BEST MAC_DRFP_QA_20240725.pdf

BEST MAC – DRFP - W900KK-24-R-0007 – Q&A

No. Industry Question RFP Section Govt Answer 1 Will the final solicitation include Government

Furnished Information/Data including the technical specification and ICD between the Javelin CLU and the launch tube? Further, will the government provide technical drawings of the Javelin?

DRAFT RFP –

GFI

The Government does not intend to provide technical data in conjunction with the base contract solicitation. The Government will address requests for system specific technical data during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

The Government does not look for specific solution/design of the Javelin or specific system at this time. The Government expects to see the processes, approaches, and/or procedures to be able to complete the effort for Lot 2 products.

2 Will the government provide a test harness or test apparatus for the Javelin if/when this task is awarded?

DRAFT RFP The Government will address questions regarding provision of system specific equipment during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

The Government does not look for specific solution/design of the Javelin or specific system at this time. The Government expects

3 Will the government provide part numbers for specific connectors between the launch tube and the CLU?

DRAFT RFP The Government will address questions regarding system specific part numbers during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

The Government does not look for specific solution/design of the Javelin or specific system at this time. The Government expects

4 Does the Government expect a Javelin simulator to interoperate with a real CROWS and CLU, or is the Government intending to provide technical data to the contractor to create a surrogate as an element of the overall solution?

DRAFT RFP The Government will address questions regarding system requirements during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

The Government does not look for specific solution/design of the Javelin or specific system at this time. The Government expects

5 a. Will the Government provide technical specs and drawings for the Individual Assault Munitions (IAM)?

b. Will the Government allow the vendor to create a surrogate Individual Assault Munitions (IAM)? Or must the vendor work with an actual IAM tube (either from the production line or after being expended)?

DRAFT RFP

a. The Government will address requests for system specific technical data during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

b. The Government will address questions regarding system requirements during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

The Government does not look for specific solution/design of the IAM at this time.

6 Section L.2.2.b states:

b. All files on each volume shall be directly supported by Microsoft Office (MS) 2016 and verified to be free of any virus or malware. Data submitted in spreadsheet/workbook format shall be readable by MS Excel 2016. All files shall be clearly identified with a filename appropriate to the content. Please note, self-extracting ".exe" files are not acceptable.

Question: Will the Government accept proposal files submitted in PDF form as long as the pdf follows the page count and formatting requirements per L.2.2., is readable, and text can be selected and copied from the pdf?

L.2.2.b PDF files are acceptable if they are readable and searchable, and text can be selected and copied.

L.2.2.b has been revised:

b. All files on each volume shall be directly supported by Microsoft Office (MS) 2016 or PDF and verified to be free of any virus or malware. PDF files must be readable and searchable, and text can be selected and copied. Data submitted in spreadsheet/workbook format shall be readable by MS Excel 2016/PDF. All files shall be clearly identified with a filename appropriate to the content. Please note, self-extracting ".exe" files are not acceptable.

7 Section M.1.b states:

For the purposes of this RFP, an acceptable proposal is a proposal that is rated Acceptable under the Technical Factor, the Small Business Participation Factor, and the Past Performance Factor. Ratings and descriptions outlined in Table M-1.

M.1.b No Small Business Participation Plan Factor.

Section M.1.b has been revised:

For the purposes of this RFP, an acceptable proposal is a proposal that is rated Acceptable under the Technical Factor and the Past Performance Factor. Ratings and descriptions outlined in Table M-1.

Question: Please confirm there is no Small Business Participation Plan with the Volume IV:

Contracting Information volume submission.

8 Section L.3.2.2.b states:

Offeror shall provide evidence of TESS production capacity by providing: 1) TESS Type (e.g. Dismounted/Vehicle/SLM); 2) Quantity; 3) Year of production; and 4) Contract vehicle.

Question: Will the Government accept the year production started and ended for our response to requirement 3) Year of production?

L.3.2.2.b Yes, the Government will accept the year production started and ended

9 Section L.3.3.1.e states:

e. Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

Question: Will the Government clarify the information requested if the Pre-Award Monitor’s information is not available?

L.3.3.1.e Section L has been revised to remove “Pre-Award Monitor’s”

10 Due to the anticipated number of new platforms and warfighting capabilities anticipated/unanticipated throughout the period of performance, we suggest the Government consider adding the following language to the Statement, “The following STE-based TESS products are covered under this effort:” to “The following STE-based TESS products are covered under this effort. Additional STE-related TESS products associated with the “12 engagements” strategy may be included in the scope of this effort.”

Will the Government please update any change in the SOW to also be reflected in Section M.2 of the DRFP?

SOW 1.0 The Government does not intend to update the SOW or Section M for this solicitation to include additional STE-related TESS products. Support for other TESS products is not included in this SOW. Products may be added by modifying the SOW and competing new lots under the BEST MAC.

11 Request the Government allow the use of no more than 3, 11x17 foldouts per Volume II, Factor 1, Technical.

L.2.2.c Format The Govt will update section L to allow no more than 3, 11x17 foldouts per Volume II, Factor 1, Technical.

L.3 has been revised:

Table of contents are excluded from the page count. No more than 3, 11x17 foldouts

12 Section L.3.3 states:

This volume shall contain recent Past Performance information that is relevant in scope to the appropriate BEST MAC Lot 1 or Lot 2. Relevant scope is defined under Section M, Paragraph M.3.3 (c). Offerors shall submit a list of no more than five (5) contracts on which the Offeror served as either the prime, as a subcontractor, or as part of a Joint Venture, in performance and/or completed during the past five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

Question: As it relates to Section M.3.3(c) Relevancy, does the Government consider past performance for TESS products acquired under FMS programs relevant to the Lot 1 and Lot 2 scope?

L.3.3, M.3.3 Yes, FMS TESS programs are considered relevant to either lot 1 or 2.

13 Section L.2.1 states:

Proposal shall be submitted only by email to Mr.

Roberto Gotay, Contracting Officer, roberto.j.gotaygarcia.civ@mail.mil, AND Mr.

Rafael Manzano, Contract Specialist, rafael.a.manzano2.civ@army.mil. The subject of each email shall be "W900KK23R0046– BEST MAC Proposal”, Email XX of XXX. Emails shall be numbered to include total sent, for example “Email 2 of 6”. Each attachment within an email shall be numbered to ensure all attachments are received, for example “Attachment 3 of 4”.

L.2.1 The maximum 20MB will be allowed per email transmission.

Govt will add to the L.2.1: Each email will not exceed 20MB

Question: Since the Government has decided not to use SAFE for the submission of proposals, will the Government please provide the maximum number of MBs allowed per email transmission?

14 Will the Government provide file size maximum for incoming e-mail correspondence and proposal submittals?

L.2.1 The maximum 20MB will be allowed per email transmission.

Govt will add to the L.2.1: Each email will not exceed 20MB

15 Will the Government accept separate Appendices for supplemental information that contains signatures and/or CUI data? Can they then be sent separately given the level if sensitive data. For example Financial Systems compliance letters, etc.

L.2.1 Offeror must follow applicable instructions in Section L.

16 Will the Government accept separate Appendices for supplemental information that contains signatures and/or CUI data? Can they then be sent separately given the level if sensitive data. For example, Financial Systems compliance letters, etc.

L.2.2 Offeror must follow applicable instructions in Section L.

17 Will the Government allow type/font in Graphics, Figures, and Charts to be developed as low as 6?

L.2.2.c No. The font size requirements remain as stated in L.2.2.c.

18 Will the Government confirm if summary sections are limited only to the Executive Summary or do other Volumes allow for summary sections?

L.2.2.c There is no longer a separate Executive Summary requirement.

Executive Summary may be included in volume 2 and is now considered to be part of the page count.

Section L.3.b. (table) has been revised to reconcile with this answer.

19 Will the Government clarify whom the Pre-

Award Monitor is to be assigned for this acquisition upon final release of the FRFP?

Typically, this is not assigned until contract award and reserved for Offerors who don’t have existing contracts.

L.3.3.1 e Section L has been revised to remove “Pre-Award Monitor’s”

20 “For the purposes of this RFP, an acceptable proposal is a proposal that is rated Acceptable

L.3 & M.1.1

(b) Small Business Participation Plan Factor.

under the Technical Factor, the Small Business Participation Factor, and the Past Performance Factor.”

Section L.3 and other areas in the RFP identify that there are two factors Technical and Past Performance. It appears Section M.1(b) is reflecting information from the previous version of the RFP. Will the Government please update section M.1(b) to reflect the same two factors identified throughout the RFP?

Section M.1.b has been revised:

For the purposes of this RFP, an acceptable proposal is a proposal that is rated Acceptable under the Technical Factor and the Past Performance Factor. Ratings and descriptions outlined in Table M-1.

21 . “Offerors shall provide the certification at DFARS 252.227-7017 and 252.227-7028, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release or Disclosure Requirements as it applies to the basic ID/IQ contract and Delivery Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003.”

Since the requirements for Delivery Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003 are unknown, please revise this requirement to only apply to the basic ID/IQ contract.

L.3.4.4 L.3.4.4 is revised to remove “Offerors shall provide the certification at DFARS 252.227-7017 and 252.227-7028, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release or Disclosure Requirements as it applies to the basic ID/IQ contract and Delivery Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003.”

The provision 252.227-7017 and 252.227-7028 will be included in the applicable solicitation for Delivery Order and it is only included in this solicitation for information only.

22 Will the Government consider incorporating “Live Training Standards" to the lists for L.3.2.1 Lot 1 Subfactor 1.1 and Lot 2 Subfactor 2.1 and the corresponding lists in section M.3.2.1?

L.3.2.1 Lot 1 Subfactor 1.1 and Lot 2 Subfactor 2.1

No, the govt will not incorporate “Live Training Standards" to the lists for L.3.2.1 Lot 1 Subfactor 1.1 and the corresponding lists in section M.3.2.1

Lot 2 Subfactor 2.1.b. already includes “Live Training Standards"

23 Last sentence of first paragraph states, ”The Offeror must address one of the flowing two subfactors”.

Does the Government intend this sentence to read as: "The Offeror must address one of the following two subfactors."

L.3.2.2 Section L.3.2.2 has been revised to “The Offeror must address one of the following two subfactors."

24 Is the Government's intent to address and evaluate offerors against CPAR categories (1-4) as stated in section d.?

M.3.3 Yes, the Government will assess CPARS information as it relates to M.3.3(d)

25 There is conflicting information about the Contract Number for this procurement. The DRFP title and Block 3 of the SF 33 refer to W900KK-24-R-0007. The DRFP Attachment 1 SOW, states W900-KK-23-R-BEST MAC, and

Attachment 1 & 4

The Attachment 1 (SOW) and Attachment 4 (IndustryQuestionForm) have been updated to have the correct contract number of BEST MAC

Attachment 4 states W900KK-23-R-0046. Would the Government please provide the correct Contract number for this procurement?

26 In the 1st paragraph, last sentence of Attachment 2 – BEST MAC Ordering Procedures, the document states ‘See Section C.2 , Rolling Admissions. Should this read as ‘See Section C.1 , Rolling Admissions’ instead?

This would align to current section C1 of the

RFP?

Attachment 2 Attachment 2 has been corrected to reflect the correct reference number.

27 Section A.1.1 of the RFP states in the 1st sentence, states “…meet the Army’s evolving requirements.” however, this relates to LOT 1 modify existing TESS. In Section L.1 – Lot 1 – System Modification, Lot 1 is for the modification of existing TESS to modernize and extend product life to meet the Army’s evolving training requirements. At what point does Beyond Economic Repair come into play with trying to meet Army's evolving requirement? Would the Government foresee a need to move a LOT 1 DO item into LOT 2 based on the Army’s evolving requirement?

A.1.1 & L.1 The Government intends to define service life extension requirements for specific devices within their respective delivery orders. The Government may address this question when procuring at the MAC ordering level.

28 There seems to be conflicting information about numbering scheme of the Attachment to be used to submit questions. In the DRFP, Section J indicates we are to use Attachment 4 – BEST MAC Industry Question/Comment Form. L.1.2.a.

states that we are to use Attachment 5 - BEST MAC Industry Question/Comment Form. The contract number on the form , W900KK-23-R- 0046 , may need be updated with the correct number for this procurement. Would the Government please update the RFP to indicate that the questions are to be submitted using RFP section J, Attachment 4 - BEST MAC Industry Question/Comment Form and update the contract number in the form to W900KK-24- R-0007?

Section J Section L.1.2.a. states has been updated to “Attachment 4 - BEST MAC Industry Question/Comment Form”. The attachment 4 has been updated with the contract “W900KK-24-R-0007”

29 There seems to be conflicting information about number of the Attachment to be used to prepare and submit the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire. The DRFP Section J indicates we are to use Attachment 3 – BEST MAC Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire (PPAQ). L.3.3.2. states that we are to use Section J, Attachment 4.. Would the Government please update the RFP to indicate that the PPAQ is to be prepared and submitted using RFP section J, Attachment 3 - BEST MAC Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire

(PPAQ)?

Section J L.3.3.2.has been updated to Attachment 3- PPAQ

30 In Section L.1, the RFP states the products to be procured. Will the Government provide the current Technical Data Package, along with the Interface Control Document for the Individual Weapon Systems considered for LOT 1?

L.1 The Government will provide available Technical Data Package and Interface Control document during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

31 Recommend the government include the same modernization and bridging language in Lot 1 RFP description that is in the SOW. By including these two objectives consistently across both documents, competition is maximized and innovation is incentivized, along with increased flexibility to the Government to deliver low density incremental improvements as well as large scale modernization through spares or other technologies. This change provides consistency with L.3.2.1 which identifies technology insertion for Lot 1 and PWS 1.2.

L.1 The Govt will update the RFP section L1 to match Lot 1 & 2 in the SOW

32 Recommend adding comparable electromechanical Defense articles to the list of production capability products. The density of Defense articles can be the same as the annual quantities stated, as long as the Defense articles cited have similar or higher complexity and mission assurance. Examples include targeting pods, and launching pylons for Defense aircraft.

L.3.2.2 b. and M.3.2.2. and subfactor 2.2

No, the Government does not intend to add comparable electromechanical Defense articles to the list of production capability products.

For this effort, the products are limited to those described in L.1 and SOW 1.2.

The list for subfactor 2.2 Production Capability limits competition to current TESS OEM. There are other companies that make comparable Defense products in complexity, mission assurance, and manufacturing controls.

Including these comparable Defense articles at annual quantities comparable to the TESS quantities will provide the Government with greater competition, new pathways for innovation, and decreased strategic risk for legacy TESS and STE.

33 For the TESS systems listed, and those expected to fall within the scope of this MAC, please identify any proprietary technical data packages.

SOW 3.3.6 &

3.2.11 The Government will provide the technical data package and identify any proprietary (if any) during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

34 There are multiple requirements for information throughout paragraphs 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 which infer the need for Government access to a contractor’s Management Information System (MIS) to enable program management, engineering, and logistics collaboration between contractor and Government on requirements.

Examples are included in 3.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.12.1, and logistics requirements in 3.6.4, 3.6.9, 3.6.11, 3.6.12, and 3.6.15. Will an MIS be required to complement LT2 for each task order?

SOW 3.2, 3.3,

3.4

The Government does not ask the Offeror to provide a business system (ie. MIS). The requirement is that the vendor provides data requested per specific DO.

The Government will provide the specific data submittal requirements as applicable to the DO requirement when soliciting at the DO level. The offeror then proposes its approach at that time to satisfy the requirements.

35 There is a requirement in 3.3 and 3.4.3 for an integrated database. What sources are intended to be integrated? Is this database intended to be augmentation of LT2 distinct to each task /delivery order, or will there be a distinct TO /DO that delivers this augmentation as an enterprise solution?

SOW 3.3, 3.4 As stated in each section, “As specified by the individual DOs….”, the required tasks to be specific to the Delivery Order.

There is no distinct DO that delivers this augmentation as an enterprise solution

36 The requirement for a property management plan to address all GFP and CAP infers there is an enduring inventory requirement expected for some task /delivery orders. Examples inferred

SOW 3.6.14 The Government will provide specific requirement for property management plan to address GFP and CAP during the solicitation phase for individual orders.

include enduring modernization and spares packaging, and enduring ICS sparing. If correct, this information requirement will require program and logistics management capabilities of the contractor. Recommend the Government expand on the inventory and property management requirement for TESS modification, production, and ICS.

37 In order to receive an Acceptable rating Subfactor 2.1 of the M.3.2.2 LOT 2 Technical Factor, Offeror needs to address either a) new TESS kit based on the existing IMILES or b) new TESS kit based on emerging STE LTS

TESS.

For a) the Offeror proposal shall provide a feasible and complete approach on extending the current VTESS kit for usage on the M10 Booker.

For b) the Offeror proposal shall provide a feasible and complete approach on production of a non-laser based Javelin TESS.

Do we understand correctly that we need to utilize an emerging, Army funded STE LTS TESS technology (e.g., Cubic STE LTS Force- On-Force Prototype OTA project) for the approach on production of the non-laser-based Javelin TESS, or can we provide an alternative LTS TESS solution?

M.3.2.2 The approach does not need to utilize a currently funded STE- LTS TESS technology and may be based upon an alternative TESS solution.

L.3.2.2.b. has been revised to:

Producing a new non-laser based generic Shoulder Launched Munition TESS kit to satisfy future STE LTS TESS requirement M.3.2.2.b has been revised to:

To receive an Acceptable rating Offeror proposal shall provide a feasible and complete approach on production of a new non-laser based generic SLM TESS kit to satisfy future STE LTS TESS requirement. The Government is not looking for a specific design and the response will be evaluated with the understanding that offerors do not have the corresponding SLM technical data package. The focus is on the approaches, processes, and methods.

38 “The BEST-MAC objective is to maintain, extend the life of, and evolve the currently fielded Tactical Engagement Simulation Systems (TESS); adapt existing MILES TESS in order to integrate with production ready STE TESS technology. The MAC will provide maximum competition while ensuring streamlined DO awards. This will provide the DoD with the ability to rapidly deliver upgraded

SOW 1.1 Yes, scope under Lot 2 may include requirements that involve IMILES technology or emerging STE LTS TESS components as identified in the SOW, and ULEIS-based laser technology.

and/or new capabilities to the nation’s warfighters.”

Do we understand correctly that new LOT 2 equipment will be either based on existing IMILES technology or emerging STE LTS TESS components, and that ULEIS-based laser technology might only apply to certain equipment within the respective task orders?

39 “Relevancy. The Government will assess for relevant past performance in terms of scope.

For LOT 1, relevant in scope means contracts to modify Dismount TESS, Vehicle TESS or

SLM TESS

product to extend product life and meet the Army’s evolving requirements.

For LOT 2, relevant in scope means contracts for the development and production of Dismount

TESS,

Vehicle TESS or SLM TESS products.”

Is TESS exclusively IMILES or STE LTS equipment, or can other TESS technologies satisfy the past performance, such as programs performed in foreign partner countries?

M.3.3 Yes, any similar TESS technology will satisfy the past performance Relevancy

In addition, Section M3.3 Factor 2 will be updated:

For LOT 2, relevant in scope means contracts for the development and production of Dismount TESS, Vehicle TESS, SLM TESS, or STE-based TESS products” as defined in L.1.