20210225 RFP QnA_Combined_Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Gunnery Training Systems: Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-21-R-0055
About this file
This is a request for proposal for Gunnery Training Systems issued by the United States Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation. The RFP seeks proposals to implement tech refresh upgrades, current system production, concurrency upgrades, and risk management framework certification for Abrams, Bradley, Stryker, and LAV-25 gunnery trainer programs. Proposals are due no later than 5:00 PM EST on March 15, 2021 and must be submitted electronically through DoD SAFE. The anticipated award date is in the first quarter of fiscal year 2022. Government-furnished information about the incumbent systems is available to vetted offerors upon request.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 52 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
QnA GUNNERY TRAINING SYSTEMS (GTS) Question/Comment Form RFP No. W900KK-21-R-0055
| Questions # | RFP DOCUMENT REFERENCED | LOCATION OF VERBIAGE REFERENCED | INDUSTRY QUESTION(S)/COMMENTS | INDUSTRY CONCERN(S) | INDUSTRY | ||
| RECOMMENDATION(S) | US Government Response | ||||||
| Clearly list the name of the RFP specific document: e.g. Abrams SOW Attachment X of RFP | List the page and paragraph: e.g. pg 59, paragraph 3.3.1.8 | Briefly describe Offeror's question or comment. | What is Offeror's concern? | Which statements or clarifications would Offeror prefer the Government provide, if any? | |||
| 1 | 1. GTS RFP 20210129 | L.4.3.2.d | The table references Note 2 but there is only a Note 1. Please update the reference or provide note 2. | Should both references be to Note 1? | Updated. | ||
| 2 | 1. GTS RFP 20210129 | ||||||
| L.4.3.2.e, para 1 & 3, p. 143 | L.4.3.2.e states "The Offeror shall populate the tables below to identify all anticipated prime Offeror and subcontracted supplies/services," and "The prime Offeror shall provide written representation (signed letter/memorandum) of the size status as a “small business” for each first tier subcontractor listed as a small business in the tables below;" | Please note that there is no table provided below this language in the final RFP. Was it the intent of the Government to remove this language as well? If not, please provide the table as referenced. | Table has been added below L.4.3.2 e. |
Small Business Participation updates have also been made to G.4, L, and M.
| 3 | 1. GTS RFP 20210129 | |||
| L.4.3.2.e, para 3, p. 143 | L.4.3.2.e states "The prime Offeror shall provide written representation (signed letter/memorandum) of the size status as a “small business” for each first tier subcontractor listed as a small business in the tables below; the written representation shall be provided as part of the prime Offeror’s Small Business Participation Volume, and include the following: (1) a statement showing the NAICS code determined by the prime Offeror for the services or supplied being acquired by the subcontract, and confirming the subcontractor does not exceed the size standard for the NAICS code; (2) a statement confirming that this certification is current, accurate, and complete; (3) full company name, mailing address, and DUNS or CAGE code; (4) dated and signed by senior company representative" | We recommend this being one document listing all subcontractors/vendors certified by the prime Offeror. | The written representation is required to be provided by and signed/certified by the small business, not the prime offeror. L.4.3.2 e has been updated. | |
| 4 | 1. GTS RFP 20210129; | |||
| Attach 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet Updated 20210114.XLSX | M.3.4.2 (Page 154 of 156) | |||
| Instructions worksheet, cell B8 | Section M.3.4.2. states, "Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of all FFP CLINs, as calculated by the Attachment 5 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet." |
| Whereas Attachment 5 instructions state, "DO 1 Option Years 2-5 CLINs 2001-2003 are required to be priced on the "Input" tab, but are not included in the TEP. " | DO 1 Option Years 2-5 CLINs 2001-2003 are FFP type CLINs. Request the Government reconcile what is and isn't included in the TEP between the RFP and Attachment 5. | The Attachment 5 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet "Instructions" tab and M.3.4 have been updated. | |||||
| 5 | Attach 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet Updated 20210114.XLSX | Input worksheet, cell J140 | Current input of " ` " appears to have overwritten a formula. | Request Government review and correct if necessary. | Correct. This formula has been fixed. | ||
| 6 | 1. GTS RFP 20210129 | M.3.4.3 (Page 154 of 156) | Section M.3.4.3. FFP Evaluation states, "The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s and Subcontractor’s proposed FFP CLINs through a price analysis." Request the Government clarify what Subcontractor CLINs they are referring to. According to Section L, Subcontractors are not required to submit any pricing information by CLIN. | Recommend deleting the "and Subcontractor's" phrase from this sentence. | Concur. This has been updated to remove "and Subcontractor's". | ||
| 7 | Exhibits A-C CDRLs_IDIQ |
Attach 11 DO 1 Abrams CDRLs Attach 16 DO 2 Stryker CDRLs Attach 20 DO 3 Bradley CDRLs
| Attach 24 DO 4 LAV CDRLs | CDRL B00J (Logistics Product Data) | |
| CDRL B00K (Logistics Product Data Summaries) | These two CDRLs seems to be redundant. | CDRL B00J (LPD) States "THE DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED, IN THE MICROSOFT EXCEL FORMAT, SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS NEEDED TO COMPLETE AND PROCESS EACH LOGISTICS PRODUCT DATA SUMMARIES REPORT.” |
The referenced DID DI-SESS-81758A yet there is no Attribute Selection Sheet provided with the RFP.
CDRL B00K (LPD Summaries) States "USING MICROSOFT EXCEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH GEIA-STD-0007B, GEIA-HB-0007B, AND TA-HB-0007-1. THE DATA ELEMENTS REQUIRED, IN THE MICROSOFT EXCEL FORMAT, SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS NEEDED TO COMPLETE AND PROCESS EACH LOGISTICS PRODUCT DATA SUMMARIES REPORT.
10. THE FOLLOWING SUMMARIES SHALL BE PROVIDED:
• LSA-030, INDENTURED PARTS LIST
• LSA-040, AUTHORIZATION LIST ITEMS SUMMARY REPORT
• LSA-080, BILL OF MATERIALS
11. INDENTURED PARTS LIST REPORT (LSA-030) SHALL ONLY INCLUDE THE DRAFT REPAIR PARTS AND SPECIAL TOOLS LIST (RPSTL) AND THE PROOF RPSTL"
| Please clarify that the Government desires just LSA-030, LSA-40, amd LSA-080 delivered under CDRL B00K. If so, it seems that CDRL B00J would be redundant as it seems to state that its content provide the list LSA reports. If this is not the case, what are the governments desires for these two CDRLs. | The Government will delete CDRL B00J (Logistics Product Data) and keep requirement CDRL B00K (Logistics Product Data Summaries) for the Base IDIQ CDRLS (Attachment 02). The Logistics Product Data CDRL will be deleted for each of the DOs (CDRL B00C Attachment 11; CDRL B00A - Attachment 16; CDRL B008 - Attachment 20 & CDRL B008 -Attachment 24). The key data requirements required by the Government are LSA-030, LSA-040, and LSA-080. | ||||||
| 8 | Attach 24 DO 4 LAV CDRLs | CDRL C004 – Training Conduct Support Document - NET Training | |||||
| CDRL C007 – Training Conduct Support Document - Maint. Training | No tailoring of the requirements defined in DID DI-PSSS-81523C in referenced CDRLs? | There is not tailoring of the referenced DID (DI-PSSS-81523C) in the CDRLs. Is it the government desire that ALL elements of DID DI-PSSS-81523C be provided? | Review and tailor DI-PSSS-81523C for the required material. | There is no tailoring of the DID. The content of the CDRLs C004 and C007 shall be developed in accordance with DI-PSSS-81523C. The Training Conduct Support Document shall contain all required blocks identified in the DID. | |||
| 9 | Attach 23 DO 4 LAV SOW | paragraph 3.1.5.8 (PCA) | DO 4 seems to be the only one of the four that requires two PCA events (one in the contractor facility and the second at the installation location). Are the on-site PCA events required for each installation location (as defined in Attach 25 - Section F) or just for the 1st installation that occurs? | Proper pricing and scheduling of on-site activities in support of DO 4. | Please state if the final PCA events are required for installation locations or just the1st installation. | There will be 2 PCAs: The 1st PCA will be conducted at IPAT (all LAV-25 AGTS configurations) and the 2nd PCA will be conducted at the first OSAT site IAW DO 04 LAV-25 SOW paragraph 3.1.5.8. "An initial PCA shall be conducted at the In Plant Acceptance Test (IPAT) to review final documentation for logistics product data, documentation, drawings and manuals. Final PCA shall be conducted onsite to verify the as-installed system’s inventory/equipment list, safety labeling, and spares." | |
| 10 | Attach 01 GTS SOW | ||||||
| Attach 02 DD254 | SOW paragraph 3.1.15 |
DD254, block 13, paragraph 8 "The Contractor shall have a Secret facility clearance with no storage requirements. Based on various DOs, the Contractor will require access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), Technical Information/Documents, and Export Controlled Information"
"The prime vendor/contractor is responsible for vetting all sub-vendor/contractors prior to issuing a DD Form 254 for classified work or material that the sub-vendor/contractor will have access to during this agreement/contract per chapter 7 of current version of DoD 5220.22M and AR 380-49. "
| Will the contract require classified data to be brought to the development environment or production environment prior to delivery of the DO? | Protection of CMI; limited personnel with access | No, There is currently no classified data on the first four DOs. | |||
| 11 | Attach 01 GTS SOW | SOW paragraph 3.1.3.1 | In the base GTS SOW it states that EVMS is required. In the individual DO SOW it states that EVMS is not required. Will EVMS be required for GTS? | EVMS is not required on the first four DOs. See the DO SOWs for the specific requirements. | |
| 12 | Attch 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet | Input Tab | The Price Spreadsheet Input Tab for DO 01 Abrams AGTS contains plug amounts for Option Year 1-5 for Shipping, Travel and Site Preparation for Production Systems. |
1) Should bidders assume that all shipping, travel and site preparation costs are included in these line items, or should any additional shipping, travel or site prep costs be included in other FFP CLIN line item prices?
2) Will the Government be providing plug amounts for shipping, travel or site prep for the other delivery orders, or should those costs be included in other FFP CLIN pricing?
3) Are the plug amounts for Cost CLINs for Shipping and Travel inclusive of G&A burdens?
4) Are the plug amounts for CPFF CLINs for Site Prep inclusive of all indirect burdens and fixed fee? 1. No. Bidders should not assume that all shipping, travel and site preparation costs are included in these line items. Only the Shipping/Travel/Site Preparation costs associated with the efforts included in the associated CLIN descriptions and Column M SOW references are included in these CLINs.
2. No. The only plug amounts are for the Abrams DO due to range pricing. Those costs should be included in other FFP CLINs for the other DOs.
3. The plug amounts are inclusive of G & A burdens.
4. The CPFF CLINs have been changed to Cost CLINs. These CLINs include indirect burdens. M.3.4 has been updated in the solicitation.
The "Instructions" Tab of the Attachment 5 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet has been updated.
| 13 | Attch 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet and JandA GTS20201124 Redacted | Attch 05 - Input Tab | ||
| JandA - Paragraph 3 | Offerors are required to price line items for SAGE IG Basic Runtime licenses and license upgrades for existing systems. Since this software is developed and licensed by Lockheed Martin, and the license costs range between $7,500 - $10,000 as provided in the J and A document, would the Government provide plug amounts for the SAGE line items for price evaluation purposes to prevent any unfair competitive price advantage? | The Government has performed a thorough analysis on the required use of Lockheed Martin's commercial software product and determined that the solicitation requirement does not result in an unfair competitive advantage. Plug amounts for the SAGE IG CLINs will not be provided. | ||
| 14 | Attch 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet and Solicitation Document | Attch 05 - Input Tab | ||
| Solicitation - Section B | The CLIN and SubCLIN numbering structure seems to be inconsistent between the CLINs listed in Section B of the solicitation document and the CLINs listed in the Input Tab. Section B lists CLINs 0001 through 0006, with CLIN 0001 for GTS delivery orders, CLIN 0002 for CDRLs and CLINs 0004-0006 as Reserved. The price spreadsheet Input Tab lists CLINs 0001-0012, 1001-1007, 2001-2003, and 3001-3006 for the Delivery Orders, and varying numbers for the CDRLS or Technical Data. Also, the Option Year descriptions in the Price Spreadsheet Input Tab do not appear to be aligned with the typical option numbering scheme, for example, Option Year 1 as 100X, Option Year 2 as 200X, etc. All option years have CLINs numbered in the 100X, 200X, and 300X series. Please verify whether CLIN numbers in the Input Tab are correct as stated or whether there are typos that will be corrected. | For pricing purposes, would CLIN 300X, as an example, be priced for contract year 3 to include labor and material escalation? Or is the CLIN number not related to the contract period of performance? | Section B of the RFP is the base IDIQ only. A draft Section B for each delivery order was not included in the RFP. Instead, the Attachment 5 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet includes the variant, CLIN, required delivery schedule, quantities, delivery locations, and SOW references. The Government intends to award up to four Delivery Orders concurrently with the basic GTS ID/IQ contract. Those DOs will be awarded using the CLIN structure from the Attachment 5 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet at the prices from the winning bidder. The CLIN structure included in the "Input" tab of the Attachment 5 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet is correct. |
CLIN 300X is not related to the contract year as you've described. Only Delivery Orders 01 and 02 request Option Year pricing. For DO 01, the Range Pricing tabs titled "Tech Refresh", "FM3 Upgrades", and "SEP v2 AGTS Production" define the periods of time that the Option Years could be awarded. However we did notice that the Spreadsheet did not indicate the periods of time when the Options Years for DO 02 could be awarded.
The Instructions tab has been updated to define when the Options Year CLINs could be awarded:
- Option Year 1: Award through Month 12
- Option Year 2: Month 13 through Month 24
- Option Year 3: Month 25 through Month 36
- Option Year 4: Month 37 through Month 48
- Option Year 5: Month 49 through Month 60
| 15 | Attch 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet and Solicitation Document | Attch 05 - Input Tab | |||||
| Section L.1, paragraph 3 | Section L.1 states "Period of Performance: The GTS basic ID/IQ contract will have a five-year ordering period with Orders having the capability of performance for up to 24 months after expiration of ordering period." Attch 05 Input Tab under column B "Period" lists a Base period plus Option Year Periods 1-5. Please explain this difference in wording for period of performance and verify whether the Option Year listed in the Input Tab is indicative of the contract year period or whether the options can be exercised at any given time during the five year ordering period. | See the response above. | |||||
| 16 | Attch 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet | Attach 05, Row 81 DO1 01 Abrams AGTS | Option Year 3 Price | 1001 | 1001AC | SAGE IG Basic Runtime License – shouldn’t QTY be equal to 14 (AGTS 12+ PAAR 2) and not 13 which is what it is? | The quantity should be 14. The Input tab on Attachment 05 will be corrected. | |||
| 17 | Attch 10 DO 01 Abrams SOW | 3.2.8. Product Definition Data (PDD) | Will the government provide the "Tech Data Package Option Selection Worksheet" with the requirements intended to delineate the level of detail required for the completion of CDRL B009 (DI-SESS-81000E) Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists. | Abrams SMM does not provide a build to print TDP. Without the TDP Option Selection Worksheet, Offerors do not now what level of TDP is required to be delivered back to the Government. | Recommend Government accept Contractor format. | CDRL B009, Block 16, item 6 states Contractor format is acceptable. | |
| 18 | RFP and Performance Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ) | L.4.2.3.(2) and PAQ Page 1 | Given that the RFP requests that the completed PAQ be returned to the Primary and Alternate POCs and the PAQ specifies that it be returned to the Contracting Officer, can the government clarify who is to receive the completed PAQ? | It is important to submit the completed PAQ to the correct person to avoid any delays in meeting the deadline. | We recommend that the completed PAQ be submitted to the Contracting Officer. | The PAQ shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions at L.4.2.3.(2) which states that the PAQs are to be submitted to Primary Alternate POCs indentified in L.2. | |
| 19 | Attachment 01 GTS SOW | pg 54, paragraph 3.2.8 | Is there an existing Government document for the product drawings CDRL for Abrams, Stryker, and LAV-25? and if so, can the Government provide it in the GFI library? | This team isn't aware of a CDRL that exists for Product Drawings for the AGTS platforms. | If this CDRL doesn't exist, then the CDRL cannot be a Revision to Government Document. Recommend the Government remove the Revisions to Existing Government Documents CDRLs for the Product Drawings for AGTS platforms. | The CDRL is referring to maintenance drawings provided in the SMM. A The subtitle (Block 3) in CDRLs B00A & B00B (Attachment 11), CDRL B009 (Attachment 16) and CDRL B007 (Attachment 24) will be updated to clarify this. | |
| 20 | 20201030 Responses to Industry Questions | Question #193 | Will the government be providing a GFI software list that identifies all the GFI software components that will be provided (including ROC-V, JBC-P, ACSL, SCSL)? | To ensure the team understands the full list of GFI that is expected to be integrated with each platform. | Recommend the Government provide list of GFI for each platform. | The GFI software is ACSL, BCSL, SCSL, FBCB2, JBC-P, ROC-V. Export CGF and OneSAF are contained in the source code. | |
| 21 | Attachment 23 DO 04 LAV-25 SOW | pg 14, paragraph 3.1.4 | The Government states in 3.1.4, "The contractor shall adhere to the LT2 Product Line Operations and Configuration Management (CM) Guide." For LT2, the Army SOWs require a path to conformance with the LT2 documentation. However, the USMC SOW requires strict adherence to the LT2 documentation for the entire duration of the program. Was it the Government's intent to require stricter requirements for the USMC LAV-25 than the other GTS platforms? | Strict adherence to LT2 is required for USMC, but not US Army platforms when the original requirement was only to provide the plan for the path to conformance. | Recommend the USMC LAV SOW remove the following "The contractor shall adhere to the LT2 Product Line Operations and Configuration Management (CM) Guide." | Will replace "The contractor shall adhere to the LT2 Product Line Operations and Configuration Management (CM) Guide" with "The Contractor shall provide a plan that documents a path to conformance with the LT2 Product Line Operations and CM Guide." | |
| 22 | Attachment 23 DO 04 LAV-25 SOW | pg 30, paragraph 3.2.3.2 | Because there is no SDD or IDD available in the GFI library, can we assume that the Government wants an SDD and IDD with only the updates for this delivery (or remove the requirement for the SDD and IDD)? | There is no SDD or IDD currently available in the GFI library. | Recommend that the SDD and IDD CDRLs be removed from the USMC LAV25. | The Contractor will be required to develop both documents for this effort only. | |
| 23 | Attachment 01 GTS SOW |
Attachment 10 DO 01 Abrams SOW Attachment 15 DO 02 Stryker SOW Attachment 20 DO 03 Bradley SOW Attachment 23 DO 04 LAV-25 SOW pg 29, paragraph 3.1.15 pg 27, paragraph 3.1.15 pg 24, paragraph 3.1.15 pg 24, paragraph 3.1.15
| pg 23, paragraph 3.1.15 | Are subcontractors required to have a SECRET facility clearance or only the prime? | Investment and time required for subcontractors to obtain a SECRET facility clearance | Recommend changing the SOW requirement to state SECRET facility clearance only for prime and subcontractors that have access to CUI, technical information/documents, and export-controlled information. | SOW states the contractor is required to have a Secret Facility clearance with no storage requirements. According to the DD254, the prime vendor/contractor is responsible for vetting all sub-vendor/contractors prior to issuing a DD Form 254 for classified work or material that the sub-vendor/contractor will have access to during this agreement/contract per chapter 7 of current version of DoD 5220.22M and AR 380-49. | |||
| 24 | 20210112 Updated Responses to Industry Questions | Questions #200 and #204 | The Government indicated that clauses 252.225-7970 and 52.229-12 would be removed in the responses to questions provided to industry, however the clause remains in the solicitation. Can the Government advise if this clause will be removed upon contract award? | Neither FAR Clause is applicable to the GTS contract | Recommend removal of both FAR Clauses as stated in the 20210112 Updated Responses to Industry Questions | Concur. These clauses will be removed. | |
| 25 | Attachment 08 Cross-Reference Matrix | In Cross-Reference Matrix, Column G, "Paragraph" what does the Government expect the Contractor to provide in these cells? For example, is the Government expecting paragraph numbers (i.e., paragraphs 1 through 16) in the Contractor's Proposal where the Section L requirements are discussed, or is the Government expecting the Contractor to provide a mapping to the SOW paragraph numbers (i.e. SOW 3.2.5, SOW 3.9.1) in these sections? | Ensuring compliance with how to complete Attachment 08, using limited page count on embedded references | Recommend providing an example of what is required by the Contractor in Columns E-G and H-I. | Column "G" is for paragraph numbers in the Contractor's Proposal where the Section L requirements are discussed. Columns "H-I" will be removed from the Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 08). | ||
| 26 | Attachment 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet Updated 20210114 | "Total Evaluated Price (TEP)" tab | The "Total Evaluated Price" tab lacks all the formulas needed to transfer pricing from the input tab; is the Contractor required to develop these formulas? If so, how will the Government verify the accuracy of the formulas used by each Offeror? | Standard calculation of the TEP in the Proposed Prices Spreadsheet | Recommend providing an updated Proposed Prices Spreadsheet with the Government's desired Excel formulas. | The "Total Evaluated Price" tab includes a pivot-table and is not formula-based. Instructions on how to update the prices in the pivot-table are included on the "Instructions" tab. | |
| 27 | Attachment 05 Proposed Prices Spreadsheet Updated 20210114 | "Input" tab | The Option Year 4 CLIN 1005 - M1A2 SEP V2 Trailer Upgrades has no associated delivery, location, quantity, or U/M defined. | Need the information in order to properly price the CLIN | Recommend providing the information for Option Year 4 CLIN 1005 - M1A2 SEP V2 Trailer Upgrades | Abrams Option Year 4 CLIN 1005- M1A2 SEP V2 Trailer Upgrades will be deleted on the Input Tab of Attachment 05. | |
| 28 | GTS RFP 20210129 | pg 142, paragraph L.4.3.e | L.4.3.e reads "The Offeror shall populate the tables below to identify all anticipated prime Offeror and subcontracted supplies/services." Will the Government provide the referenced tables or is contractor format acceptable? | Industry needs the table format in order to be compliant with L.4.3.e | Recommend providing the table format for this section or state that contractor format is acceptable | Table has been added below L.4.3.2 e | |
| 29 | GTS RFP 20210129 | pg 137, paragraph L.4 | Is the one-page Table of Contents requirement a hard constraint, or can the Contractor use the automated Microsoft Word Table of Contents (as directed in L.3.2.1), and generate Lists of Figures/Tables as well, and also provide an acronym listing using space as needed to provide a comprehensive overview of Volume sections/mapping/acronyms to levels deemed necessary in the Front Matter? |
| Additionally, would the Government allow for more than the one-page limit for the Cross-Reference Matrix in order to be legible and within Section L font requirements? As the file is constructed currently, it could be more than one Tabloid-sized page and still not meet the minimum font size requirement. | Table of Contents (plus additional standard front matter) and Cross-Reference Matrix each requires more than one-page to complete if fully comprehensive and readable | Recommend removing one-page limit on Table of Contents, add pages required for standard front matter (Table of Contents to required level, list of tables/figures/acronyms) and Cross-Reference Matrix | L.4 will be updated to allow additional page-count for front-matter material. Note that the Attachment 8 Cross-Reference Matrix is a required to be used to accompany Volume-1 Technical. | |
| 30 | Attachment 10 DO 01 Abrams SOW | pg 62, paragraph 3.9.2.2.2 | Will the following updates be required for the new AMP round as part of the FM3 concurrency upgrade for M1A2 SEP V2? |
- Ballistic firing tables for the AMP round
- CAN round dispersion modeling and kill effect algorithms
- Computer Correction Factors The team needs to understand the scope of work that should be estimated for this proposal. Recommend the Government supply ballistic firing tables and new CCFs for the new AMP round. Recommend no change to the CAN dispersion and impact effects. 1. No. The AMP round will be similar enough to the legacy ballistic firing tables so that they can be reused.
2. Yes. CAN round fly out model should be updated. No. The kill effect algorithms can be reused.
3. No. Computer Correction Factors will not change.
| 31 | Attachment 10 DO 01 Abrams SOW | pg 63, paragraph 3.9.2.2.5 | Will the Government provide handle shaping curves (associated with the turret slew rate update requirement) as GFI? | The team needs to know whether they will be expected to measure this data during the data collection trip which will add cost. | Recommend the Government supply handle shaping curves for the updated rates. | The contractor should plan to measure this data during the data collection trip. |
| 32 | Attachment 10 DO 01 Abrams SOW | pg 62, paragraph 3.9.2.2.1 | Is there a software release testing event planned with the new ACSL v4.8 software provider prior to the software being supplied to the GTS contractor? | There is a concern with the unknown amount of time required to fuly test the new ACSL software on GTS systems (particularly if the ACSL supplier does not have a PDSS system). | Recommend the Government clarify the GTS contractors role with respect to supporting the ACSL software provider in testing and troubleshooting. | ACSL v4.8 will be tested at a Government location utilizing an existing AGTS by the ACSL provider prior to the award of this contract. The ACSL provider will be available to support the GTS contractor during integration efforts. |
| 33 | GTS RFP 20210129 | pg 136, paragraph L.3.2 | Section L.3.2 states "Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any." Is it the Government's intent to have each subfactor within the Technical Volume be a standalone Word Document, or will the Government accept one combined file making up the entire Technical Volume? |
| Additionally, if each SubFactor is its own separate file, is the Government requiring a Title page, Table of Contents, and Cross-Reference Matrix for each unique SubFactor file? | Having each SubFactor as a separate file would affect page numbering and require a separate title page to provide FAR and other protective markings as well as additional front matter. | Recommend allowing for one file for Volume I with each SubFactor a part of that one Volume I file | The words "including subfactors" have been removed from L.3.2 of the solicitation. | ||
| 34 | GTS RFP 20210129 | pgs 145-146, paragraph L.4.4.2 | The Government states: “Clauses for FAR 52.232-16 Progress Payments, and FAR 52.232-32 Performance-Based Payments, will be included in the resultant basic ID/IQ contract to finance FFP line items, as deemed appropriate by the PCO.” Also in L.4.4 it states: “The Offeror shall describe its pricing methodology and summarize all significant pricing assumptions, scope limitations, and/or qualifications of the Price proposal.” May the offer make a proposal assumption, and be deemed compliant, that its pricing methodology is based upon the inclusion of Performance-Based Payments upon award? If yes, would the Government permit a compliant offeror to propose a PBP payment schedule for the Base CLINs in the Price Volume? | Will there be any compliance issues if the Offeror includes Performance-Based Payments as part of proposal pricing methodology? |
Recommend allowing Performance-Based Payments to be part of the Pricing Volume methodology and allow offerors to propose a PBP payment schedule for the Base CLINs. No. the offeror may not not make a proposal assumption, and be deemed compliant, that its pricing methodology is based upon the inclusion of Performance-Based Payments upon award.
Solicitation Paragraph L.4.4.2, Contract Financing Payments has been removed.
Solicitation Paragraph L.4.4.2, Pricing Assumptions has been updated.
35 Attach 13- Abrams Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) Prime Item Development Specification (PIDS) for the US Army M1A2 SEP AGTS (Paragraph 3.7.6.1)
Attach 14- Abrams Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) System Specification for the US Army M1A1 C-AGTS (Paragraph 3.7.6.1)
| Section # Att. 11-Para 3.7.6.1/Att. 12-Para 3.7.6.1 | |
| Page # pg. 199 /pg. | The referenced documents require that the PAAR station provide repeater views for the PVD and Stealth views. Review of the technical data shows that there are different implementations of this functionality on the current devices. Some Abrams PAAR stations utilize projectors while others use PC monitors on a cart adjacent to the PAAR desk. No requirement could be identified that necessitates different configurations. |
Question: Why do some PAAR stations have the projectors and others have monitors? And is it the intention of the government that these configurations are maintained or should a single common PAAR solution be developed?
Not clear in the RFP and reference materials if:
1) the two different configurations of PAAR are included in the refresh requirements, or
2) how many are out there of each type, and
3) which CLIN to price the Projector type AAR equipment. 1) Please clarify the existence of different legacy configurations of the PARR, and
2) the applicable requirements to refresh, and
| 3) directions for pricing them | There are not two configurations. All current PAAR configurations utilize monitors. Projectors were a part of the original PAAR design and have since been upgraded to the monitor configuration. | ||
| 36 | CLIN 0003AA | Phase 1: Abrams NRE and first articles (Base contract): 12MACA – There appears to be an error in the RFP. M1A2 SEP V2 Trailer Upgrades (CLIN 0003AA) >> |
Question: Is the Delivery 12 MACA correct? If not will it be changed to 16 MACA in the final RFP?
| Attachment 5 has delivery of trailer upgrade DO 01 CLIN 0003AA (at 12 MACA), which is before the apparent delivery of the device to go inside the trailer DO 01 CLINS 0001AA, 0001AB, and 0002AC (16 MACA). | Change Delivery Date of DO 01 CLIN 0003AA to 16 MACA. | The Trailer Upgrade delivery date will be changed on Attachment 5, Input Tab, to 16MACA | ||||
| 37 | Attch+01_IQID+SOW_20200817 | Section # Para 3.5.6 | ||||
| Page #61 | Will existing legacy ATP’s be provided on each device after contract award? | Earlier Q&A indicated ATPs would not be delivered. Creating new ATP for the same functionality of the Legacy system is a cost driver that should not be needed if Legacy ATP's can be leveraged to create the updated ATP for the refreshed / updated systems to be delivered under this program. | Provide Legacy ATPs at contract award, and confirm that will be the case in the answer to this question. | |||
| If necessary, clarify the previous response. | Copies of the legacy ATPs will not be provided. | |||||
| 38 | 500239_VER9_1_BCSL_ICD | |||||
| 500299_ver1.2_SEP_ACSL_ICD-V2_4.6 | Is OSF/Motif still used on any of the trainers? | Concerned that Motif is obsolete. Would require extra GUI development. | OSF/Motif is still being used in the Common Software Libraries, however the CSLs are to be used on the systems without modification. ICDs are provided to interface with the CSLs. | |||
| 39 | General Question | Which of the Abrams, Bradley, Stryker, or LAV-25 trainers have 64-bit Ada applications? | AdaCore's GNAT Pro (supported/subscription based) toolchains are designed for one or the other (32-bit or 64-bit compilers), the subscriptions can be bundled together (small discount for the second variant). However, they are discrete products. | Both 32-bit and 64-bit compilers are utilized. | ||
| 40 | Attachment 1/10/15/19/23 | Section # Para 3.2.5 | ||||
| Page # 41/38/34/35/31 | In determining the Government-approved Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) releases, can any version of RHEL that is NIAP/CC-approved be used or is there a supplemental list of explicit versions approved for use? | Determine licensing costs and level of effort | Request to specify the approved versions of RHEL (per system) to be employed | IAW DO SOW paragraph 3.2.5, "the Government requires the system meets the latest CS requirements. The OS for the trainer shall be an approved Army OS baseline. Approved versions can be found at https://public.cyber.mil/stigs/." |
| 41 | Document - 1.GTS+RFP+20210129 | |
| Section L, Block 9, Paragraph (3), Paragraph L.2.3, and Paragraph L.3.3 | Section #: Section L, Block 9, Paragraph (3), Paragraph L.2.3, and Paragraph L.3.3 | Under paragraph (3) “Submission, modification, or revision, of proposals, there is a statement: (1) If it was transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or” |
And Paragraph: “L.2.3. Proposal Due Date: Proposals are due no later than date and time stated on SF33, Block 9.”
And Block 9 specifies “Due date as 05:00 pm local time 15 Mar 2021” And Paragraph: “L.3.3. Submitting Proposals: The required method of proposal delivery is via the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) located at https://safe.apps.mil/. Hard copy proposals will not be accepted. Offerors shall ensure the recipients receiving the proposal submitted via DoD SAFE are the GTS RFP Primary POC, Alternate POC, and the PCO, identified in Section L.2.1.”
Question: Can the Government confirm that submitting on 15 March 2021 before 5:00pm constitutes a compliant submission and that the paragraph stating submission one working day before is a precautionary suggest along with the testing file upload occur 72 hours before due date? It is unclear if proposals must be submitted one day prior to the due date stipulated in Block 9.
Please clarify if this requirement simply stipulates that proposals may not be submitted more than 24 hours prior to due date, 1700 local time 15 March 2021. Please clarify that proposals must be submitted through DoD SAFE by 1700 PM local time 15 March 2021, and that they may not be submitted more than 24-hours prior to this time. IAW the RFP, the GTS proposal is required to be submitted electronically via DoD SAFE and received by 5:00pm on 15 March 2021. The cited quote from para (3) of the 52.215-1 describes a scenario in which a late proposal may be considered.
Again, IAW the RFP, proposals are required to be recieved by the identified USG POCs, via DoD SAFE, NLT 5:00 PM EST, 15 MAR 2021.
Early submission of GTS proposal is not prohibitited.
42 Attachment #10 - Abrams SOW (DO#1) Section 3.9.1 Attachment #15 - Stryker SOW (DO#2) Section 3.9.1
| Attachment #19 - Bradley SOW (DO#3) Section 3.9.1 | Section #: 3.9.1 |
| Page # 60/55/58 | Change in SOW wording regarding requirements for Tech Refresh: |
IDIQ SOW WAS "The Contractor shall perform the analysis to determine which components should be refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced." this statement has been removed.
Abrams SOW WAS "The tech refresh upgrade shall replace all parts identified as obsolete, to include (but not limited to) ... [list].
This statement now reads : "The tech refresh upgrade shall replace the following parts identified as obsolete:"
| Question: Is it required to replace obsolete items not on the lists in the SOWs? | Concern is the scope of the refresh requirement as written can be interpreted different ways. Words "the following parts identified as obsolete" may indicate the government has determined this is the complete list of the categories of parts that are to be replaced because the government has determined them to be obsolete. OR it may be the responsibility of the contractor to determine IF they are obsolete and replace only the obsolete ones. | Clarify if this requirement is the complete list Required to be replaced, or if parts not on this list need to also be replaced if they are determined to be obsolete. |
| Also clarify if parts not in these categories are determined to be obsolete via the PEO STRI/PM TRASYS and their Life Cycle Contractor Support (LCCS) Contractors are they required to be replaced? | No, it is not required to replace obsolete items not on the lists in the SOWs | |
| 43 | Attachment #10 - Abrams SOW (DO#1) Section 3.9.1 |
Attachment #15 - Stryker SOW (DO#2) Section 3.9.1
| Attachment #19 - Bradley SOW (DO#3) Section 3.9.1 | Section #: 3.9.1 |
| Page # 60/55/58 | Change in SOW wording regarding requirements for Tech Refresh: |
IDIQ SOW, WAS: "The Contractor shall perform the analysis to determine which components should be refreshed, refurbished, redesigned, and/or replaced." This statement has been removed.
DO SOWs, WAS: "The tech refresh upgrade shall replace all parts identified as obsolete, to include (but not limited to) ... [list]". Abrams/Stryker/Bradley SOWs, NOW: "The tech refresh upgrade shall replace the following parts identified as obsolete:"
Question: Is it the intent that the contractor determine which of the listed items on each device are obsolete and replace only those components or are all instances of these components on all devices to be replaced, regardless of obsolescence?
| Concern is the scope of the refresh requirement as written can be interpreted different ways. Words "the following parts identified as obsolete" may indicate the government has determined this is the complete list of the categories of parts that are to be replaced because the government has determined them to be obsolete. OR it may be the responsibility of the contractor to determine IF they are obsolete and replace only the obsolete ones. | Clarify whether if parts in these categories are determined to be still available via the PEO STRI/PM TRASYS and their Life Cycle Contractor Support (LCCS) Contractors are they still required to be replaced? | All instances of the listed components in the specific DO SOWs on all devices are required to be replaced, regardless of obsolesence. | |
| 44 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | Input Tab | In the "Input" Tab, Rows 79, 80, and 81, the number of SAGE Licenses in G81 (13) does not equal the sum of G79 and G80 (12 and 2). |
Question: Are one of these numbers incorrect?
| Unable to determine number of SAGE licenses to procure | The quantity should be 14. This has been updated in the Attachment 5. | ||||||
| 45 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | Input Tab | In the "Input" Tab, Rows 24, 44, 54, 74, 84, 104, 133, 143, and 163 is the amount in column "I" intended to include the labor cost of personnel while in a travel status? | Seeking clarification of the potential requirement to add the labor cost of travel to other CLINs. | |||
| The concern is to ensure that the labor cost of travel is not double counted if added to other CLINs. | Clearly state in the instructions that the government provided cost of travel CLINS do or do not include the labor cost of that travel. | ||||||
| Explain all that is included in the prefilled Travel costs (and Shipping cost) lines on Attach 5 or is this CLIN cost reimbursable. | The labor cost of personnel in a travel status is not included in the plugged numbers for the listed COST Travel CLINs. The Attachment 05 Instructions have been updated. | ||||||
| 46 | Attachment 10 - DO+01+Abrams+SOW | Section # Para 3.9.2.2.2 | |||||
| Page # 62 | Is there ballistic software outside of the ACSL that needs to be updated due to the AMP Round FM3 update? | Concern is that the ACSL v4.8 update alone will not meet requirements concerning the ballistics simulation. | Confirm ACSL v4.8 includes Ballistic simulation for new AMP round. | Ballistic software for the Abrams AGTS is handled by the host and not the ACSL. The AMP round will be similar enough to the legacy ballistic firing tables so that they can be reused. | |||
| 47 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | Input Tab | In the "Input Tab" Row 140, Column J, Cell contains " ' ", was that intended or should it be = G140*I140? | Recommend correcting TEP Row 140, Column J. | This formula has been corrected. | ||
| 48 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | Input Tab | In the "Input Tab" Row 14, Column L, Cell contains "12MACA", was that intended? Is it expected that the M1A2SEP V2 PDSS simulator system housed in the legacy GFE trailer be refreshed and integrated as part of this new Trailer refresh in the 12MACA timeframe? Or, is the Simulator housed in the legacy GFE trailer the PDSS simulator to be refreshed in 16MACA as shown in Row 6. Please clarify the expected Upgrade actions required for the new GFE trailer addressed in Row 14. | The government provided upgrade trailer is expected to be delivered as GFP complete with the exception of the integrated Abrams AGTS and its training support systems. The Abrams M1A2 SEPv2 PDSS system, to be integrated into that trailer, is not required to complete refresh until 16MACA. It is unclear what actions are expected to be taken with the new Trailer upgrade at 12MACA. | Revise the Input Tab, Row 14, Column L to 16MACA. | ||
| Or Clarify what is to be delivered at 12MACA and how it will be tested. | The Trailer Upgrade delivery date will be changed on Attachment 5, Input Tab, to 16 MACA | ||||||
| 49 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | Input Tab | The Instructions Tab, states “…The Government reserves the right to exercise none, part, or all of the options at any time during the respective Delivery Order’s period of performance. Any quantity not…”. |
Question: Is it expected that the IMS start date uses the option exercise dates for the range currently linked in the TEP for the total evaluated price?
| Awarding options prior to establishing the trainer's baseline will add risks and costs to the project. | Government to provide a most likely start date for the options. | See the response to Question #14. | |
| 50 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | Input Tab | The Instructions Tab, states “…The Government reserves the right to exercise none, part, or all of the options at any time during the respective Delivery Order’s period of performance. Any quantity not…”. |
Question: Would Option Year 1 start at the DO base contract award; Option Year 2 start at month 13 and so on?
| Awarding options prior to establishing the trainer's baseline will add risks and costs to the project. | Government to provide a most likely start date for the options. | See the response to Question #14. | |
| 51 | System Maintenance Manual for the M1A2 SEP V2 Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) | Paragraph 4.3.8 | The Abrams M1A2 SMM defines a "legacy" configuration for the PCIG and EID cabinets as well as a combined PCIG/EID rack configuration. These are two different computational architecture baselines that may require different approaches for the tech refresh effort. |
Question: Have all M1A2 AGTS been updated to this PCIG/EID configuration? If not, please provide quantities of the M1A2 devices intended for tech refresh at each location that match each of the configurations in the SMM.
| The SMM shows different architectures exist on GTS's. Some of the IG architecture have been changed over the years. There is no indication of which devices (by SLIN number/location) have which architecture. Industry day, only one system was made available to examine. | |||||||
| The pricing sheet does not allow for different prices to be applied to different trainers which may have different architectures according to the SMM. | Confirm that all devices have the same starting architecture (as the device demonstrated at industry day). | ||||||
| Otherwise, indicate the starting architecture of every device and allow different pricing to make different modifications as applicable. | All M1A2 AGTS have been updated to the PCIG/EID configuration. The fielded configurations of all training systems match the CSPEIs/SPS provided as GFI. | ||||||
| 52 | Attachment 01 - GTS+SOW | Section # Para 2.1 | |||||
| Page # 11 | In paragraph 2.1, Government Documents: is it the Government’s intent to provide existing documentation source data (SGML or XML) per MIL-STD-40051-2C/ MIL-STD-31000B that reflects the legacy devices and the necessary authoring toolkit to update manuals? | If the manuals are not in SGML or XML format and require conversion, this will have a significant impact on cost. | Provide information on the format of the legacy documentation. | No the Government will not provide document source data or an authoring toolkit. See the DO specific CDRL requirements for updating the existing documentation. | |||
| 53 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | For DO 02 Stryker MGS CLIN 0007, Database Review Hardware, will a SAGE license need to be purchased? There currently is not a separate SLIN for a SAGE license. | Concern where to include the SAGE license costs for the Database Review station. | ||||
| Concern whether the government expects a specific Visual DB development capability that is not included with the basic run-time license. | Add a SAGE CLIN for the Database Review station. | ||||||
| Confirm whether Visual DB development is required/expected at the DB review station. | Attachment 05 has been updated to add SLINs under CLIN 0007 for the Database Review Hardware and SAGE IG Basic Runtime license. | ||||||
| 54 | Attachment05 - Proposed+Prices+Spreadsheet+Updated+20210114 | There does not appear to be any way to price the Non- recurring costs for the Abrams New Production because all Production falls to Range Tables including the first article. Question: How should the contractor price Non-Recurring efforts for new Production Abrams AGTS? | Concern that if NRE for Production is included in the unit price and the award includes multiple devices, the NRE will be over counted. Also concern that if the NRE is spread over a number of CLINS and only one is awarded, the NRE costs will be under compensated. | Create an NRE CLIN for the first Production unit of Abrams AGTS. | Under Option Year 1 added a SLIN under CLIN 3001 for NRE for Production Systems. Updated the Input Tab on Attachment 05. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .