MTC RPP Questions and Responses (Dist A).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W912CH26RA017
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This is a Questions and Responses document for the Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC) Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP), providing clarifications on proposal submission requirements, contract terms, and technical specifications. The document addresses approximately 100 industry questions organized by contract section, including the RPP, Prototype Project Agreement (PPA), and various attachments and appendices.
Key clarifications include: U.S.-based production must be established within two years of award, with costs allocated at the contractor's discretion; proposals demonstrating higher integration within the U.S. industrial base will be evaluated more favorably; the System Design Review must occur 90 days after contract award with Read-Ahead materials due 7 business days prior; ammunition increments should be correlated to exercised options; depot-level maintenance is defined per AR 750-1 and should support development of Army-compliant DMWR/NMWRs; the deliverable Integrated Master Schedule includes all elements of DID DI-MGMT-81861C in Microsoft Project format; and MTC 5 will be used for Government development of logistics products with contractor SME support. The Government will develop test plans for characterization and assessment testing; the Software Assurance Tool is internal to the Government and will not be shared; and vendor-preferred primers are acceptable if shown compatible with propelling charges. Multiple amendments are planned to correct discrepancies in document cross-references, remove cost/pricing data requirements inconsistent with competitive fixed-price evaluation, clarify substantiating documentation submission procedures, and update milestone pricing templates. Offerors are encouraged to submit red-lined versions of the PPA with alternative approaches, accelerated schedules, and creative data rights solutions, with impacts evaluated according to evaluation criteria in RPP Section 4.2.1.
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
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
DIST A Qs
| Document | Section | Industry Question | USG Response | ||
| MTC RPP (RPP) | 3.3.2.2 | ||||
| 4.2.3.2 | Section 3.3.2.2 states "The plan must detail a timeline to establish U.S. based production, ready to begin domestic production, no later than two years after initial award of this contract..." |
U.S. based production will require significant capital investment and Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE). Based on Section 4.2.3.2, it appears that speed to U.S. content is a critical evaluation factor. Where should we include our NRE in this proposal effort in order to achieve the USGs speed for U.S. content? The contractor is responsible for determining where to allocate these costs if they determine these costs to the USG necessary. When the most advantageous Offerors are rated relatively equally, the Offeror(s) cost and price may factor in with increased weighting.
MTC RPP 4.2.3.2 Section 4.2.3.2 states "'Wartime footing' is defined as the ability to produce the proposed systems while the United States is exposed to diminished sources of supply..."
| If an Offeror has established global partners which are ally countries to the United States, does use of these partners support ability to produce when the U.S. may have diminished supply? | Proposals that demonstrate higher levels of integrating within the U.S. industrial base will be considered more favorable | |
| MTC PPA | ||
| Attachment 0001 CDRLs | 4.6.2.1 | |
| A001 | There appears to be a discrepancy between the two documents: OTA PPA states the System Design Review (SDR) "...must be completed no later than 90 days after contract award...RAHs provided five (5) business days before the event...". |
CDRL A001 states 60 DAC, RAH 7 business days before event.
Please clarify which is correct. This will be corrected in Amendment 01.
the PPA and CDRL should state 90 DAC and RAH 7 business days before the event.
MTC PPA 4.4.6 thru 4.4.6.3 The PPA states "Deliver conventional projectiles that are qualified for the MTC system. The projectile shall be of an unassisted, high explosive type. The U.S. Army’s equivalent would be the M795." It further describes Increments 1 thru 3 with a total of 5,000 projectiles.
| Please clarify further the desired ammunition mix of projectiles and propellants for Increments 1 thru 3. | Though not explicitly linked, the USG intent is for the increments of ammunition components to be correlated as exercised option. As an example, and based on need, the USG could procure increment 1 of projectiles with the increment 1 of propellent and Increment 1 of primers. | |||
| MTC PPA | 4.6.2.3 | "The Contractor shall support discussion and review of the information provided in Section 4.7.5 as requested by the USG." Section 4.7.5 does not exist in the Final MTC PPA document. |
Please clarify the correct section reference. This will be corrected in Amendment 01.
MTC PPA 4.6.2.9 Section 4.6.2.9 states, "...modifications made to the system to accommodate changes requested by the USG or resulting from USG needs in accordance with CDRL A043".
| In the event the USG requests additional design changes while program is already under way, will this additional scope be covered by a contract modification, quoted separately? | Yes, if scope changes are required those changes will be captured in a future amendment to the PPA | ||||
| MTC PPA | 4.6.3.4 | Please provide MIL-STD-6017E. Attachment 008 does not provide enough detail and the MIL-STD is not easily accessible as it is not approved for public release. | Amendment 01 will add MIL-STD-6017 as an attachment. MIL-STD-6017 is now a restricted doc to request on SAM.gov posting | ||
| MTC PPA | 4.7.2 | Please clarify the USG’s expectation of “depot level maintenance”; Depot level maintenance Technical Manuals (TMs) can range from the ability to repair parts and components (-30 level TMs), up to and including Overhaul Inspection Procedures (OIPs) which require IP data for components in regard to specific characteristics, wear limits, performance requirements, fatigue characteristics and/or tolerances, etc. (DMWR/NMWR). | Depot Level maintenance as defined in AR 750-1 "The term depot maintenance consists of material maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of end items, parts, assemblies, or subassemblies and the testing and reclamation of equipment as necessary, regardless of source of funds for the maintenance or repair or the location at which the maintenance or repair is performed. This term is applicable for all maintenance and repair tasks for Class IX items designated or coded as depot (D or L) that are per-formed in field or other nondepot locations. The term depot maintenance consists of material maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of end items, parts, assemblies, or subassemblies and the testing and reclamation of equipment as necessary, regardless of source of funds for the maintenance or repair or the location at which the maintenance or repair is performed. This term is applicable for all maintenance and repair tasks for Class IX items designated or coded as depot (D or L) that are per-formed in field or other nondepot locations. Which is off system maintenance to include OIPs, component repair/reset, overhaul, system reset. |
Desired end state is ability to develop Army compliant DMWR/NMWRs to support an organic depot capability.
| Attachment 001 Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) | CDRL A019 | A019 references a CDRL for the Integrated Program Management Data and Analysis | |||
| Report; Subtitle: Program Integrated Master Schedule. The CDRL has the DID tailored referencing a deliverable of the IMS in Microsoft Project format. Please clarify if the CDRL deliverable is to provide only Section 2.4 (excluding 2.4.2.12, 2.4.2.13, 2.4.2.15, 2.4.2.19, 2.4.2.21) of DID DI-MGMT-81861C (T) . | The deliverable includes all elements mentioned in DID DI-MGMT 8161C. The tailoring was only meant to specify the format the schedule should be delivered in. No sections are meant to be excluded. | ||||
| Attachment 12 | Attachment 12 | Attachment 12: What is the purpose of the Log vehicle? Will any scribe support be needed to capture manual updates? Will any updates be performed to the manuals? | MTC 5 will be used for USG development of log products. The USG will perform the work to modify POIs with support from contractor SMEs | ||
| RPP | 3.6 Cost Volume & 3.8.1 Milestone Payment Schedule | In the RPP, section 3.6, references three Appendix E appendices: 1. Milestone Summary, 2. Table F-1, and 3. Table F-2 Continuation. |
However, section 3.8.1 references four appendices: 1. Milestone Summary, 2. Table F-1, 3. Table F-2 Continuation, and 4. Table F-3 Continuation
| Is table F-3 valid? If so, where is it located? | Amendment 01 to the RPP will correct this discrepancy. Appendix E(3) does not exist and all references are removed in the RPP Amendment. | ||||
| MTC_OTA_Request_for_Prototype_Proposal.docx | 3.3.1.1 | The RPP states, "Additionally, a Safety Assessment Report (SAR) or industry equivalent for the proposed system must be included in the submission." Due to page count limitations, is it permissible to include the SAR in Volume 3, Substantiating Documentation? | Yes | ||
| Milestone Summary & Milestone Table F-1 | Appendix E | Final listed event on Appendix E Table F-1 is "Deliver Production Capability Plan (CDRL A018)". However, this event is not listed on the associated Milestone Summary file. Is this omission in error? | "Deliver Production Capability Plan (CDRL A018)" is listed on row 62 of the Appendix E Milestone Pricing Summary. Appendix E(1) and Appendix E(2) will be removed with Amendment 01. | ||
| MTC_OTA_Request_for_Prototype_Proposal.docx | 4.3.4.1 | The RPP states, "Visible Text Only: All proposal content must be presented as visible text. The inclusion of any concealed text is strictly prohibited. Concealed text includes but is not limited to: Micro-text (text with a font size below 8pt); White text on a white background; Text utilizing colors that render it indistinguishable from the background; Text hidden within images or graphics." |
| Is text within graphics (e.g., callouts, captions, embedded data) considered to be "text hidden within images?" Further, will the USG's AI tool be able to read text and numbers that are within images? How does the USG intend to ensure that all data in a proposal, including that embedded in graphics, is appropriately considered? | Text within graphics is considered "hidden" if it is formatted in a way that a unassisted human eye cannot see. Text that can be seen and read by an unassisted human (such as in tables, maps, pictures) are not considered "hidden" because human evaluators will be able to read them. | ||||
| Milestone Table F-1 | Milestone Schedule | Tab "4.Milestone Schedule" of this appendix has 6 unprotected rows in which data can be freely entered. Does this mean we have the ability to add an additional 6 Milestone Events at our discretion? | Appendix E(1) and Appendix E(2) will be removed with Amendment 01. | ||
| PPA | 4.12.4 | Noting the difference in language between 4.12.4.1 versus 4.12.4.2 and 4.12.4.3, which omits the word "unit", is industry to understand that in the event of any prototype units two through eighteen being delivered late by more than 30 days there will be a decrement equal to 15% or 20%, but does not state the basis for the calculation. How will this be calculated? | Prototypes delivered after the agreed delivery date will be decremented by the referenced amount. | ||
| MTC_OTA_Request_for_Prototype_Proposal.docx | 3.2 Eligibility Volume: GO / NO GO | The RPP instruction for the Eligibility Volume states, "The Eligibility Volume shall address the following criteria. It shall contain all substantiating data and shall not exceed 10 pages." Does the USG intend to evaluate only that substantiating data provided in the Eligibility Volume to make its assessment of eligibility for contract award? The 10-page limit does not provide adequate room to include ALL substantiating data to support all claims within the proposal. Recommend the USG update this instruction to allow referencing data provide in Volume 3, Substantiating Documentation and Volume 4, Substantiating Multimedia. | USG will also consider data provided in volumes 3 and 4 so long as they adhere to the limitations described in the RPP. The contractor must clearly identify any references to other volumes in its eligibility volume. | ||
| MTC_OTA_Request_for_Prototype_Proposal.docx | Global | The RPP refers to Volume 3, Substantiating Documentation in numerous places, but omits corresponding references to Volume 4, Substantiating Multimedia. Recommend the USG review the entire RPP and include "or Volume 4, Substantiating Multimedia" wherever it refers to Volume 3, Substantiating Documentation. | The use of reference to "substantiating documentation" within the RPP should be considered encompassing of either/both Volume 3 Substantiating Documentation and Volume 4 Substantiating Multimedia |
Corrections will be provided in RPP Amendment 01
| Attachment 12 | Test | The "Simple Schedule" tab only shows activities for vehicles 1-12. To facilitate proper planning and estimating to address anticipated CLS material and labor, what is the intended usage of vehicles 13-18? | Vehicles 13-18 are intended for use in the MTC soldier evaluation specified in section 4.10 of the PPA | ||
| Appendix A | Article XII.V | Is a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network required to execute this contract? | The USG does not intend to transmit SECRET information over a network | ||
| PPA | 4.12.3 | How many visits should industry plan to support Government observers/monitors to foreign countries where the prototypes are being produced? | The USG does not intend to limit it's own ability to oversee PPA execution | ||
| PPA and Attachment 001 | PPA 4.13 and entire Attachment 001 | The information in the CDRL table in PPA section 4.13 does not fully align with the information in Attachment 001. Will the USG pls let offerors know which version has precedent? | Corrections will be provided in Amendment 01. | ||
| RPP | RPP 4.0 | Will the USG allow proposals that trade RPP requirements? | USG will evaluate all proposals that meet or exceed eligibility volume as detailed in 3.2. | ||
| RPP | RPP 4.0 | Offerings may depend on approvals by other governments that may not be fully resolved before proposal submission and evaluation? How will USG evaluate such proposals? | The government will not accept proposal deliveries or additions to the proposal after the deadline | ||
| PPA | PPA 3.1 | The 30-day stagger between funded vehicles and unfunded vehicles. Will these be funded at initial RPP award. If not, how many days after initial OTA award is the Government planning to award the options to permit for adequate lead time before delivery? | Unfunded milestones will not be funded at initial RPP award. For the purposes of unfunded milestones, "award" is the date on which the option is exercised, not initial RPP award. | ||
| PPA | PPA | ||||
| 4.13 | Regarding the Technical Data Package (TDP), EDFP, OMIT data and associated drawings, will the US Government accept vendor-provided drawings in their current format, or will they require that the drawings be revised to conform to ASME standards and Options Sheets 10& 11 IAW MIL-STD-31000B? | The desired format is as specified in the CDRL and TDP Worksheets. An Offeror can propose red-line amendments to the CDRLs and PPA. | |||
| PPA | PPA | ||||
| 4.6.4.2 | Section 4.6.4.2 calls out two separate Government led cyber penetration test events requiring on-vehicle access, and that this task should be carried out no later than 30 days after contract award. Does the government intend to do classified Penetration Testing events prior to first vehicle delivery, potentially, while the vehicle is OCONUS? | Government led cyber penetration test will be completed on MTC 1 at the CONUS delivery location |
These updates wil be included in the PPA amendment
| Attachment 12 | In regards to MTC 5, will the contractor be developing/modifying the logistic products or USG personnel? Currently, all that is being asked for is a system maintainer and software SME on tab 2 from a support perspective. | MTC 5 will be used for USG development of log products. The USG will perform the work to modify POIs with support from contractor SMEs | |
| Attachment 12 | Are the aforementioned 25 weeks for the contractor to integrate US LRU's and perform on site development? If not, what are the tasks taking place during these 25 weeks? | The 25 weeks are to be used for contractor integration of US GFM and interfaces | |
| RPP | 3.7 | Please confirm that the As-Built configuration is the defined as the bidders current production baseline with no modifications as required in Section 4.6.3 of the PPA. | This is correct; the As-built configuration is defined as the current production baseline with no modifications as required in section 4.6.3 of the PPA. |
| PPA | 4.6.5.2 | Can the USG have drawings and specifications for the Proof Gun Stand (PGS) with the final RPP/RFP or is PGS still under development design? | The USG will review the awarded vendor's cannon assembly design to determine the required modifications for PGS integration and testing. This will not be considered during proposal evaluation. The maximum requirements for integration are identified in section 4.4.4 of the PPA. The PGS is a completed design, but includes an adapter that is modified to the cannon system of interest. |
| RPP | 3.6 | Please identify the Price Validity(in days) that the USG is requiring after proposal submission date. Additionally, please identify the Price Validity(in days) that the USG is requiring for the Unfunded Milestone Options . | The price validity for the proposal is up to vendor discretion, however the USG intends to make award by the end of FY26 |
The proposed cost and price for all milestones will be valid through the Period of Performance (PoP)
| PPA | 4.6 | Who will be responsible for developing the test plans for the various tests to include characterization and assessment tests (contractor or Government)? | The Government will develop the test plans for characterization and assessment testing |
| PPA | 4.6.4.2 | Can the USG Provide the offerors more detail on the Software Assurance Tool (SWAT) or a copy of the tool with the final RPP | The Software Assurance Tool is internal to the Government and will not be shared |
| RPP | 3.3.1.4 | Can the USG define what US Primers Are to be required to use with the Ammunition ? | US M82 primers will be made available. Vendor preferred primers are also acceptable provided they can show compatibility with propelling charges. |
| RPP | 4.2.3.4 | The Government continues to request Specifically Negotiated Rights and Government Purpose Rights for a product they did not pay to develop. It is possible this could cause Contractors not to bid or be evaluated unfavorably leading to the selection of a "lessor value" product. Request the Government reconsider the data rights position as an evaluation factor. | Offerors are free to submit proposals with rights and restrictions different from those described in the RPP and PPA. The impact of offering different rights and restrictions are detailed in the RPP. |
| (DRAFT2) RPP | 3.4 | Please confirm that this statement means that the USG will not allow a Government to Government transfer of data. | The Government will not bear the burden of soliciting proposal documentation on behalf of a potential offeror. |
| (Draft2) PPA | Services Payment Schedule | Would the USG consider a different Milestone schedule should the Contractor propose one? | The Vendor has the ability to provide red-lines comments/revisions to the milestone portion of the PPA as part of the proposal. The contractor is encouraged to submit an accelerated schedule which will be evaluated accordingly IAW 4.2.1 of the RPP. |
| PPA | In section 4.6.2.3 it states to reference section , 4.7.5, which does not exist. | Updated reference in PPA section 4.6.2.3 is 4.8.1 |
Correction will be made in PPA Amendment 01.
| Attachment 001 | Contract Reference is Incorrect. Should reference section 4.6.2.9 | Attachment 001 will be updated in Amendment 01. | |
| Attachment 011 | 9 | Specification referenced doesn't appear to be correct as Appendix C of ASME Y14.100 is associated with Drawing Titles not TDP Metadata | Appendix C of ASME Y14.100 provides the foundational rules of engineering documentation. By ensuring that drawing titles are created in a consistent and logical manner, it supports the overall goals of accuracy, efficiency, and clear communication throughout the entire product lifecycle. |
The worksheet as provided reflects USG baseline expectations. The offeror may propose something other than this spec
| PPA | 4.6.2.1 | PPA states Read ahead for System Design review is 5 business dates which conflicts with CDRL A001 which states Read Ahead is 7 business dates | Amendment 01 will update the PPA to 7 business days for presentation materials for the one-time design review presentation |
| PPA | 4.6.3.3 | For the plan to integrate M-Code in to the MAPS GEN II GPS system, is there going be a specific INU the government will want to be used? If not, will the government at least want a M-code compatible INU? |
Context: Several programs we work on have or are developing using a MAPS Gen II M-CODE system with a INU that is M-Code compatible. On some of our other programs, it's a Honeywell Talin INU or eTalin, which are given to us as GFE. For the purposes of this proposal, no, there is not a specific INU that the Government will required to be used. However, INUs that are M-Code compatible and are already in Government use better achieve the Government's objective configuration.
If an Offeror would prefer to integrate a GFM INU and can account for that integration within their proposal (schedule, cost, etc.), that is a PPA redline the Government is willing to entertain during negotiations.
| PPA | 4.6.3.3 | For the MAPS GEN II system, is a Navhub-100 or Navhub-200M going to be used? | The Government is most familiar with Navhub-100, which is integrated in other systems, but will make available whatever option is necessary to make integration complete and expedient. |
| PPA | 4.8.3 | We understand the USG request for Priced Options for the Technical Data Package. However, we wanted to make you aware that we anticipate in the process of Onshoring, a significant amount of the production drawings will have to be changed in the process of moving(onshoring) manufacturing from a foreign manufacturer to the US. | Acknowledge, The Government is open to creative specifically negotiated license terms to unlock additional Technical Data and Computer Software Options and associated rights and/or to reduce proposed Option costs. |
| PPA | 4.8.3 4.8.4 and Appendices Es and Attachment 016 | There are instances where certain technical data may not be shared with the Government due to foreign government export restrictions. Should the Offeror provide redlines of the RPP data that cannot be provided with its submission, or does the Government have any other recommendations of how to handle this situation? |
| Alternative: Will the Offeror still be considered for award if such technical data is not able to be provided? | Offerors are free to submit proposals with rights and restrictions different from those described in the RPP and PPA. The impact of offering different rights and restrictions are detailed in the RPP. | ||||
| PPA | Appendices E(1) and E(2) | Please confirm that Non Traditional; Defense Contractors(NDC) are excluded from the pricing requirements for Tab 9 as detailed in the Instruction Tab other than providing NDC price per milestone | Any reference to cost or pricing data will be removed in Amendment 01. | ||
| RPP Section 3.6 (Cost Volume); Appendix E (Milestone Pricing Template) ; Attachment 019 (As-Built Production Unit Cost Volume) ; RPP Sections 4.2.4, 4.2.5.4, and 5.3.1 | 4.2.4, 4.2.5.4, and 5.3.1 | The Offeror respectfully requests clarification on the purpose, scope, and intended use of the cost data required by Appendix E (Milestone Payment Schedule F) and Attachment 019 (As-Built Production Unit Cost Volume), in light of the stated evaluation methodology. These requirements appear to be inconsistent with the competitive, fixed-price nature of this acquisition and the evaluation criteria described in the RPP. | The Attachment 019 As-Built Unit Production Cost Volume will be used for the As-built Production Unit Cost evaluation as specified in RPP section 4.2.4. |
Any reference to cost or pricing data will be removed in Amendment 01.
RPP Section 3.6 (Cost Volume); Appendix E (Milestone Pricing Template); RPP Sections 4.2.4, 4.2.5.4, and 5.3.1 The level of cost detail required by Appendix E for Milestone Payment Schedule F — including full indirect rate structures, itemized bills of materials, subcontractor proposals, and rate packages — is consistent with the requirements for certified cost or pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) / FAR 15.403. Such requirements are typically imposed only when adequate price competition does not exist, or when a cost analysis is required. This RPP anticipates multiple offerors and employs a competitive price comparison methodology, which would ordinarily render such detailed cost data unnecessary.
| The Offeror's question: Given that this is a competitive acquisition and the Government's stated method for determining price reasonableness is comparison among offerors, will the Government consider revising the cost data requirements in Appendix E (Milestone Payment Schedule F) and Attachment 019 to better align with the evaluation methodology — for example, by limiting the required submission to commercial pricing data, catalog prices, or prior sales data consistent with the requirements for Milestone Payment Schedules A–D? | Any reference to cost or pricing data will be removed in Amendment 01. | |||
| RPP Section 3.6 (Cost Volume); Appendix E (Milestone Pricing Template) ; RPP Sections 4.2.4, 4.2.5.4, and 5.3.1 | Sections 4.2.4, 4.2.5.4, and 5.3.1 | The Appendix E require subcontractors over $75,000 to submit either a DCMA FPRA/FPRR, a DCAA audit, or three years of detailed indirect rate pool and allocation base data. These requirements presuppose that offerors are subject to government oversight of their accounting systems — a condition that applies to traditional defense contractors but not to nontraditional defense contractors, who may qualify as an eligible OTA participant under 10 U.S.C. §4022(d)(1) precisely because they are not subject to such oversight. |
| Question: For subcontractors qualifying under the OTA nontraditional defense contractor pathway, will the Government exempt the offeror or subcontractor from submitting Appendix E? If no, does the Government acknowledge that the current requirements may effectively disqualify or disadvantage nontraditional contractors, contrary to the intent of 10 U.S.C. §4022? | Any reference to cost or pricing data will be removed in Amendment 01. | |||
| Appendix E (Milestone Pricing Template) | In the event the Government is unwilling to exempt non-traditional defense contractors from providing cost data, given the existence of a treaty regarding the sharing of cost data between the Government and the foreign government, where the US Government has agreed to allow a foreign government to assess whether a contractor's price is fair and reasonable, would the US Government provide an exemption to the requirement for providing cost or pricing data by a foreign subcontractor? The Offeror is happy to provide treaty information to the US Government with acknowledgement that the information not be exposed to industry. | Any reference to cost or pricing data will be removed in Amendment 01. | ||
| Appendix E (Milestone Pricing Template) | The Appendix E Profit/Fee instructions state: "A final determination of fee will be reviewed and adjusted in accordance with the Government's DFARS 215.404-71 Weighted Guidelines method." |
The statement that the Government will "review and adjust" the offeror's proposed profit/fee using the weighted guidelines implies the Government intends to conduct a profit analysis and potentially modify the offeror's proposed fee — which is only coherent in a cost-type or negotiated sole-source context, not a competitive fixed-price acquisition where profit is embedded in the fixed price and not separately negotiated.
| Question: Is the Weighted Guidelines method, including the Government's adjustment of price, referenced in Appendix E going to be used in determining the actual Agreement price? Or is it solely to be used to evaluate cost/price realism of the Offeror's proposal? | Appendix E will be updated in Amendment 01. | |||
| Appendix E (Milestone Pricing Template) | The Milestone Pricing Template is limited to 25 labor categories, 25 trips, 25 material items, 25 subcontractors, 5 overhead rates, etc. Can offerors add additional rows to the template as needed to reflect accurate costs inputs and indirect structure? | Appendix E will be updated in Amendment 01. | ||
| Attachment 019 | We are assuming all range quantities identified in Attachment 019 as coming off of the foreign contractor assembly line. Is that correct? If not, please define "As Built Configuration" as the Government intends to evaluate offerors in accordance with Section 4.2.4. | Attachment 019 is meant to request range prices for systems as they are currently built. This includes current facilities in which they are produced as well as current configuration(s) in production, without regard to onshoring or US integration. |
An update to Attachment 019 will be provided in Amendment 01 RPP 3.6 Should this section read: "For Milestone Payment Schedules A – E, the offeror shall submit, at a minimum, information on prices at which the same item or similar items have previously been sold in the commercial market or to other governments that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price for this acquisition. Such information includes, but is not limited to, quotes, purchase orders, invoices, sales receipts, etc."
| If not, please provide instructions for Milestone Payment Schedule E | With the updates to be provided in Amendment 01, this should read sections A-F. | ||||
| N/A | Would the Government consider adding Progress Payments clauses to the PPA? If not, would the Government consider milestone payments that are below the level of the completion of the CLINs established on the PPA? | The Government is not going to consider progress payments.Contractors may propose additional sub-milestones that roll up to the existing milestones for the Government's consideration. | |||
| RPP | 3.8 | The RPP instructs offerors to submit the PPA "via tracked changes" and states that if the offeror revises language outside of designated sections, the Government will not review those changes. |
| However, the RPP does not clearly delineate which PPA sections are open for tracked changes vs. which are non-negotiable, beyond the general statement about Appendix A and B. Please clarify what sections may accept track changes and what sections may not. | The Government is open to vendor proposed opportunities or considerations to meet USG objectives | ||
| Appendix E(1) | On the ‘Instructions’ tab within Appendix E(1) - Milestone Pricing Sheet - Table F-1 and Appendix E(2) - Milestone Pricing Sheet - Table F-2, the instructions for “Tab 8. Material cost” requests that a material support tab be inserted in the file(s) to include a bill of materials and link these material unit costs to the unit costs on the Material Cost tab (Tab 8) within those same files. |
However, Tab 8 details material unit cost requirements for the 44 Table F CDRLs listed in Row 8 of the two files. It is our understanding that these are non-recurring CDRLs and primarily consist of Engineering, Programs, Training and Support functions and a bill of direct materials would not be required to successfully complete and deliver any of these CDRLs. Was it the USG’s intent to request the Bill of Material and associated unit costs in support of the deliverables listed in Table A for the Prototype MTC System Deliveries? If so, should a material cost tab be added to Appendix _E Milestone Pricing Summary File as that is the only document currently requiring Table A cost/price inputs?
| As currently presented, the instructions for material costs in the supplemental Appendix E files do not make sense relative to the other information presented in those files. Can the Government please provide clarification?” | Any reference to cost or pricing data will be removed in Amendment 01. Appendix E will be updated in Amendment 01. | ||||
| RPP 3.1.5 (Table) | |||||
| RPP 3.8.1 | 3.1.5 (Table) | ||||
| 3.8.1 | RPP Paragraph 3.8.1 and the table in Section 3.1.5 both refer to Appendix E(3) – Milestone Pricing Sheet – Table F-3 Continuation. Yet we cannot find Appendix E(3) in the Government documents published on SAM. Can the Government please provide the referenced Appendix E(3)? | Appendix E(3) was a placeholder for an Appendix E continuation and will be updated in Amendment 01. | |||
| PPA Section 3.1 | 3.1 | Table shows all 12 unfunded milestone vehicles 450 days delivery after award. The section 3.1 narrative says “UMs in Table A that are funded on a single amendment will stagger deliveries by 30 days between UMs”. Does the Government want all 12 vehicles delivered at 450 days or each 3 vehicle deliveries 30 days apart and the Offeror redlines the PPA Table A to show staggered deliveries. | For the purposes of unfunded milestones, "award" is the date on which the option is exercised, not initial RPP award. | ||
| RPP 4.3.4.2 | 4.3.4.2 | The referenced RPP paragraph (4.3.4.2) identifies "Font and Size: Proposals must adhere to the following font and size requirements:" Will the Government please confirm these font style and size, as well as page size and margin requirements do not apply to the Substantiating Documents requested? These are historical documents that have different formatting and font style requirements. | The Government confirms that the requirements in 4.3.4.2 & 4.3.4.3 do not apply to the Technical Substantiating Documentation. However, it is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure that any documentation provided is both human readable and in accordance with 4.3.4.1 for AI processing. | ||
| RPP 3.1.5 (Table) | 3.1.5 (Table) | The Government has limited the Substantiating Documentation to 6MB. Given the documents we have already gathered, the 6MB limit is highly restrictive and will require us to down-sample PDF files and their associated resolution to meet the 6MB size limit. For example, one US Government test report we have is over 2MB in size alone. Will the Government please confirm we can submit multiple ZIP files with each limited to 6MB? | Correct. Multiple ZIP files under 6MB each are allowable in the Substantiating Documentation, up to a total of 25MB | ||
| RPP 4.3.4.2 | 4.3.4.2 | The referenced RPP paragraph (4.3.4.2) identifies "Font and Size: Proposals must adhere to the following font and size requirements:" However the following attachments as provided by the Government do not follow these requirements: |
Attachment 015 Attachment 002 Attachment 003 Attachment 004 Attachment 016
| Does the Government intend for bidders to reformat these attachments or leave the existing font style and/or size? | Offerors may leave the Government provided templates in the format provided | ||||
| Appendix E(1), E(2) | Tabs 3, 5 - 13 | Per FAR 16.202-1, a firm-fixed-price contract places full performance risk on the contractor and is intended to minimize administrative burden. Furthermore, FAR 15.402(a)(2) instructs that contracting officers should not obtain more information than is necessary' to establish a fair and reasonable price. The requested granular cost details are inconsistent with a fixed-price effort. We request that the requirement for Appendix E(1) & E(2) Tabs 3, and 5 - 13 be removed, and that the government rely on price analysis techniques as encouraged by FAR 15.404-1(b). | Any reference to cost or pricing data will be removed in Amendment 01. | ||
| Appendix E, Appendix E(1), Appendix E(2) | Milestone Pricing Sheet(s) | For Appendix E, E(1), and E(2), there are inconsistencies (broken links and mismatched associations) identified between the Appendix E Milestone Pricing Summary and the individual Milestone Pricing Excel files. Does the government plan on updating the files fixing these inconsistencies / mismatches? | Appendix E will be updated in Amendment 01. | ||
| Attachment 019 | Tab 2 (Production Unit Cost) | Production Unit Cost doesn't appear to have a field for Cost of Money (COM). Will the government please explain where we should enter Cost of Money (COM) on the spreadsheet? | Amendment 01 will provide updated Attachment 019 with a COM line item | ||
| General | Software | Commercial software for the engine, transmission, and other commercially available components is typically highly restrictive, and these suppliers may not provide this software. Can software on commercial hardware be excluded? If not and the supplier won't provide the software, how does the government intend to resolve this delivery issue? | USG understands there is no standard IP/data situation. Offerors are encouraged to propose the data rights and restrictions they can and be candid about what rights are held by business partners and governments and which therefore cannot be offered in their proposal. | ||
| RPP | 2.1.1 | Can the USG government confirm that "Mature and Available" means at least TRL 8 and "hot" production line means at least MRL 9? | Offerors are encouraged to describe why their system should be considered "Mature and Available" and why their production lines should be considered "hot" without the constraints imposed by standard readiness levels. TRL and MRL levels may be used as reference if substantiated. | ||
| General | The RPP has asked for long term affordability, does the USG intend to evaluate other capabilities such as ammunition compatibility and parts commonality to understand true lifecycle costs? | Offerors are encouraged to describe how their proposed system will assist the USG in meeting long-term affordability goals, inclusive of commonality with currently fielded US equipment. | |||
| PPA | Section 3.3 | The PPA calls out a PoP of 48 months, but the test schedule only shows 36 months of testing. Can the USG please clarify the PoP or provide details for months 37-48 for scope? | Offerors are encouraged to propose how they will support the activities outlined in the PPA. They are not expected to address unscheduled events in the 37-48 month range. If offerors can predict support costs in the 37-48 month window, such as those described in PPA 4.9.4 - 4.9.10 and 4.10, to ensure readiness and availability of provided prototypes they are encouraged to do so. | ||
| RPP & Attachments | Sections 3.1.5, 3.2 - 3.8 | The RPP cites numerous attachments, some of which are clearly identified in the RPP while others appear to be for reference only. For example, the SAR is asked for but there are no instructions on where to upload the SAR. Will the government provide a definitive list of all requirements the offeror is required to complete and submit with the proposal and provide instructions for where / how to upload each attachment? | Proposal requirements are listed in the RPP. All required documents should be submitted in accordance with instructions in Part 3 of RPP. | ||
| PPA | Section 3.1 (Table D), 4.4.3 | Section 3.1 (Table D) refers to the delivery of "Training Systems", and Section 4.4.3 refers to the delivery of "Training Systems". Is there a difference in the definition of a "System Trainer" and "Training System" from the position of the Army? | The terms "Training Systems" and "system trainers" should be considered as interchangeable. In the context of this RPP they refer to the same equipment. | ||
| RPP | Section 3.1.5 Submission Requirements Table | Will the government please provide Attachment E(3) or remove the reference from the solicitation? | Appendix E(3) does not exist and all references will be removed in the RPP amendment | ||
| PPA | Sections 4.6.3, 4.6.3.4, 4.6.3.6 | PPA / SOW Section 4.6.3.6 Vehicle Fire Control Emulator is expected 30 days after award. However, this task is dependent on Task 4.6.3.4, Fire Mission Data Processing which is due prior to delivery of the second prototype. This creates an impossible schedule as all the tasks in Section 4.6.3 require additional design and development work that will take until delivery of the second prototype. Will the government please adjust the language in Task 4.6.3.6 to reflect that it is due prior to the delivery of the second prototype? | The equipment described in PPA 4.6.3.6 does not need to be mounted in a vehicle and is meant to precede and facilitate the vehicle modifications described in PPA 4.6.3.4. If offerors require more time to produce a Fire Control Emulator reflective of future prototypes USG is willing to consider proposals that deliver Fire Control Emulators as late as 30 days prior to delivery of second prototype MTC. |
If offerors understand the USG's objectives and have an alternative plan that they believe will be more effective at achieving those goals with their proposed system they are encouraged to red line the PPA to outline their plan and describe the benefits to the Army of the change in their proposal.
Attachment 011 Attachment 011, the TDP Option Selection Worksheet specifies Contractor CAGE Code and Document Numbers in Section 3, but specifies Government Format in Section 4. What is the Government format we need to comply with? Is that only for GFE components or all components in the TDP? Per MIL-STD-31000B Appendix A 3.2.3 "When contractor CAGE code and document numbers are specified, the documents will be identified with the CAGE code and document numbers of the contractor or subcontractor having design activity responsibility." We are not the design authority therefore Contractor CAGE code and document numbers are acceptable, a subsequent data acquisition action is required to change this data to USG CAGE and document numbers. Government format selected in block 4 of the TDP Option Selection Worksheet is the formatting listed in Block 2.A and 2.B and the TDP Elements in Block 5.
| Attachment 013 | Wheeled Vehicle Tab | For Attachment 013, Wheeled Vehicle Tab, is it the government's intention to have tiedowns on the vehicle that are fully designed and tested to MIL-STD-209K? | Offerors are encouraged to provide whatever data they have readily available along with any data that can substantiate. Only characteristics listed in Attachment 15 will be evaluated in the proposal. |
| Attachment 011 | Will the government please confirm that contractor format can be used for the TDP? This will result in significant cost savings to the USG. | The USG preferred TDP delivery is described in TDP Option Selection Worksheet, Contractor CAGE code & Document numbers are acceptable because the USG is not the design authority. The Offeror may propose alternatives for USG evaluation | |
| PPA | Section 4.6.2.6 | Section 4.6.2.6, System Performance Data requires the contractor to enter vehicle data in Attachment 007 MATCE Input data sheet. Attachment 007 includes shock, ride quality, and other data requirements, which require the contractor to send the vehicle to a government test site to obtain this data. This will add labor and ODC's cost to the proposal. Is this the government's intention? | The Government's intention is to collect enough data to build a comprehensive mobility model. The offeror should redline the PPA to reflect what level of information they have and describe where work is necessary. For example, if data is not available but is expected to be collected as part of USG testing of the MTC, an appropriate scope modification would be Offeror support in completing the worksheet using USG collected data. |
| PPA | Section 4.6.2.10 | Section 4.6.2.10 requires a FMECA. If the FMECA was not developed during system development, is it the government's intention for the contractor to develop this data post award? | If a FMECA was not done, then the offeror shall provide an estimate and timeline for one to be completed. |
| RPP | Section 3.1.5 | For the Technical Volume – Substantiating Documentation, can the government confirm that a submission can contain multiple ZIP files, with each individual ZIP File limited to 6MB? | Updated to allow multiple zip files, total of 25 MB for the Substantiating Documentation |
| RPP | Section 3.1.5 | For the Technical Volume – Substantiating Multimedia, can the government confirm that a submission can contain 1 Word file and multiple ZIP files, with each individual ZIP file under the 250MB? | 1 word file and 1 zip file |
| RPP | Section 4.3.4.2 | Will the government please confirm that the use of 8-point font is acceptable in figures and tables? | Yes that is acceptable |
| RPP | Section 4.3.4.2 | Will the government please allow the use of 11" x 17" foldouts for large drawings, graphics, and tables in the Eligibility, Technical, and Substantiating Technical Volumes? | The requirements in 4.3.4.2 & 4.3.4.3 do not apply to the Technical Substantiating Documentation. However, it is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure that any documentation provided is both human readable and in accordance with 4.3.4.1 for AI processing. |
| RPP | Section 4.3.4 | Will the government confirm that offerors may include a cover page, table of contents (TOC), and acronym list within each volume and that the cover page, table of contents (TOC), and acronym list are excluded from the page count? | Cover Page, table of contents, and acronym lists are not included in page counts. |
| Appendix A | C. Security Classification Specification | When will the DD254 be provided? | The DD254 will be provided at OTA award. |
| PPA | PPA, para 2.0 | Do you have to successfully compete in the OTA to be eligible for the production competition? | The USG does not intend to re-compete the FAR production follow-on |
| PPA | PPA, para 4.6.2.9 | Are assumptions required to estimate any potential modification changes so cost can be assigned to the contractor’s proposal? | Offerors are encouraged to make assumptions as necessary to facilitate realism in their proposals. No further government data will be provided. |
| PPA | PPA, para 4.9.6 | Are foreign persons allowed to support? | Foreign personnel are allowed to perform activities in accordance with the Prime Contractor's purview and proper TAAs are in place. |
| 88 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .