W900KK-18-R-0037_RFP_Questions_with_Gov't_Responses_-_6_Nov_18_ACC.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- New Amendment for Common Driver Trainer
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-18-R-0037
About this file
This is a synopsis for a forthcoming solicitation from the U.S. Army for a Common Driver Trainer (CDT) Virtual Product Line. The Army intends to award an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with a ceiling of $110 million over five years. The CDT will provide initial familiarization and sustainment training for wheeled and tracked vehicles across multiple variants. The contractor will be responsible for developing and maintaining the CDT Component Architecture using the Live Training Transformation Integrated Development Environment. This will include restructuring CDT software and hardware to improve the product line and maximize reuse. The Army also plans to hold a site visit at Fort Leonard Wood after releasing a draft RFP on March 9, 2018 to allow vendors to gather information.
Q&A
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 69 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Company | POC: Name and Email | Relates to: | |
| (RFP or Att #/Sect#/Page #) | Question/Comment | Government Response | ||
| 1 | a. W900KK-18-R-0037_RFP_Questions_with_Gov’t_Responses_-_26_Oct_18.xlsx, Response to RFP Question 5 on line 249 |
b. Attachment_10-_Total_Proposed_Price_Spreadsheet-CDT_26_Oct_2018_Final.xlsx (TPP), CY 19 – CY 25 workbooks for CLIN X053 (SLINs X053AA –AH)
c. W900KK-18-R-0037_A0001_Comformed_Copy.docx, pp 29 – 33 of 636 (for CLIN 0053, SLINs 0053AA – 0053AH), with same language for the other X053 CLINs in the RFP. Please clarify delivery types (Fixed versus Mobile) associated with CDT TWV Phase II. The Government Response to RFP questions (Reference a.) lists Camp Pendleton and 29 Palms as being “Fixed locations,” while the TPP spreadsheet (Reference b.) and CLIN Series X053 in the RFP (Reference c.) list them as “(Mobile).” Supporting extracts provided below:
Government Response to RFP Questions: “Attachment 10 is updated to show:
Fixed locations are: FTLW (24), Okinawa (5), Cp. Pendleton (6), and 29 Palms (4).
Mobile locations are: Iwakuni (2), Kaneohe Bay (2), Cp. Lejeune (6) and Cp. Upshur (2).”
| Attachment 10 has been updated to align with previous response. | ||||||
| # | Company | POC: Name and Email | Relates to: | |||
| (RFP or Att #/Sect#/Page #) | Question/Comment | Government Response | Follow-On Question | Government Follow-On Response | ||
| 2 | W900KK-18-R-0037_RFP_Questions_with_Govt’s_Responses_-_26_Oct_18 and Attachment_10_Total_Proposed_Price_Spreadsheet-CDT_26_Oct_2018_Final_Amend 2 | In the recent Q&A line 267, question 23, the response describes 4 locations with mobile systems and 3 locations with fixed systems. The updated Attachment 10, CLIN 0053: SLINs 0053AA-0053AH, describes 6 locations with mobile devices and 2 locations with fixed devices. Please clarify. | Attachment 10 has been updated to align with previous response. | |||
| 3 | Attachment_10_Total_Proposed_Price_Spreadsheet-CDT_26_Oct_2018_Final_Amend 2, CLINs XX53 | Is the price per "TWV PH II System Mobile Trailer Integration and Test of a complete mobile system" intended to include in the total price the price for all component systems required including the trailer, trailer support systems and 2-STS, 1-IOS, and 2-AARs? | No. Pricing for all component systems should be proposed in CLIN 0052. CLIN 0053 is only for Installation and Testing (Inclusive of Travel and Shipping). | |||
| 4 | CDT Common SRD section 3.1.4.8 & CDT SRD Appendix A section 3.2.1.6.4 | CDT Common SRD section 3.1.4.8 Contrast Ratio states “The minimum contrast ratio for all displayed images shall be 150:1 for each display channel.”. |
CDT SRD Appendix A section 3.2.1.6.4 Contrast states “The minimum contrast ratio for all displayed images shall be 10:1 for each display channel and throughout the viewing volume and FOV.”
Please clarify which is the correct requirement for Contrast Ratio
| The 'Contrast Ratio' requirement in Appendix A has been updated to match the requirement stated in the Common SRD. | ||
| 5 | CDT Common SRD section 3.3.2.2 & CDT SRC Appendix A section 3.2.1.9.5 | CDT Common SRD section 3.3.2.2 states “Each After Action Review (AAR) shall not exceed one graphic processor”. |
CDT SRC Appendix A section 3.2.1.9.5 states “For the Full Screen AAR console, there shall have a direct view display, which together provide an instantaneous FOV of 180 by 45 degrees.”
"Instantaneous FOV per channel (normal) 60 x 45"
To display an instantaneous FOV of 180 by 45 implies 3 channels of 60 x 45. Is it the Governments requirement to drive 3 AAR channels from one graphic processor? First, referenced Sec. 3.3.2.2 is in the Appendix A.
Secondly, the answer is 'No' to the question.
"Graphics processor" in the SRDs has been replaced with "graphics computer".
The Government suspects that there's a difference in terminology. The Government is referring to graphics computers and not graphics processors. It's the Government's intention to limit the number of graphics computers, not graphics processors, installed in the equipment racks.
| 6 | Attachment_10_Total_Proposed_Price_Spreadsheet-CDT_26_Oct_2018_Final_Amend 2 | In order to fully satisfy the program cybersecurity requirements, cyber-related activities will need to be performed during the development, integration, and testing phases. Each of the DOs contain a CPFF CLIN for these activities, but also contain a cybersecurity FFP CLIN. Can further clarification be provided as to the scope of cybersecurity effort to be bid under the cybersecurity CLIN vice the CPFF CLINs related to development, integration, and testing? If the effort to design, implement, and test the cyber controls are bid under their respective CPFF CLINs, what effort should be bid under the cybersecurity CLINS? | The Offerors need to propose all Cybersecurity tasks/costs in the Cybersecurity FFP CLIN. |
| 7 | Cybersecurity FFP CLIN | In order to fully satisfy the program cybersecurity requirements, cyber-related activities will need to be performed during the development, integration, and testing phases. Each of the DOs contain a CPFF CLIN for these activities, but also contain a cybersecurity FFP CLIN. Can further clarification be provided as to the scope of cybersecurity effort to be bid under the cybersecurity CLIN vice the CPFF CLINs related to NRE? If the effort to design, implement, and test the cyber controls are bid under the respective CPFF CLINs, what effort should be bid under the cybersecurity CLINS? | The Offerors need to propose all Cybersecurity tasks/costs in the Cybersecurity FFP CLIN. |
| 8 | CLIN 0015-0018 and CLIN 2015-2018 | CLIN XX15-XX18 are shown to be executed twice, once for the initial refresh of 8 CDT TVs and again for the follow on refresh of 10 CDT TVs. However, those CLINs appear to be NRE CLINs. Can the Government further clarify the rationale for exercising the same NRE CLIN effort twice and/or describe how the second effort differs from the first? | The first set of NRE/CPFF CLINs for TV are assigned to address the 'Tech Refresh' of the TV systems. The second set of NRE/CPFF CLINs for TV are assigned to address the 'Concurrency' effort of the TV systems. |
| 9 | CDT VPL SOW DO X TWV PHASE 2 20180914 |
1.3 BACKGROUND
CDT VPL SRD APPENDIX E TWV PHASE 2 20180914; 1.1.2 TWV Family of Vehicles & Equipment Reference Question #'s: 8, 88, 102 Question: Government documents were inconsistent, asking for UTV in one document and MRAP in the other. Which is correct?
| SOW. | Gov't Answer: We want the UTV and need to add it to the 'Background' sections of the SRD appendix E. TWV Phase II, SRD Append D, Common SRD, TWV Ph II. Reference Question #'s: 8, 88, 102 | Government answers are inconsistent. In some answers, Government states, "SRD vehicle requirements include UTV." Government also states "We want UTV and will add it to the "Background" section of Appendix E." In other sections Government states, "UTV is not a requirement at this time." Please clarify: is UTV a required vehicle variant of this contract? Is MRAP a required vehicle variant for TWV Phase II? | In the last Government's response to Question #88 of the Final RFP/Amendment 0001, this is not a requirement at this time. | |
| 10 | L.4.1.2 Subfactor 1.2, Open Architecture [SOW Refs: 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5; SRD Refs: 3.1, 3.2 (Common); 3.2, 3.3 (Visual) |
W900KK-18-R-0037_Draft_RFP_Questions_with _Gov't_Responses_-_3_Aug_18 Reference Question #: 9 Government statement: No new cabs are required for the Army variants. For TWV Ph II, the goal is for a single Cab-design for all vehicle variants. Reference Question #: 9 Follow up: Government answers do not resolve a primary concern. The USMC wants one single cab that supports Tanks, Strykers, TWVs, etc. However, their list of vehicle variants/dashes outlined in TWV Phase II do not call for Strykers, Tanks, etc. Does the Government expect industry to design a single cab that supports the physical layout of both driver stations for TWVs (i.e. HMMWV, cargo trucks, etc.) and TV/TEV? The physical layout between these driver stations differ significantly. To clarify, for the Army's TV, TEV, TWV, MV and SV, the intent is to not replace the existing cabs.
For the USMC TWV Ph II, the intent is have a "single" cab design that will satisfy all TWV Ph II variants, and this may or may not be the same cab design as the Army's TWV.
11 SRD 3.5.1.1.31.7 and 3.5.1.1.31.8 Government Statement: Bid to the SRDs. Any platform PMs concurrencies at various stages of development will be considered as potential Post-Award ECPs. The information provided for TEV variants (JAB and ABV) in the SRD specify components that already exist on the CDT. No new information was provided that can help estimate the scope of concurrency upgrades. Industry is asked to ensure our proposed solution "operates IAW Technical Manual 11374AOR/1," dated 2008. However, Government has stated that these TMs will not be provided until AFTER contract award. Can the Government provide any guidance on the anticipated scope of concurrency upgrades for TEV systems? The Offeror shall propose IAW the TEV SRD and SOW for the JAB and ABV requirements.
In addition, the TM provided, dated 2008, is for reference only.
12 CDT_VPL_SRD_Appendix_A_Visual_20180803 3.3.1.2.51 3D Sea States Reference Questions# 56 and 119. Question: As none of the CDT simulators will replicate amphibious vehicles request clarification of the situations where Sea State representation will be employed.
Government Response: This is not a requirement at this time but a possible future variant. Reference Questions# 56 and 119. Confirm this response is stating that 3D Sea State is NOT a requirement? Or is the government saying Amphibious vehicles are not a requirements but will be in the future? 3D Sea State can not be properly tested with current or proposed vehicle variants.
| If that is the case, will the government defer the 3D Sea State requirement until future variant development requires it and functionality can be properly tested? | Ref. the Government's Response to Question #67. Sea State is not a current requirement, but a possible future variant. If/when the Sea State requirements change, this will require an ECP to the DO. | ||||
| 13 | RFP CLIN 0080 | Question: Would the government clarify if all Stryker variants should be included under CLIN 0080 and, if so, update the CLIN documentation? | |||
| Government Response: This CDT VPL contract only requires Tech Refresh on five SV systems. See Attachment 10 for specific locations. | Follow up: Does this mean the remaining ~9 SV systems will not undergo tech refresh, and therefore are not required to conform to the VPL common architecture? | The Offeror needs to propose the required quantity and fielding locations as stated in Attachment 10. | |||
| 14 | Tank Engineering Variant-Ft. Leonard Wood FFP |
TEV Tech Refresh & Concurrency Upgrade IAW the TEV SOW section 3.0 (6 Systems) Question: Will the USG allow us to ship one of the legacy TEV simulators to a company site to conduct the first article refresh, concurrency upgrade and test?
| Government Response: The contractor shall be prepared to propose a solution where legacy equipment may not be available for in-house/lab integration efforts. | Does the Government intend for the Contractor to integrate, test and conduct acceptance tests on-site at FTLW with a Government-owned TEV system? This seems to add significant cost, schedule and risk to the contract. Keeping the system on-site does not provide any added value, since the Government will need to dead-line at least one system (dual STS pod, two AARs, one IOS) for integration/ test/acceptance procedures anyway. Additionally, the Government would need to provide working space for Government contractors, and travel to FTLW for all contractor development team members and government review/test events. | The Government understands the cost-tradeoffs. The contractor shall be prepared to propose a solution where legacy equipment may not be available for in-house/lab integration efforts. | |||
| 15 | RFP Section I - Contract Clauses | Would the Government add FAR 52.232-28 Invitation to Propose Performance-Based Payments to Section I? Or can we negotiate performance-based payments after contract award? | PBPs will need to be negotiated after award if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. | ||
| 16 | RFP Section L.4.5.7 NDA | After contacting Electronic Consulting Services, Inc. (ECS) to complete an NDA as required by RFP, ECS indicates they are no longer the Prime holder of the contract. The Prime is now OST. Will the Government deem an NDA with OST as compliant to Section L.4.5.7? | The non-government advisor that will participate as an advisor in source selection, is an employee of Electronic Consulting Services, Inc. (ECS). If OST has an NDA in place with ECS, the Offeror can provide an NDA with OST and it will be considered as compliance with Section L.4.5.7. The POC for the NDA is Mr. Clem Greek. CGreek@ostglobal.com, 407-790-0037. | ||
| 17 | RFP Attachment 10 | DO2 and DO4 both include TV tech refresh and concurrency. DO2 estimated award date is FY19 and DO4 is FY21. The only development CLIN for concurrency is under DO4 but there is a delivery of concurrency for 8 systems in DO2. Should there be a development CLIN under DO2 that covers D02 and D04? | DO2 is for the tech refresh of the initial 8 TV systems. DO4 is for the tech refresh of the remaining 10 systems, and the additional concurrency of up to 10 TV systems. | ||
| 18 | RFP Attachment 10 | TWV phase 2 SOW Section 3.9.1.1 NET paragraph stated up to ten NETs (3 OCONUS and 7 CONUS). Attachment 10 specifically calls out 8 NETs (3 OCONUS and 5 CONUS) locations. Does this just mean that we will be evaluated on 8 NETs but should plan to do 10 and there will be an ECP if more than 8 are required? | The quantities of NET specified in the SOW has been removed and the Offeror shall proposed IAW Attachment 10 for requirements. | ||
| 19 | SRD App. A Section 3.3.2.2 | Per the SRD App. A Section 3.3.2.2, “Each STS shall not exceed five graphic processors. Each IOS shall not exceed three graphic processors. Each After Action Review (AAR) shall not exceed one graphic processor. Exception to this shall require prior approval by the government.” |
If an offeror has an alternative solution that would reduce cost to the Government and improve the technical capability, would it be considered acceptable even though the Government has yet to officially approve the alternate design? In the Q&A the Government indicated it is OK to submit alternative solutions in other areas. "Graphics processor" in the SRDs has been replaced with "graphics computer".
The Government suspects that there's a difference in terminology. The Government is referring to graphics computers and not graphics processors. It's the Government's intention to limit the number of graphics computers, not graphics processors, installed in the equipment racks.
| 20 | RFP Section L.4.3.1 Past Performance | Please confirm that the reference to the past five (5) years is tied to the RFP release date of 26 September 2018. | Yes, as stated in RFP Section M.3.3.2, Past Performance within the five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date will be considered recent past performance for the purposes of this solicitation. |
| 21 | RFP Section L.4.2.3 | In the DRFP Q#1, 2, 3 The Government requires "The offeror shall provide a breakdown of the costs proposed in each CLIN, shown by labor, material, overhead, other direct cost, subcontracts, G&A, etc.". As this is a competitive bid, please clarify if this is for cost type line items only. Government Response: This pertains to CPFF CLINS only. However, in the Government's responses to questions post RFP released 26 Oct, the Government's response contradicts the previous requirement of CPFF CLINs only. This is a major impact. The responses for Questions #97, 99 and 100 indicate the requirement is for CPFF and FFP CLINs. Please clarify. | The requirement applies to CPFF and FFP CLINs as stated in the most recent Government response. |
| 22 | Solicitation W900KK-18-R-0037 | New Amendment is tracking on FBO dated 29 Oct 2018 10:45AM however we are not tracking a change. Please clarify. | A new amendment has not been issued on FBO as of 29 Oct 2018. |
| 23 | Attachment 10, CLIN 0052 | The answer didn't address the question of under which CLIN the mobile systems are being purchased, if they are. The current wording of CLIN X0049 (now CLIN X0052) talks about the integration and test of mobile systems, but we don't see which CLIN they're actually being purchased under (because the CLIN doesn't use the same words as in the other CLINs such as Procure, Production, Fabrication/Factory etc.). | CLIN 0052 will now include "TWV PH II Procure Mobile Trailer, Integration and Test of a complete mobile system." |
| 24 | CLIN Description for 0048 and 0049 | CLINs 0048, 0049, call for testing for 8 systems. CLIN 0049 calls for 57 systems. Do the 57 systems in CLIN 0049 include the 8 delivered in CLIN 0048, or are the 57 in addition to the 8? | No, 57 is in addition to the 8, for a total of 65 systems for TWV Ph II. CLIN 0048 (i.e. 8 systems) are for First Article delivery. CLIN 0049 (i.e. 57 systems) are for Production. |
| 25 | CLIN 0052, 0053 | CLIN 0052 has estimated quantities of 20 Mobile systems. CLIN 0053 lists 22 mobile delivery locations. Are both of these quantities correct? | Attachment 10 has been revised. |
| 26 | CLIN 0032, 0042 | Reference CLINs 0032 and 0042: “TWV PH I Tech Refresh (14 Systems)”, “Range price 1-4 Each”. Please define what is included in “14 Systems” and what is included in “Each”? For example, does a “System” include 1 IOS, 4 STS and 4 AAR? Is “Each” one “System” including 1 IOS, 4 STS and 4 AAR? | 14 Systems consist of 14 STSs, 14 AARs and 4 IOSs. 1 Each is 1 IOS, 4 STSs and 4 AARs. |
Yes, "Each" or POD as we commonly refer to them, includes 1 IOS, 4 STSs and 4 AARs.
Part of the Government's requirement for the TWV Phase I Tech Refresh includes half of a POD. This Tech Refresh half of a POD requires 1 IOS, 2 STSs and 2 AARs. As such we have added a new CLIN series to account for the half POD. This is priced out separately in CLIN series 0087-6087.
| 27 | CLIN 0032, 0042 | CLINs 0032 and 0042 require one IOS for each group of four (4) STSs / AARs. How should the IOS be included in range pricing requiring a unit price? | CLINs 0032 and 0042 have been updated to clarify what one "Each" includes. Also CLINs 0087 and 0088 have been added to price out the half POD for tech refresh and procurement. CLIN series 0087 TWV Ph I Tech Refresh is 1 IOS, 2 STSs and 2 AARs. CLIN Series 00088 TWV Ph 1 procurement is 2 STSs, 2 AARs and 1 Spare/Consumables/Special Test Tools Kit. |
| 28 | Common SRD | The SRD states that one CDS is required for each location and one Laptop is required for every 12 to 16 STSs. Do mobile systems need CDS and laptop? | Yes. |
| 29 | Attachment 10: Instructions tab, Est Qty tab and TEP tab |
L.4.2.3. COST/PRICE PROPOSAL
Section F.1 Delivery The instructions in Attachment 10 specify "The Offeror shall fill out Column G of each CY tab." The RFP Section L.4.2.3 states "The offeror shall provide prices for each CLIN in each of the first seven tabs of the Total Proposed Price Spreadsheet (Attachment 10) to include all CLINs for all calendar years (CY)"
The SAMPLE on the TEP tab, row 222, CLINs X004 has a Total Unit Price CY19 of "$8" and a Total Unit cost for all other CY entries as "$0". Assuming delivery orders are roughly executed per the CLIN and CY references provided in the Est Qty tab and RFP F.1 Delivery Schedule, all CLINs would not reasonably be expected to be executed in each calendar year. For those year/CLIN entries where the government has not indicated work or purchases are expected (e.g. CY23 tab, cell G23) , is "$0" an acceptable entry?
If $0 is NOT acceptable for a CLIN in a CY where work or purchases do not occur, does the government then require offerors to provide balanced pricing across all CLINs in a series across all calendar years?
| Will the government please clarify pricing instructions regarding pricing across all CLINs in all calendar years? | The Offeror shall fill out Column G of each CY tab. The Government reserves the right to issue a DO in any year and include any CLIN in that DO. All CLINs for all CYs require pricing. The TEP tab is automatically populated with data provided in Column G of each CY tab. | |||
| 30 | Attachment 10 CLINs 0026 – 0029 | CLINs 0026 – 0029 were added to the TV, however they were not added to the EST QTY tab and were not assigned to a DO. Should those CLINS be addressed under DO2 pricing? | CLINs 0026-0029 were originally added and they are in DO4 in the EST QTY tab. DO2 does not require CLINs 0026-0029. | |
| 31 | CLIN 00050 - 0053 | Should CLIN 0053 covering TWV installation be 36 months to coincide with the duration of system development in CLINS 0050-0052? | CLIN 0053 is 30 mos. | |
| 32 | Attachment 10, CLINS 0054-0056 | Should CLINS 0054 – 0056 be 36mos to align with the rest of the CLIN in DO3? | CLINs 0055 and 0056 have been updated with 30 mos. | |
| 33 | CLIN X058 | Should CLIN series X058 be six months to be consistent with other Site Survey CLINs? | Yes. See updated Attachment 10. | |
| 34 | CLINs X059 | Should CLIN 0059, 1059 etc. be 36mos to align with the remaining development? | CLIN 0059 has been updated with 30 mos. | |
| 35 | Inventory, Attachment 10 | From the inventory we count 13 MV mobile systems and 5 stand alone MV cabs which are utilized on another variant base. That is a total of 18 upgrades to be performed and assuming one cab per Mobile system that would be 18 IOS, 18 STS, and 18 AAR packages. How does that get resolved with the quantity of 10 called out in CLIN(s) 0061? | The Offeror needs to propose the required quantity and fielding locations as stated in Attachment 10. | |
| 36 | Attachment 10 | What are the requirements for the upgrade for the MV systems at Fort Bliss, Fort Hood, Fort Riley, Fort Dix, Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, Fort Drum, Fort McCoy and Fort Carson as they are not called out as systems to be delivered in CLIN series X072. | The Offeror needs to propose the required quantity and fielding locations as stated in Attachment 10. | |
| 37 | Attachment 10 | There are currently no CLINs associated with the development effort for TWV PH II variants. What CLIN(s) are to be used for development of the Marine Corps TWV PH II variants? | CLIINs 0048 and 0050 are for development. | |
| 38 | Reference Q&A and Amendment 1. L.4.5 VOLUME V: Contracting Information. Section L.4.5.7. | Comment: The government requests Offerors sign an NDA with Electronic Consulting Services; however, no Point of Contact is provided in any of the updated documentations. Question: Will the government please provide a designated Point of Contact at Electronic Consulting Services so that Offerors can coordinate the required NDA in accordance with FAR 9.505-4(b)? | The POC for the NDA is Mr. Clem Greek. CGreek@ostglobal.com, 407-790-0037. | |
| 39 | Reference Original Solicitation Documents and Amendment 1. L.4.5 VOLUME V: Contracting Information. Section L.4.5.2 | Since SAM.gov replaced ORCA, will the government accept an Offeror’s SAM.gov FAR and DFARS Report for the requirement “Signed Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements or Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA).” | Yes, if providing Online Representations and Certifications to meet the requirement in RFP Section L.4.5.2 | |
| 40 | Reference Original Solicitation Documents and Amendment 1. L.4.5 VOLUME V: Contracting Information. Section L.4.5.2. | Comment: The government references the signed Standard Form (SF) 33 and SF30 (if applicable) in this requirement and these documents are also requested in L.4.5.1. Question: Is this redundant request in error or is an Offeror to include the signed Standard Forms in both places? | Yes the requirement is redundant. Volume V of an Offeror's proposal must include one Signed SF33 and acknowledgment of each amendment, SF30. | |
| 41 | TEV SOW, section 3.7.5 | Ref: TEV SOW, section 3.7.5 Physical Configuration Audit (PCA): "The PCA is the formal technical examination of the system “as-built” configuration against its technical documentation". Ref: Government Q/A, Post-RFP Question 83:"The contractor shall be prepared to propose a solution where legacy equipment may not be available for in-house/lab integration efforts." Since the legacy TEV cabs will not be available for use in-house by the contractor, does this imply the system-level PCA will be conducted at Fort Leonard Wood? | This depends on the Offeror's proposed solution for the GFE. The PCA will be done either in-house or at the fielding site. | |
| 42 | TEV SOW, section 3.10.2 | Ref: TEV SOW, section 3.10.2 In Plant Acceptance Test (IPAT): "The contractor shall test the CDT system in its final configuration". Ref: Government Q/A, Post-RFP Question 83:"The contractor shall be prepared to propose a solution where legacy equipment may not be available for in-house/lab integration efforts." Since the legacy TEV cabs will not be available for use in-house by the contractor, does this imply that the contractor will be allowed to install the tech refresh on the system at the customer's site in order to conduct the IPAT? | This depends on the Offeror's proposed solution for the GFE. The testing event will be done either in-house or at the fielding site. | |
| 43 | SRD Common Section 3.15.17.5 External Dimensions |
Previous MTF drawing number showing 48 ft trailer with only 1 STS, with dimensions, and with the motion excursion: 202281 Will the government accept a larger trailer size for Army mobile systems than the dimensions outlined in SRD Common section 3.15.17.5 to ensure all SRD motion requirements are met when two STS are mounted in a single trailer? No, the Government will not accept new trailers with larger dimensions as stated in the Common SRD 3.15.17.5.
The Offeror is to provide technology refreshes to the legacy Army MTFs; therefore, no new design will be required.
| 44 | Question 96, Question 153 | In prior answers related to the establishment of the Product Line it was stated that it would be defined in the initial Delivery Orders under execution. In the latest answers to questions it is implied that is not the case. During which DO does the government anticipate the migration of the baseline CDT VPL to the LT2 IDE? | The actual migration to the LT2 IDE will need to be successfully performed prior to the end of DO 2. |
| 45 | RFP Section B | In the RFP Section B, SLINs 0070AE and 0072AE are now identified as “Deleted” but in the revised TEP the SLINs that were after 0070AE (0070AF, AG, AH, AJ, AK) and 0072AE (0072AF, AG, AH, AJ, AK) are renumbered to 0070AE, AF, AG AH AJ and 0072AE, AF, AG, AH, AJ. This causes RFP Section B and the TEP to be out-of-sync. Which document and numbering should be followed when responding to the RFP? | Attachment 10 has been revised to match the RFP Schedule B. |
| 46 | RFP Section B, Attachment 10 | Please clarify CDRL 0086 (Contractor Acquired Property). It is not indicated as a CLIN to be priced in Attachment 10, but it is included in section B of the RFP. Other than the SSE and software GFI, is the Government anticipating to provide additional GFE? Pricing the return of Property will vary depending on the property to be returned. | The Government does not anticipate providing any additional GFE at this time, as already identified in the GFP form. If there is a need for the awardee to acquire additional property during performance of the contractor, the CAP CLIN will be used. |
| 47 | Base SOW, section 3.1.7 | Please confirm that the Government will provide, at its own expense, operating system software licenses to the contractor through an existing CHESS Enterprise License Agreement in support of this program. | The Government only provides the Windows AGM license. Any SW licenses for the LT2 IDE will be provided by LT2. |
| 48 | Attachment 10 | Please clarify inconsistencies with POPs for CDRLs. The POP for CDRL submissions (CLINs 0031, 0037, 0047, 0060, 0066, 0073, and 0087) are inconsistent with the POPs of the corresponding development efforts. For example, the POP for CLIN 0031 is 18 months long, but the POP for the corresponding development CLINS (0014, 0017, 0027, etc.) are 24 months long. CDRL 0031 is required to be submitted throughout 24 months. | Sec. F of the RFP has been updated. |
| 49 | RFP Section E | Please clarify CLIN 0087. The SV CDRL is not listed in the required delivery schedule (section E) of the RFP. | Sec. F of the RFP has been updated. |
| 50 | Attachment 10 | Please clarify. CLIN 0049 says to procure up to 57 systems, however range pricing max is at 40. | The TWV Ph II DO does not anticipate a single of purchase of greater than 40 systems at one time. |
| 51 | Attachment 10 | Please clarify. CLIN 0051 says to procure up to 27 systems, however range pricing max is at 20. | Correct. The TWV Ph II DO does not anticipate a single of purchase of greater than 20 systems at one time. |
| 52 | Attachment 10, TEP tab | Row 95 for Years 2020 forward, formulas are incorrect; the formulas do not pull from the correct field on the source tab, leaving a zero value populated. | formulas have been corrected |
| 53 | Attachment 10, TEP tab | The formula in cell N56 is incorrect; the formula does not pull from the correct field on the source tab, leaving a zero value populated. | formulas have been corrected |
| 54 | RFP Section L.2.1.5 | The contractor reached out to Electronic Consulting Services requesting the required NDA listed in the Contracts Volume but we have not received a response. Please advise on a course of action for compliant submittal should we receive no reply prior to 14 Nov 2018. | The POC for the NDA is Mr. Clem Greek. CGreek@ostglobal.com, 407-790-0037. |
| 55 | Reference W900KK-18-R-0037_A0001_Conformed_Copy.docx | It appears the F.1 Delivery tables (beginning on page 547 of 636) were not updated to reflect the addition of the CPFF TV Concurrency Development CLINS (X026 – X029), resulting in a mismatch of the Months After Delivery Order Award dates for the CLIN series beginning with X026 series of CLINs. The tables end with the X083 Series of CLINS, rather than the X087 Series contained in the updated Section B. This also affects our ability to properly complete the “OFFEROR'S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE” table starting on page 548 of 636. |
| Will the government please provide updated Delivery Tables? | The delivery tables in Section F have been updated. | ||
| 56 | Solicitation W900KK-18-R-0037, Amendment 0001 | Please confirm there has been only one Amendment released to date and it is titled "Amendment 0001 dated Oct 26, 2018". There were a couple of previous FBO updates which were labeled as "Amendments" to the Solicitation. |
| Amendment A0001 was issued Oct 26, 2018. Amendment A0002 has been issued on Nov 07, 2018. | |||
| 57 | Attachment 10, Pricing | RFP Section L.2.4 references that the award will be made in the 4th quarter of FY2019. The Attachment 10 tabs and cost instructions in RFP Section L.4.2.3 reference CLINs by Calendar Years. If the POP is 7 years and it is aligned by Calendar Years, the cost template does not have enough tabs to price by calendar year. Can the government please clarify if CLINs should be aligned by Contract Years instead of Calendar Years. | The CLINs are aligned with Calendar Years based on our current anticipated award date. Due to delays in the procurement the anticipated award date has shifted to the fourth quarter of FY19. This contract will have a 7 year ordering period from the date of award. For pricing purposes Attachment 10 is set up by calendar year. Based on the anticipated 4th quarter award date, Attachment 10 Tab CY 25 should account for escalation of rates and materials for 21 months. 9 of the 21 months will account for January 2026 through September 2026. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .