RFP-QandAs_LTRaC-MAC1_6Feb2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 390 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Live Training, Ranges, and Combat Training Centers (LTRaC) Multiple Award Contract (MAC) 1
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-25-R-0001
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for RFP W900KK-24-R-0001, relating to the Live Training Ranges and Combat Training Centers (LTRaC) Multiple Award Contract (MAC) 1. The Q&A addresses 26 industry questions about technical requirements, testing procedures, and contract terms for target lifters and range equipment.
Key clarifications include: no pricing is required for CLINs listed in RFP Section B as pricing will be requested in individual Task/Delivery Orders; the Government will provide RF solutions through MAC 2 contractors for wireless ranges; vendors are responsible for ensuring production meets specifications but not design requirements; environmental testing facilities will be provided by the Government at no cost except shipping; and non-recurring costs will be addressed at the delivery order level. The document confirms questions were due by January 27, 2025, with no change to the proposal due date of February 12, 2025. The Q&A also clarifies that vendors can participate in both MAC 1 and the BATL Productline Management delivery order under MAC 2.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
LTRaC MAC 1 RFP QandAs Live Training Ranges and Combat Training Centers (LTRaC) Multiple Award Contract (MAC) 1 Request For Proposal (RFP) W900KK-24-R-0001 Section J - Attachment 4: Questions/Comments Form
| Question | ||||||
| Number | Topic | Subject | Question / Comment | Question / Comment Reference (SOW, L&M, Page #s, etc.) | Government Answer | |
| 1 | response to solicitation | CLIN pricing | Please confirm that per the instructions to bidders no pricing should be entered in the 8 CLIN list items and there is no need to submit pricing for the CLINs list along with the completed SF33 | RFP paragraph B 2 CLIN's 001-004 and 1000-1004, and responses to Draft RFP RFI's quest#78 | No pricing is required for the CLINs listed in the RFP Section B. The data provided in the RFP Section B is for informational purposes. Pricing will be requested for the individual Task/Delivery Orders RFPs. | |
| 2 | SOW | Surge Protection | Are MAC1 contractors to provide surge protection for the range tower if a MAC2 contractor is installing the range control system | SOW 3.3.4.1 4.5.1 and 3.4.5.2 | All requirements for the MAC 1 DOs will be specified in the RFP. | |
| 3 | responses to draft RFP RFIs | Hit detection - false hits | Assuming false hits are not found to be the result of poor installation, but rather a design issue or component failure (in a unit that passed PQT) , how will contractors recoup their costs to assist the Government with diagnosing the issue? Historically contractors often had to eat the costs of diagnosing network and other issues beyond their control in order to prove that the actuators and/or installation were not the issue. | SOW 3.4.5.1 | The Gov't will consider this on a case-by-case basis. Vendors should notify the Gov't immediately if issues are seen during installation/vendor testing. | |
| 4 | responses to draft RFP RFIs | Hit detection - false hits | Assuming "reported out-of-comms/target failure conditions and/or false hits" are not found to be the result of poor installation, but rather a design issue or component failure (in a unit that passed PQT) , how will contractors recoup their costs to assist the Government with diagnosing the issue? Historically contractors often had no recourse to recover their costs of diagnosing what turned out to be network and other issues beyond their control in order to prove that the actuators and/or installation were not the issue. | SOW 3.4.5.2 | The Gov't will consider this on a case-by-case basis. Vendors should notify the Gov't immediately if issues are seen during installation/vendor testing. | |
| 5 | responses draft RFP RFIs | non-recurring costs | The Government response to RFI #86 was 'at Delivery Order' please confirm if this means that individual delivery orders will include CLINs for Non-Recurring Costs | RFI #86 question and response | The Government cannot determine at this time how Non-Recurring Costs will be addressed at the ordering level. Questions pertaining cost/pricing are considered not relevant to this solicitation. | |
| 6 | responses draft RFP RFIs | SCUs., question 44 | Please confirm if the Government's intent for the SCU includes ballistic protection(aka ILS/ALS) integral to the frame to shelter SIT/SAT or not. | RFP Appendix K, Performance Work Statement, Para 3.2.4 (and Draft RFP Appendix K, Performance Work Statement, Para 3.1.6, 3.2.5, 3.3.1 ) | No, that is not the intent. | |
| 7 | responses draft RFP RFIs | Range Effects | If "...However, installation provided range effect device(s) may be a Contractor requirement to have tested with the BATL devices during acceptance tests…" is contractor responsible for diagnosis and repair of these range effects if they do not operate? If so how will contractors be paid for these efforts? | Draft RFPs RFI # 56 Appendix I, PRF-PT 00468, para 3.5, 3.5.2, 3.5.3 | MAC 1 vendors are not responsible for diagnosing or repairing range effect devices. | |
| 8 | MAT Track | Crossties | Please confirm if MIT and MAT track (if/as required) will be installed in COE standard emplacements, which have concrete slab floor (in lieu of railroad track ballast bed) | RFP Appendix K, Performance Work Statement, Para 3.2.6 | MIT/MAT track beds may vary based on location and age of the range. All requirements for the MAC 1 DOs will be specified in the RFP. | |
| 9 | RFI | Extension | Would you consider extending the RFI window due to all manufacturers currently attending SHOT Show? | RFP Amendment No. 0001 extended the Industry questions submission date to 27 Jan 2025. The Proposals due date has not changed. | ||
| 10 | RFP | Extension | Would you consider extending the RFP window due to all manufacturers currently attending SHOT Show? | RFP Amendment No. 0001 extended the Industry questions submission date to 27 Jan 2025. The Proposals due date has not changed. | ||
| 11 | BATL | |||||
| TDP | Access | Can Range Systems get a copy of or access to a finalized copy of the BATL (Basic Army Target Lifters) TDP? | The current TDP may be accessed through the LT2 Portal_Collaboration Areas_BATL (Basic Army Target Lifters)(Community Collaboration Area). The BATL TDP/Drawings on LT2 are not finalized. The Government will place finalized data onto the LT2 Portal as they become available. | |||
| 12 | General | Non-Recurring Costs | How will the Government ensure that LRIP vendors do not have a competitive advantage over other vendors awarded MAC 1 contracts, was indicated per Delivery order? Please elaborate, will a separate line item or RFP be issued to vendors who have not received an award yet? If pricing is the only determining factor, how will the government weigh non-recurring cost? | REF Draft RFP Q&A # 86 | Questions pertaining cost/pricing are considered not relevant to this solicitation. The Government will assess the factors (ie. non-recurring cos) that affect Offerors' pricing when setting the evaluation criteria for solicitations at the ordering level. As result, the Government has no answer at this time on how non-recurring costs will be addressed when soliciting at the Task/Delivery ordering level. | |
| 13 | General | TDP items | Please elaborate on why the Government will not release approved suppliers for castings and circuit boards. This will ultimately lead to cost savings and shorter lead times and ensure consistent products. | REF Draft RFP Q&A # 87 | No, the suppliers for these custom items will not be provided. | |
| 14 | Baseline Test | Data and Power Tests at emplacement | 5.1.1.1 states that the contractor is to perform data and power tests at the emplacement. Please define the tests that are to be performed in an emplacement. | 5.1.1.1 of APPENDIX H | ||
| Baseline Test (BT) Procedures for Hardwired & RF/Wi-Fi Data Ranges | Tests to ensure the emplacements have HW power, and that data lines are functioning. | |||||
| 15 | Baseline Test | RF/Wi-Fi devices used in BT | 5.1.1.2 states that the contractor is to use their proposed RF/Wi-Fi devices to determine if line of sight or distance between emplacements will interfere with t RF/Wi-Fi communications. Per the Q&A from the draft RFP, the Government intends to provide the RF solution on wireless ranges. There are no contractor proposed RF/Wi-Fi devices. Please clarify what the proper test method would be to determine if line of sight or distance between emplacements will interfere with RF/Wi-Fi communications. | 5.1.1.2 of APPENDIX H | ||
| Baseline Test (BT) Procedures for Hardwired & RF/Wi-Fi Data Ranges | Vendors should be able to use any Wi-Fi network to make a determination | |||||
| 16 | Baseline Test | Ancillary Range Devices | 5.1.3 states that the ". . .contractor shall test ensure that the range has adequate infrastructure for the use of any. . . . " | |||
| Please define "adequate infrastructure" | 5.1.3 of APPENDIX H | |||||
| Baseline Test (BT) Procedures for Hardwired & RF/Wi-Fi Data Ranges | Adequate infrastructure in this case can mean, but is not limited to (1) that there are emplacements present and they are of adequate size for all the equipment, (2) that the emplacements have power, unless specifically called out as a battery powered range in the DO, and (3) the vendor does not have to provide any SCUs, unless all ready called for in the DO. | |||||
| 17 | Baseline Test | Range Infrastructure | 5.1.4 states that " . . the contractor shall visually inspect….Range access points for proper maneuvering around the range." Please clarify if this is meant to ensure that the contractor has adequate access to install and test the range. | 5.1.4 of APPENDIX H | ||
| Baseline Test (BT) Procedures for Hardwired & RF/Wi-Fi Data Ranges | Yes, this is meant to ensure the contractor has adequate access to install and test the range. | |||||
| 18 | Sample Delivery Orders | removal of legacy equipment | Draft RFP Q&A #61, question was asked... "will removal, survey, catalogue, and removal to storage of existing equipment be paid as a separate CLIN on specific delivery orders, or just be considered part of installation services". Answer was "If required, a separate line item under CLIN 0001 will be available. The Delivery Order will call out any need for removal of equipment and/or accessories". However, in document RFP_LTRaC-MAC1_SectionJ-Appendix D-DO2_Blanding-ARF_Liberty-MPMG, there is a requirement for removal of various equipment, but no CLIN 0001 associated. Please clarify. | RFP_LTRaC-MAC1_SectionJ-Appendix D-DO2_Blanding-ARF_Liberty-MPMG | Appendix D-DO2_Blanding-ARF_Liberty-MPMG is a sample of what a vendor may see during the RFP process, not the finalized DO2 RFP. This document was not updated from the Draft RFP to now. Specific requirements pertaining to DO RFPs will be carefully constructed to ensure detailed information is accurately provided to the vendors at time of DO solicitations. | |
| 19 | Statement of Work | First Article Testing (FAT) | Section 3.4.1 states ". . . Environmental testing will be conducted at facilities to be provided by the Government." Will the Government please clarify if every vendor will be subject to addional FAT(s) when product baseline changes? Also, will the Government clarify if the environmental testing at FAT and any subesequent FAT(s) will be at no charge to the vendors? | 3.4.1. of RFP_LTRaC-MAC1_SectionJ-Attach-1_SOW_6Jan2025_v1.1 | Every vendor will be subject to the same testing requirements if there is a baseline change. |
The only cost to the DO vendors for the FAT is the shipment of the devices to and from the Government's designated location.
| 20 | Draft RFP Q&A | RF Solution | Draft RFP Q&A #3, question was asked about the RF solution, answer was ". . .the LTRaC MAC 1 Contractor will work with the RF vendor to ensure adequate communication devices are installed on/throughout the range for functionality of all target devices." | |
| WIll the Government please clarify if the RF solution will be GFE or if the vendors are to purchase the RF solution on their own? If GFE, who will coordinate with the RF vendor to ensure adequate communication devices are provided? How/when will the RF devices be provided to vendors? | Draft RFP Q&A | On ranges that require RF implementation, the Government will contract, through LTRaC MAC 2, with a vendor to provide the RF solution onto the range. The equipment will NOT be GFE. The Government will coordinate with the BATL MAC 1 and RF MAC 2 vendor to syncronize installation and testing. |
The Government will ensure that adequate quantities of RF devices are provided to the range.
The Government may provide a few RF devices to a vendor what is awarded a DO under MAC 1 to allow them to test their devices before shipping to the site.
| 21 | Draft RFP Q&A | Non-Recurring Cost | Draft RFP Q&A #86, vendor asked "Will the Government allow for Non-recurring costs for vendors that were not part of LRIP to cover initial tooling, testing, fixtures and other ramp-up related costs? How will the government ensure that LRIP vendors do not have a competitive advantage over other vendors awarded MAC 1 contracts?" Answer was "This will be addressed on each individual Delivery Order." | |||
| Given the Government’s response to #86 on Non-Recurring Costs, "This will be addressed by each individual Delivery Order", vendors from the LRIP effort may have a pricing advantage due to prior investments in tooling, testing, and ramp-up costs. Under FAR Part 15, how does the Government plan to ensure fair competition and mitigate any undue competitive advantage in each Delivery Order? | Draft RFP Q&A | The Government cannot determine at this time how Non-Recurring Costs will be addressed at the ordering level. Questions pertaining cost/pricing are considered not relevant to this solicitation. | ||||
| 22 | SOW | 3.5.5 Sustainment Partnership and Draft RFP Q&A | Draft RFP Q&A #92, vendor asked "Will the separate contract awarded outside MAC1 be awarded to a contractor on MAC1? Will it be competitively bid? Will this contractor be responsible for warranty issues? It also states this contractor will be providing test chambers for FAT systems? Is this a conflict of interest or a competitive advantage to a particular vendor?" Answer was "Undetermined at this time if an awardee in LTRaC MAC 1 can also be the Contractor described in this section." | |||
| Will the Government please clarify if LTRaC MAC 1 vendor will be able to participate in both efforts? | Draft RFP Q&A | Yes, vendors will be able to participate in both. At this time there is NO issue with a vendor being awarded the BATL Productline Management DO under MAC 2 and participating in MAC 1. Since the products are build to the Governement's drawing package, there is nothing that would provide a competitive advantage. Every BATL device should be the same from every vendor. | ||||
| 23 | Draft RFP Q&A | Draft RFP Q&A #131, vendor asked question "If the testing and specification requirements are found to not meet the BATL TDP, how would the Government address potential non-compliance during testing?" Answer was "The BATL TDP is build to print and the Government has already validated that the design passes testing and meets the needed performance requirements. Since the BATL TDP systems are build to print, the Government will be verifying the workmanship in the manufacturing and assembly processes. If the Contractor's BATL systems do not meet the testing requirements detailed in the SOW, then Contractor will need to take corrective action." | ||||
| Will the Government please provide environmental test reports for all BATL devices? | Draft RFP Q&A | No. The Government has conducted the environmental tests it needed to ensure the BATL design meets its requirements. The risk is on the Government if the DESIGN does not meet requirements. The onus is on the MAC 1 vendors to ensure their production of the design meets those specifications. | ||||
| 24 | Government Test Checklist | PS 3.2.10.2.4 | Requirement of "The battery charger is UL tested and approved" should be removed. UL rated multi-bank chargers do not exist in the COTS marketplace. | RFP_LTRaC-MAC1_SectionJ-Appendix G-Government Test Checklist | Underwriters Laboratories (UL) does not use the phrase "UL approved" in their marketing guidelines. Instead, they provide certifications that indicate a product meets safety, quality, and compliance standards”. If a vendor cannot verify battery chargers as UL tested and approved, they should ensure it is a COTS battery charger that can be easily replaced if it fails. Data sheets for the product should be provided to the Gov't for review | |
| 25 | Government Test Checklist | PS 3.2.11.2 | ||||
| PS 3.2.11.3 | Requirement of "All NEMA rated enclosures maintain the NEMA rating at the conclusion of installation" should read "All fittings used on NEMA rated enclosures should match the NEMA rating of the enclosures" | RFP_LTRaC-MAC1_SectionJ-Appendix G-Government Test Checklist | Requirement verbiage will remain as is. | |||
| 26 | The ARMY Ivan target backer calls out a material spec. 9363146. Do you know where I can track down a copy of that? I don’t see it in the LT2 portal. | RFP_LTRaC-MAC1_SectionJ-Appendix A-Example of Target Silhouettes | 9363146 is a specification control drawing for material on the Ivan (11829332). |
The Spec is not on the LT2 Portal.
The Ivan can be purchased through an NSN that Offerors can find by googling 3D Target 11829332. There is no reason a an Offeror would need to manufacture it; if that is the company’s intent.
image1.png image2.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .