of the DOs be awarded concurrently? Ans 1: DO 3 in TWV PHI SOW will updated to say, "DO X". See Sec. 1.3.

Ans 2: Possibly. This is an IDIQ contract. After contract award, each DO will be assigned a DO number upon DO award.

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 have been 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 can be added to account for small businesses.

Answer 2: ACC Will address.

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

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

Ans a.: No. PRF-PT-685 will be updated to say, "All GFIs provided are for references only and there is no mandate to use/reuse, as long as all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied." See Sec. 3.9 of Common SRD.

Ans b.: Yes, but 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 will 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? Currently, CDT does not have requirements to interoperate with external systems and has been deleted.

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 reference 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.: CIGI 3.0 version were on CDT variants back in 2010. However, it's the requirement of the VPL to establish a common baseline that utilizes the latest CIGI version.

Ans b.: The reference is an error... the documents will be updated to reference CIGI 4.0+ compliance. See Sec. 3.3.1.3.2 of Visual SRD.

64 Can the Government provide CDT architecture documentation, such as DODAF (or similar) models or views? Current CDT architecture differs per variant. However, it's the objective of the VPL contract to establish a common baseline and common architecture per SRDs. TDP is provided upon request and again, the emphasis on the use of GFI is stated in the disclaimer enclosed with the TDP. No ODS TDP 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”? All SOWs have been updated to address required quantities of new training scenarios and terrain database.

PRF-PT-685 will be updated to say, "The provided SGS GFI is for references only and there’s no mandate to use/reuse, as long as all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied." See Common SRD Sec. 3.16.2.

Backward compatibility shall apply only when the offeror proposes reusing legacy CDT SGS.

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 seeks to establish a common software baseline moving forward. All SOWs have been updated to address required quantities of new training scenarios and terrain database.

PRF-PT-685 will be updated to say, "The provided SGS GFI is for references only and there’s no mandate to use/reuse, as long as all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied." See Common SRD Sec. 3.16.2.

Backward compatibility shall apply only when the offeror proposes reusing legacy CDT SGS.

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 are no test results showing device transport delay to provide.

The Common SRD Verification Method will be updated to reflect 'Analysis' only. See Common SRD Sec. 4.2.

USMC variants will be listed in the RFP. Current USMC vehicle variant requirement as written: Cougar, Buffalo, MAT-V, AAV, LAV, LVSR, MTVR, HMMWV, JLTV and UTV.

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

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 will 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? (References: 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 will establish the Product Line Architecture which will serves as the basis for product line development on 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 will establish the Product Line Architecture which will serves as the basis for product line development on the CDT VPL.

In addition, the 'Engineering & Logistic Support' CLIN for each of the DO is created to address the delivery of the common/updated baseline to the sites/locations that have already been technology refreshed or fielded; and thus, maintain a single baseline to all locations. See SOWs Secs. 3.11.

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 will require DO 03 to be delivered first, followed by 01 and then 02. DO1 is the minimum guaranteed buy and will be awarded at contract award.

The 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 is the minimum guaranteed buy and will be awarded at contract award.

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 is the minimum guaranteed buy and will be awarded at contract award.

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

77 RFP Section B, REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE (RDS), and TPP, TPP Worksheet. There seems 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). See revised Section B for updates.

The Offeror shall perform their own legacy system's reuse analysis, data provided in the TDP, to come up with their proposed technical approach with rationale to support replace/reuse recommendations with the focus that all CDT VPL requirements are satisfied IAW the CDT VPL SOWs and SRDs requirements.

USMC will not utilize legacy systems for inclusion. This effort is for full replacement of the legacy systems.

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 will be evaluated on our analysis of “which legacy components should be refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced.” However, we will not be allowed to conduct a complete analysis until after contract award.What metrics and component logistics data will 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 has provided the Equipment Inventory Record of all legacy systems.

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

USMC will not utilize legacy systems for inclusion. This effort is for full replacement of the legacy system.

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 will be evaluated on our analysis of “which legacy components should be refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced.” However, we will not be allowed to conduct a complete analysis until after contract award. If the Government is unable to provide the requested information (component lists & usage/maintenance records) will the Government consider removing “analysis” from the Section M evaluation criteria? The Government provided the Equipment Inventory Records for all legacy systems.

The Government intends to evaluate the Offer's analysis as identified IAW Section M.3.1.1.d. USMC will not utilize legacy systems for inclusion. This effort is for full replacement of the legacy system.

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. to the requirements (i.e. Sec. 3.0) language in each of the DO SOWs.

I believe you're referring to DO 2 and DO 4. They are exact CLINs, but due to availability of funds, two DOs will be required to satisfy TV requirements.

Each DO has a separate set of CLINs per vehicle variant.

84 Will 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 reference 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 for the JAB update.

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

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

CLIN # ordering is irrelevant. However, due to available funds when the time comes, the 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 the variants that the Government knows as of today. Sections A to D is for the Army, and sections E to I are for the USMC.

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

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