A21.2_Solicitation_W900KK19R0080_Att_0008_CEVT_Question_and_Comment_Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 57 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Construction Equipment Virtual Trainers (CEVT)
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-19-R-0080
About this file
This notice provides details for a federal contract opportunity to procure Construction Equipment Virtual Trainers (CEVT). The U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), through its Program Manager Training Devices (PM TRADE) and Product Manager Virtual Training Systems (PdM VTS), intends to award a firm fixed price, single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract with a ceiling of $27 million and a five year ordering period. The contract will allow the Army to purchase, install, and maintain motion-based simulators for five types of construction equipment: a motor grader, scraper, dozer, wheel loader, and excavator. These CEVT systems will provide virtual training for soldiers on initial entry and transitioning from classroom to operating actual equipment, simulating realistic construction tasks in a safe environment. The solicitation number for this opportunity is W900KK-19-R-0080 and is planned for release on or about November 1, 2018.
W900KK-19-R-0080 Attachment 0008 Question and Comment Matrix 2019FEB01
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
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
CEVT
| # | Relates to: | |||
| (RFP or Attachment #/Sect#/Page #) | Question/Comment | Government Response | ||
| 1 | Solicitation, Management Volume page count lists 10 | Is the IMS in addition to those 10 pages? | The IMS is not part of the 10 page limit for the Management volume. | |
| 2 | Solicitation, Section L, 52.215-20 | In reference to Section L – CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT: |
52.215-20 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA OR INFORMATION OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA (OCT 2010)—ALTERNATE IV (OCT 2010)
(a) Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required.
(b) Provide data described below: Offeror pricing volume shall be in accordance with Instructions to Offerors, Section L.6.5.
(End of provision)
| If relevant to price submission, will the government provide the details of paragraph L.6.5 | Paragraph reference in Clause 52.215-20 updated to L.4.5. | ||
| 3 | Attachment 0006, Pricing Workbook | Tab TEP Development – CLINs 0001 and 0002 are shown to occur in CY19 |
DRFP Question #48 Response: “The Government plans to issue follow on delivery orders after successful completion /acceptance of D0001”
| Can the government clarify how these CLINS will be executed in CY19 if the first year (presumably CY19) is the period of performance for DO1? | The Government intends to issue follow on delivery orders after successful completion/acceptance of DO 0001. Attachment 0006 is updated to mirror year nomenclature of Solicitation, Section B (i.e. Year 1, Year 2, etc.). Year 1 will start at time of award and last 12 months. If CLIN 0001 is completed in less than 1 year, there is potential the Government can place an order for additional CLINs in the first year. | ||
| 4 | Attachment 0006, Pricing Workbook | CLIN 0001 is defined as one lot of dev. |
| For successful completion of this, it appears that 1 IOS, 11 STS, and each variant must be built. Please confirm. Is there a preference for the mix of variants? | Correct. Delivery Order 0001 SOW, 1 states the requirement. It does not provide a quantity of each variant to be provided beyond at least one per each. | ||
| 5 | Attachment 0006, Pricing Workbook | CLIN 0003 (D) SOW reference is an SRD reference |
| recommend changing it to be the same as STS for CLIN 0002. | The IOS requirement is in the SRD; SOW reference should be N/A. | ||
| 6 | SOW | SOW Base has complete SETR development cycle |
| Why is this required since development has completed and these CLINS are in production? | The SOW Base covers all the contract requirements over the life of the contract. | ||
| 7 | SOW | 3.2.1.1(b) System Definition Stage, references 12207-2008 and this is missing from Applicable Documents. |
Is this a strict requirement? If so, then recommend adding the standard to Applicable Documents. 12207-2008 has been replaced with ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 Systems and software engineering -- Software life cycle processes, will be added to the Applicable documents.
8 SOW CDR 3.2.1.3.1 Critical Design Review CDR, requires facility plan,
| Is it correct to assume this is just the facility requirements for the CEVT since we have not conducted a Site Survey? | Yes | ||
| 9 | SOW | 3.2.1.4 Interactive Courseware, “integrate” is assumed to be a seamless installation onto the IOS/AAR to keeps costs at a minimum. |
| If there are any issues, then an ECP would be required to troubleshoot and resolve – is this a correct assumption? | No, vendor should be able to determine how to integrate an interactive courseware package into both the IOS and Student stations without an ECP. | ||
| 10 | SOW | 3.3.4 Facilities, appears to be N/A for DO0001 |
| Recommend removing. | Contractor is to provide a facilities report that identifies the facility requirements for the trainers. | ||
| 11 | SOW | 3.6.1 General Protection and Credentialing, seems to be N/A for DO 001 |
| Recommend removing. | This is for access to Government installations for data collection of the equipment during the development phase. | ||
| 12 | SOW | 3.6.3 OPSEC Training – 3.6.6 Army Training Certification Tracking System appear to be N/A for DO 0001 |
| Recommend removing. | This is for access to Government installations for data collection of the equipment during the development phase. | ||
| 13 | SOW | 3.7 Contract Manpower Reporting |
| Recommend removing 3.7 Contractor Manpower Reporting Application since this is FFP the CLIN has been removed. | Contractor Manpower Reporting language removed from Base SOW and DO 0001 SOW. | ||
| 14 | SRD | 3.3.6.3.1 Models List, the non-vehicle dynamic/movable models and static models lists are generic with no definition, |
| is there something in particular the government would like to see or is this entirely up to the Offeror? | These models are generic and the contractor can provide their specific solution for it. | ||
| 15 | SRD | 3.8 Cyber – “CEVT shall use the Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline…” – |
| can we assume modifications to the baseline specific to the solution acceptable? | Yes | ||
| 16 | SRD | Appendix A – references CRM Lesson Plan Report: MOTORIZED GRADER OPERATIONS (CRM) 052-12N10D01 / 1effective date 14 Nov 1027. The version provided is version 2 without an effective date. |
| Is the version provided acceptable for preparing a response? | Appendix A in SRD will be updated to reflect the new Grader CRM. | ||
| 17 | SRD | Appendix C – references item 1 attachment: forklifts with full functionality and “yes” for physical control/ switch replication. |
| Please explain what physical control / switch is required. | There is no physical control/switch with the forklift attachment, Appendix C will be updated. | ||
| 18 | SRD | Appendix C – references item 74 Work Area Vision System Controls. Fit Form is required – |
| Please explain what functionality is required at the work area vision system. | The work area vision system controls are to be fit/form. They do not need to function. We only have one feature and that’s the back up camera. The display of the work area vision system is to turn on and show the rear camera view when the loader is in reverse and shut off when back in forward position. | ||
| 19 | SRD | Appendix C - references item 3 rear camera as fully functional. |
| Is the virtual rear camera providing an image to the operator? | Yes. Prepopulated value was for illustration only. Updated spreadsheet removes this for clarification. | |||
| 20 | RFP, Section I, FAR 52.204-22, Page 235 | Paragraph (b) of this FAR suggests that alternative line item delineations may be submitted if they result in better value to the Government. Would such a submission be considered an "alternative proposal" as described in RFP Section L.1, Page 281, and thus be eliminated from consideration in this solicitation? | An offeror shall only provide one proposal in accordance with L.2.a. Offerors may, in their one submission, propose alternative line items in accordance with DAR 52.204-22. | |
| 21 | RFP, Section I, FAR 52.207-4, Page 235 | Paragraph (a) of this FAR suggests that offerors are encouraged to recommend different quantity price breaks if they result in better value to the Government. Would such a submission be considered an "alternative proposal" as described in RFP Section L.1, Page 281, and thus be disregarded in evaluation of proposals? | An offeror shall only provide one proposal in accordance with L.2.a. Offerors may, in their one submission, recommend different quantity price breaks in accordance in FAR 52.207-4. | |
| 22 | RFP, Section I, DFARS 252.227-7017, Page 255 | We anticipate providing both proprietary and third party commercial software for part of the functionality of the systems. Such commercial software is subject to commercial EULAs which are more restrictive than the definition of "restricted rights" under DFARS 252.227-7014 (a)(15). However, the listing of technical data and software with restricted rights from DFARS 252.227-7017 (d) does not provide any description of how to identify and disclose commercial software rights? Shall we include it in the list and specify that it is subject to Commercial EULAs? | Adding to solicitation paragraph L.4.6.6 “Offeror shall identify and assert all rights for commercial software and documentation and submit all applicable commercial licenses and end user agreements. Offeror’s identification, assertions, and licenses will be incorporated into any resulting contract award.” | |
| 23 | RFP, Section K, FAR 52.227-15, Page 257 | Paragraph (b) of this FAR requires the provision of a list of all Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software. Is this list required in addition to the list required under RFP, Section L.2, Paragraph j., page 283 regarding DFARS 252.227-7017 (d)? Or does the list required by DFARS 252.227-7017 (d) supersede this list required in FAR 52.227-15 (b)? | One does not supersede the other. DFARS 252.227-7014--Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation and DFARS 252.227-7017--Identification and Assertion of Use, Release or Disclosure Restrictions both give an opportunity for the offeror to assert rights restrictions. | |
| 24 | RFP Section L.4.5.5, page 294 | We understand that we are to use a Word document to summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations, and/or qualifications of the Price Proposal. Is this to be included with the Cost Proposal Adequacy Checklist as Appendix A, or should this summary be considered Appendix B or some other document? | Solicitation L.4.5.5 states "The Offeror shall summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the Price proposal." This is a submission requirement for the pricing volume. | |
| 25 | L.3.5 Proposal Files | |||
| a. File Packaging, paragraph 1 | What does "tab indexing" to identify sections mean? Does the Navigation Pane in Word suffice? | A "tab index" specified the tab order when the "tab" button is used to navigate. In Solicitation L.3.5, "A Table of Contents may be created using the Table of Contents feature in Microsoft (MS) Word to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections." | ||
| 26 | RFP, Section L.4.2.2, page 288 | The IMS is required to be submitted as a Microsoft Project file and a PDF file. Does the ten page limit for VOLUME II include the IMS? | No, the IMS is not part of the 10 page limit. | |
| 27 | SOW 3.1.3, SOW 3.1.3.6 | Section 3.1.5 in the SOW has been removed. References to section 3.1.5 remain in sections 3.1.3, 3.1.3.6. What is the Governments requirement relative to the IDE and submissions of CM processes, procedures, audits, finding, and the hardware item database? | References to the IDE will be removed in the SOW. Documentation deliverables will be provided to the Government thru the CDRLs. | |
| 28 | SRD 3.11.2 | Does the two man lift requirement for transportability apply to the STS motion base? | No | |
| 29 | Att_0002_CEVT_SRD PRF-PT-706 System Requirements Document (SRD) Section 3.8 Page #22 |
Att_0001_CEVT_SOW_Base CEVT Statement of Work SOW-2018-031 Section 3.2.4 Cybersecurity Page # 27
Att_0007_CEVT_SOW_DO_0001 SOW-2018-058 Delivery Order 001 Section 3.2.4 Cybersecurity Page # 22 Cybersecurity. CEVT SRD, SOW, and SOW DO 001 requires Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline – Army Comment. The Cybersecurity sections from the CEVT SRD 3.8, SOW 3.24, and SOW DO 001 3.2.4 all require the use of the Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline – Army as the standard operating system. However, all three documents also state, that, “….CEVT shall be a modified COTS solution in which the system does not receive, process, store, display, or transmit DoD information. CEVT shall not have any wireless capabilities. CEVT shall be a stand alone system and shall not connect to any external network, to include the DODIN….”
| Question #1 Will the government accept Windows 10 Professional 64-bit edition (Date Code: xxxxxx) as the base Operating System for the modified COTS CEVT simulators instead of the Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline – Army which would require external access to a DODIN / Army Network to maintain? | No, the Army requires the Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline LTSC, it does not require any network to be maintained. | ||
| 30 | CEVT Statement of Work SOW-2018-031 Section 3.7 Page #46 - 47 and SOW-2018-031 Delivery Order 001 Section 3.7 Page #45 – #46 | 3.7 Contractor Manpower Reporting Application |
Comment. SOW-2018-031 3.7 Page #46 - 47 and SOW-2018-031 Delivery Order 001 Page #45 – #46 both include requirements for 3.7 Contractor Manpower Reporting Application. However the CLIN for Contractor Manpower Reporting Application was removed from both the A21_Solicitation_W900KK19R0080_20190117 as well as the Att_0006_CEVT_Pricing_Workbook. The DoD Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (eCMRA) requirement for annual contractor manpower reporting for contracts that require the performance of services, specifically contracts for goods with defined requirements for services. The CEVT SOW and SOW DO 001 both require, ”…..annual reporting of all contractor labor hours (including sub-contractor labor hours) required for performance of services under this contract for the CEVT via a secure data collection site….” However, this is a Firm Fixed Price IDIQ Contract for commercial items (supplies) which would not be considered a services contract subject to eCMRA reporting.
| Question #2 Can the requirement for 3.7 Contractor Manpower Reporting Application be removed from both the CEVT SOW and CEVT SOW D001 because Contractor labor hours reporting would not applicable to a Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ Contract for acquisition of commercial items under the FAR | Contractor Manpower Reporting language removed from Base SOW and DO 0001 SOW. | ||
| 31 | CEVT Statement of Work (SOW-2018-0031) Section 3.1.3 Page #8; 3.1.3.6 page # 11; 3.1.3.7 Page #11; through Section 3.2.5.3 page #29 SOW-2018-0058 Delivery Order 001 Sections 3.1.3 Page #8; 3.1.3.6 page #11; 3.1.3.7 Page #11; through Section 3.2.5.3 page # 29. | Removal of Remaining Integrated Development Environment (IDE) References from SOW and SOW DO 001. |
Comment. Section 3.1.5 IDE Requirements is not included in either the CEVT SOW or SOW DO 001. However, SOW and SOW DO 001 Page #8 3.1.3 Configuration Management; Page #11 3.1.3.6 Configuration Item database; Page #11 3.1.3.7 Configuration Verification and Audit through page #29 3.2.5.3 Quality Engineering includes multiple references to the Integrated Development Environment (IDE).
Question #3 Does the CEVT SOW and SOW DO 001 both require the use of the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) or has Section 3.1.5 IDE Requirements been removed? Can the SOW and SOW D001 be updated to remove the multiple references to the IDE?
| The SOW will be updated to remove the IDE requirement. | ||
| 32 | Exhibit_A_CDRLs A21_Solicitation_W900KK19R0080_Exhibit_A_CDRLs [Page # 7 Block #14] | Importable Comma Separated Values (CSV)" spreadsheet format for DOORS and RTVM Updates |
A21_Solicitation_W900KK19R0080_Exhibit_A_CDRLs [Page # 7 Block #14]
Question - Will an," importable Comma Separated Values (CSV)" spreadsheet format be acceptable for CEVT reporting for both the DOORS and RTVM Updates?
| Yes | |||
| 33 | Attachment 6 Pricing, FY19 tab, cell H3 | The pricing workbook has a pre-filled value of $500,000 in cell H3 for CLIN 0001. Please confirm these should be overwritten with the contractors actual bid amounts for this CLIN? | Yes. Prepopulated value was for illustration only. Updated spreadsheet removes this for clarification. |
| 34 | Attachment 6 Pricing, FY19 tab, cell H9-H12 and H161 | The pricing workbook has pre-filled values in some cells of Column H for CLIN 0002AA. Please confirm these should be overwritten with the contractors actual bid amounts for this CLIN? | Yes. Prepopulated value was for illustration only. Updated spreadsheet removes this for clarification. |
| 35 | Attachment 1 SOW, Sec 3.2.4, pg. 27 | "The contractor shall use the Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline - Army as a standard operating system." Will the licenses for Windows Secure Host Baseline for each simulator be provided by the Government or must the contractor include Windows license costs in their bid (but use the SHB distro to install)? Is the Windows SHB based on Win10 Pro or Enterprise edition? Can the Government provide the specific part number from Microsoft that the Contractor should propose for pricing purposes. | The Army has an Enterprise wide license for the Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline Long Term Servicing Channel (LTSC). There are no additional licensing fees. This is a version of Windows 10 that contains only the core of the operating system. The Government will provide the operating system on disk to the winning contractor. |
| 36 | Attachment 2 SRD, Appendix B, Pg. 36-39 | 621G Scraper: The steering wheel, horn and retarder are not listed in the simulation table. Will the Government provide direction on these items? | The steering wheel, horn, and retarder are to be fully functional. SRD will be updated. |
| 37 | Attachment 2 SRD, Appendix A-E, Pg 36-39 | Wiper control functionality (excerpted below) is inconsistent across vehicles. Is this an error, or does the government want the functionality as specified? |
a. 120M: Not Required
b. 621G: Not Required
c. 924H: Not Required
d. D7R: Fit and Form
| e. 240: Fit and Form | Wiper control is not required for any of the five vehicles. SRD will be updated. | ||
| 38 | Attachment 2 SRD, Appendix A-E, Pg 36-39 | AC control functionality (excerpted below) is inconsistent across vehicles. Is this an error, or does the government want the functionality as specified? |
a. 120M: Not Required
b. 621G: Not Required
c. 924H: Fit and Form
d. D7R: Fit and Form
| e. 240: Not Required | AC control is not required for any of the five vehicles. SRD will be updated. | ||
| 39 | Attachment 2 SRD, Sect 3.3.4, Pg 11 | The SRD states: "The sound system shall have a maximum delay of 33 milliseconds from the onset of trainer inputs/conditions to the audio sound." The sequence of events required to produce the trainee stimulus (data received (e.g. control data), data transmitted, stimulus processed, stimulus provided) are not possible in the timeframe required if a simulator consists of standard COTS components as requested by this RFP. For comparison, other PEO-STRI simulation systems have transport delay requirements of 250 ms as this is still within the tolerance of perception by users, especially for slow moving vehicles. Will the Government consider redefining this requirement to 250 ms? |
| Or was the Government intent that all host machines be running at least 30 Hz (33ms per frame). | Since CEVT will be leveraging COTS, the Government will update the requirement to match what is available in industry. Host machines must also be running at least 30Hz. | ||
| 40 | Attachment 2 SRD, Sect 3.3.5, Pg 11 | The SRD states: "The Visual system shall have a maximum delay of 33 milliseconds from the onset of a trainer input to the visual update on the display." The sequence of events required to produce the trainee stimulus (data received (e.g. control data), data transmitted, stimulus processed, stimulus provided) are not possible in the timeframe required if a simulator consists of standard COTS components as requested by this RFP. For comparison, other PEO-STRI simulation systems have transport delay requirements of 250 ms as this is still within the tolerance of perception by users, especially for slow moving vehicles. Will the Government consider redefining this requirement to 250 ms? |
| Or was the Government intent that all host machines be running at least 30 Hz (33ms per frame). | Since CEVT will be leveraging COTS, the Government will update the requirement to match what is available in industry. Host machines must also be running at least 30Hz. | ||
| 41 | Attachment 2 SRD, Sect 3.4.7, Pg 21 | The SRD states: "The trainer transport delay shall not exceed 105 milliseconds for motion system…" The sequence of events required to produce the trainee stimulus (data received (e.g. control data), data transmitted, stimulus processed, stimulus provided) are not possible in the timeframe required if a simulator consists of standard COTS components as requested by this RFP. For comparison, other PEO-STRI simulation systems have transport delay requirements of 250 ms as this is still within the tolerance of perception by users, especially for slow moving vehicles. Will the Government consider redefining this requirement to 250 ms? |
| Or was the Government intent that all host machines be running at least 30 Hz (33ms per frame). | Since CEVT will be leveraging COTS, the Government will update the requirement to match what is available in industry. Host machines must also be running at least 30Hz. | |||
| 42 | Solicitation, Sect L.4.2.2, Pg 288 | An IMS for a delivery of this size will be quite large. Can the IMS be excluded from the page count of the Management Volume | Yes | |
| 43 | Attachment 2 SRD, Sect 3.3.1.2 pg. 5 | The Government question responses clarified that "Components common for all variants should be tied to the Common Base Platform. Components tied to the motion platform shall realistically simulate vehicle movement, feel, and visual image." |
| To be clear, can the Government confirm that realistic simulation of vehicle movement and feel would require that all components that a trainee would interact with during operation of the vehicle should move with the trainee as a part of the motion base. In addition and specifically, that a motion system that only moves the seat (or a few attached components) but does not move all dash panels, pedals, gauges, and controls that the trainee sees or manipulates does not meet the requirement? | Yes, components that a trainee interacts with should be part of the motion platform. A seat that moves only some of the components the trainee interacts with will not be acceptable. | |||
| 44 | Solicitation, Sect L.3.5 pg. 286 | To reduce wasted space, can words typed into headers and footers by font size 10, instead of font size 12. | Documents shall conform to the requirements set in L.3.5. | |
| 45 | SOWs, SRD, Past Performance Questionnaire, Exhibit A CDRLS list, and CRM Lesson Plan Reports | These documents were provided in non-searchable .pdf formant. Could the Government please provide these in Microsoft Word format? | The documents were provided in .pdf format to maintain the fidelity of the signatures and documents. As a result, they will not be provided in Microsoft Word format. | |
| 46 | RFP, Pages 233-234, "Required Delivery Schedule" | Item No. X001-X009 show a quantity of 8 each, with a due date of 30 calendar days after date of contract. |
1a) Does X002 - X009 refer to CLIN 0002 - 0009?
1b) Given that these CLINs represent delivery of production items, please confirm that the delivery timeframe for X002 - X009 does not begin until after completion of CLIN 0001.
1c) CLIN 0002-0009 have varying quantities. We assume the delivery schedule desired is for quantity 8 only for each CLIN. Please confirm. 1a) X002 - X009 refers to CLINs 0002-0009, 1002-1009, 2002-2009, 3002-3009, 4002-4009.
1b) The Government will not order CLINs X002-X009 until after completion of CLIN 0001.
1c) The Government expects to receive a total of no more than 8 systems per month.
| 47 | Section 3.8 of Base SOW - Interim Contract Support | Section 3.8 of the Base SOW identifies the requirement to provide Interim Contractor Support for one year after Government test and acceptance of each device. However the Estimated Quantity tab of the Pricing Worksheet indicates a quantity of zero for ICS for all five contract years. Please clarify the Government's requirement for Interim Contractor Support. | The Government requirement includes Interim Contractor Support. In Attachment 0006 there is no estimated quantity to incorporate this into the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) however, the price will be evaluated in accordance with M.2.5 for completeness, price reasonableness, and for unbalanced pricing. |
| 48 | Section 3.3.5 - System Requirements Document | SRD 3.3.5 states “The Visual system shall have a maximum delay of 33 milliseconds from the onset of a trainer input to the visual update on the display.” This is an aggressive requirement that would can drive significant cost. Many commercial displays, in a gaming mode, will exceed 20 or 30 ms of input lag. The best of these only reach 13 ms consistently. Another 17 ms are required for the IG to draw each frame (at 60 Hz). This totals a minimum 30 ms from IG input to screen, leaving only 3 ms for interactions with the I/O, network, or Host subsystems. Would the Government consider raising the 33 millisecond delay requirement, or re-defining the visual system maximum delay as the time between the onset of IG subsystem input and visual update on the display? | Since CEVT will be leveraging COTS, the Government will update the requirement to match what is available in industry. Host machines must also be running at least 30Hz. |
| 49 | Section 3.4.4 - Base Statement of Work | Section 3.4.4 of the Base SOW states: “The CEVT system shall be fully tested in its final configuration by the Government in accordance with Government approved test Procedures.” Will this test be conducted on the first article only or for each article produced? | The in-plant government acceptance test (IPAT) will be conducted on the First Article. An On-site Acceptance Test (OSAT) will be conducted on the fielded equipment to ensure that they are fully operational after installation. |
| 50 | Base SOW Section 3.2.1.1.1.3 | The Base SOW requires that Risk Assessments must be submitted at SRR and updated at PDR, CDR, but no Risk Assessment appears on the CDRL List. Is Risk Assessment document missing from the CDRL list? | The Risk assessment will be part of the presentation given at SRR, PDR, and CDR. |
| 51 | Base SOW Section3.2.1.1.1 | This section of the Base SOW identifies a number of plans (CMP,QAMP, RMP etc.). Are these missing from the list of CDRLs? | There is no requirement for these plans to be submitted as a CDRL. However, these plans will be presented and discussed at the meetings and design reviews and will be captured in the meeting minutes. |
| 52 | Base SOW Section 3.2.1.3.1.1 | System performance specification and functional performance specification are identified as CDR technical Are these missing from the CDRL list? Is there a defined format for these documents? | Since this will be leveraging COTS, there is no requirement for the performance specification delivered as an official CDRL. However, they will be discussed at meetings and design reviews and be documented in the meeting minutes/presentations. |
| 53 | Base SOW Section SOW 3.2.1.2.1.1 | DOORS updates are required to be submitted at major reviews. Is there a defined format for the DOORS database submission? | There is no defined format, the contractor can provide the requirements data in a comma separated format. |
| 54 | System Requirements Document Section 3.3.3.1 – Operator Cab Simulation and Appendices A through E | Controls - a)For STS controls where no physical controls are required, is it acceptable to replicate fit/form/function of the control on a digital touch display (glass control)? b) Since display location(s) may be limited for configurability, is it also acceptable that the location of a control (ex. Light switch or gauge) be different from the actual cab? That is, the control would be located on a touch display and the display is not necessarily located to position the control in the same cab location. | Digital controls are acceptable on controls that do not require physical controls. However, the control should be in the general area as in the real equipment. |
| 55 | Solicitation | Request for a two (2) week extension to gather pricing information from subcontractors and vendors. | The Government can allow a one week extension to the submittal deadline. |
| 56 | RFP, Section L.4.5.3 Proposal Adequacy Checklist | Since Section L indicates no certified cost or pricing data is required and all CLINs are FFP, please confirm Basis of Estimates (BOEs) are not required for submission with the cost proposal/volume. If BOEs are not required, when the Proposal Adequacy Checklist refers to BOEs, (i.e., labor BOE, Bill of Material, travel BOE, Other Direct Cost BOE, etc.) should offeror state "not applicable"? | Solicitation L.4.5.3 states "Although competition is expected and as a result certified cost and pricing data will not be requires, the Offeror shall complete and comply with all items in the Cost Proposal Adequacy checklist (DFARS 252.215-7009) and provide with their proposal as appendix A to the Offeror's Price Volume." In accordance with Solicitation M.2.5.2 the Government will review pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. In accordance with M.2.5.4 "The Government reserves the right to request other than certified cost or pricing data in the event that additional data would be required to determine price reasonableness." |
| 57 | RFP, Section I Contract Clauses | Request the Government include 52.232-28 -- Invitation to Propose Performance Based Payments and 52.232-32 -- Performance-Based Payment clauses in the RFP. | At this time the RFP allows for Progress Based Payments. In accordance with the 2014 DoD Performance Based Payment Guide, the contract can be modified to change the contract financing method that is more favorable to the contractor, with adequate consideration to the Government in accordance with FAR 32.005. |
| 58 | RFP, Section I Contract Clauses | The RFP includes DFARS 252.227-7020 Rights in Special Works, incorporated by reference, in addition to DFARS 252.227-7013 (also incorporated by reference), and -7014 which is expressly set forth in the RFP. We assume, since -7013 and -7014 provide the Government with Unlimited Rights in all technical data and software newly developed under the effort, therefore -7020 is not applicable. Please confirm. | DFARS 252.227-7020 Rights in Special Works is removed from the RFP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .