Copy of FWS-I QA Tracker 26 Oct 2020.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 96 KB Posted Oct 29, 2020

Attached to: Draft Solicitation, FWS-I Full Rate Production, W91CRB-20-R-0047
Solicitation number: W91CRB-14-R-0047
Issued by: Department of the Army Materiel Command Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 31, 2023

This is a draft request for proposal for the full rate production of the Family of Weapon Sights - Individual. The Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground intends to issue a solicitation to procure the production of the FWS-I, associated spare and repair parts, maintenance, and system technical support. The FWS-I is an uncooled, lightweight infrared imaging device used for surveillance and target acquisition on individual weapons during all environmental conditions. When used in conjunction with an Intra-Soldier Wireless compliant device, the FWS-I shall provide a wireless Rapid Target Acquisition capability. When used with a Direct View Optic, the FWS-I shall provide interconnectivity such that its displayed imagery serves as input for the DVO. The government emphasizes adherence to schedules, integration, qualification, and intellectual property rights. Industry feedback is requested on the draft RFP documents, with emphasis on the specification and qualification timeline. The PdM SMS intends to host a virtual industry day after receiving all feedback.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Performance Modeling Requirements Presentation.pdf	PDF	Oct 29, 2020
FWS-I Solicitation W91CRB20R0047 DRAFT Section L and M.docx	DOCX document	Oct 7, 2020
Attachment 002 Combined CDRLs.pdf	PDF	Sep 2, 2020
DRAFT W91CRB-20-R-0047.pdf	PDF	Sep 2, 2020
Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	DOCX document	Sep 2, 2020

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

New Q&A

		DRAFT Solicitation W91CRB20R0047		Question & Answers				Felecia
								Felecia
		This will be posted on beta.SAM.gov						Hal
								Hal+A:H
	No.	RFP Document	Section #	RFP Wording	Question or Requested Change for Government	Government Response	Government Action	POC
	1				Background: The National Security Presidential Directive 54, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, and Defense Authorization Act 254 have made Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) a national priority. The new DFARS 252.204-7021 just released in late September 2020 begins to invoke Cyber Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements on new programs. SCRM is part of proving CMMC capability. All Programs with Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) will eventually require the contractor to certify to CMMC Level 3 or 4. Multiple RFP's from Aberdeen contracts office over the past few years have included SCRM requirements.
Question: Based on these directives and the precedence of other similar RFPs , will contracts or the FWS-I Program office be adding SCRM to the RFP and SOW requirements for FWS-I? Assuming yes, will an SCRM Plan be required as part of the proposal like it has been on other similar RFPs?	Yes, SCRM will be added to the FWS-I SOW. The Government does not expect to require the SCRM plan as part of proposals	Get language from ACC for the SOW (and CDRLs)
10/23: Sent request to ACC for sample language for the SCRM requirement as it pertains to CMMC. Included a tutorial presentation produced by industry on CMMC and SCRM.	Hal
	2				We assume the Government is expecting stepladder pricing for various range quantities as they did for the original FWS-I RFP back in 2013? If so, can the Government please provide the Total Evaluated Price worksheet draft when they release Section L&M or as soon as possible. Rationale: It is critical to understand the various range quantities for correct pricing.	The TEP will not be provided in advance of the final RFP. The Government will be asking for step ladder pricing on hardware. Vendors will be able to define the quantity break points, minimum sustaining rate and maximum annual order quantity.		Jerome
	3				Re: Spec Requirement 3.3.6.3.4.1 Security Encryption. Since the AES-256 encryption module is not yet available, can the Government modify the specification in some way to allow AES-128 during the initial deliveries and AES-256 as soon as the approved product is available?	AES-256 will be available before the first deliveries are due. The 256-bit chip will be a drop-in replacement compared to the current approved chip, so vendors can complete early design work using the 128-bit chip.		Jerry
	4				Is the USG going to provide new reticles for the NGSW-R/AR and SDMR weapons as GFE/GFI?	The Government will provide reticles for these weapons after award.		Jerry
	5				Based on the SOW Section 4 for Foreign Military Sales (FMS), it is likely the configuration and the support level will be different than the production deliveries to the US Government. Therefore, will the Government provide guidance on how to price CLIN 013 for FMS units? Is it correct to assume that whatever pricing is to be used, it will not be counted as part of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).	The Government expects that production cost and effort will be very similar between FMS and Army systems. Vendors are expected to propose step ladder pricing for CLIN 0013 that accounts for managing a unique but slightly different configuration. The Government will provide ceiling values for CLINs 0013, 0037, 0038, 0039; vendors will use these ceilings in their proposals. These CLINs will not be included in the TEP. Vendors will bid specific efforts under these CLINs as they are required after award.	Make sure all CLINs are in the TEP spreadsheet.

Add CLIN 0013 to the step-ladder pricing tab.

Enter ceiling values in the TEP.	Nathan
	6				Are the anticipated foreign military sales quantities already covered in the current Max quantities or will there be additional quantities to consider?	The Government has no estimate of FMS demand over the course of these contracts. The Maximum quantity communicated in industry days (~85,000) represents the Army's need. Assuming two contracts are awarded and both vendors qualify designs, there will be plenty of ceiling to account for FMS demand.		Jerry
	7	FWS-I SOW	General	N/A	USG will benefit from reduced cost and schedule if a qualified TDP (including all piece part/assembly drawings, parts lists, vendor lists, test equipment TDP, TDP, etc.) is provided/available with RFP as GFI	The RFP will not include a build to print technical data package.		Jerry
	8	FWS-I SOW	Section A, Para. 3	The MINIMUM quantity of supplies to be ordered under this contract are 104.	Recommend minimum qty be increased to 5,000 to incentivize industrial investment into FWS-I NRE and qualification	A vendor must qualify its design to compete for additional orders. Therefore the Government can only guarantee an award of 104 systems.		Jerry
	9	FWS-I SOW	Section A, Para. 3	The MINIMUM quantity of supplies to be ordered under this contract are 104.	Recommend minimum annual order quantity of 1,000 be established to maintain production capability (keep the line hot)	The RFP will request that vendors include minimum sustaining rates as part of their proposals.		Jerry
	10	FWS-I CDRLs & FWS-I SOW	General	N/A	Documents do not align for CLINs & numbering. Example: CDRL list shows CLIN001 as FWS-I System PY-1 but Draft IDIQ contract shows CLIN001 as Qualification Systems. There are numerous discrepancies	The table at the beginning of the CDRL document is outdated. The draft IDIQ is more accurate. The final RFP will correct these discrepancies.	Delete the CLIN table from the front of the CDRL file and double-check CLIN numbering.	Felecia
	11	FWS-I SOW	CLIN: Item Number 0021 pg. 16	CDRL FWS-I Safty Assessment Report (SAR)	Title has a misspelling. Should read ‘CDRL FWS-I Safety Assessment Report (SAR)’	Thank you.	Check spelling in Section B	Jerry
	12	FWS-I SOW	CLIN: Item Number 0022 pg. 17	CDRLS 002001- 00206 are Not Separately Priced (NSP) SLINS	FWS-I Full Rate Production CDRLs descriptions reference 002001-002006. Believe reference should be 002201 – 002205. SLINS Typo - Should read CLINS	Thank you.	Double-check SLIN numbering for CLINs 0020 and 0022	Jerry
	13	FWS-I SOW	3.2.4 and General	Spare Part Interchangeability. All systems and spare parts delivered under this contract shall be form, fit, and function interchangeable and without degradation of performance with previously fielded systems and spare parts of the same kind down to the spare part level, as established by the current maintenance concept of the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army maintenance concepts for the FWS-I are detailed in paragraph 3.5.5 and Appendix A.	Spare part interchangeability with fielded systems based on alternate TDP is not possible and requirement should be clarified to constrain interchangeability to contracted design only	The Government will reword. The intent is that all parts and systems delivered under the contract are interchangeable with any part of the same NSN.		JM
	14	FWS-I SOW	3.3.9 and Drawing Package CLINs 0040 & 0034	Data Rights. All publications and publication materials delivered under this contract shall become the property of the Government. At a minimum, all FWS-I drawings and specifications delivered to the Government

under this contract shall be provided with Unlimited Rights and shall meet the requirements of paragraph 3.6.6 of

this Statement of Work.	Rights associated with data submitted will be determined by the method and means a TDP becomes available to second sources. A TDP license will carry certain restrictions from the licensor to the licensee and may not be available for Unlimited Data Rights	The SOW states the Government's desired data rights. Vendors have the option to assert data rights limits to specific data deliverables.
	15	FWS-I SOW	3.3.10	The contractor shall develop an OPSEC Standard Operating Procedure/Plan (SOP) within 90 calendar days of contract award (and annually thereafter), to be reviewed and approved by the responsible Government OPSEC officer, per AR 530-1, Operations Security....	Recommend 160 Days to submit an OPSEC Plan	Vendors may request additional time at the PAC.	JM
	16	FWS-I SOW	Section H	ECONOMIC QUANTITY DISCOUNTS:
The contractor shall offer an economic quantity discount for purchases in excess of certain amounts (as specified by the Contractor). Should the Government issue delivery orders within 60* days of each other and final delivery has not occurred, the delivery order will be issued reflecting the economic quantity pricing for the total quantity of all relevant delivery orders....	Recommend economic pricing/quantity discount ordering period be constrained to 30 days	The Government considered and rejected this recommendation.		JM
	17	FWS-I SOW	3.4.9.2 & CLIN001 and 002	Production Qualification Test (PQT)/First Article Test (FAT)/Acceptance Test

(AT)/Conformance Inspection (CI). For any system that has not achieved MR, the contractor shall conduct PQT, FAT, AT, and CI for FWS-I and all major components as agreed by the IPPT, in accordance with the Quality Validation Matrix (QVM) contained in the performance specification and test procedures concurred on by the IPPT, to demonstrate conformance to all requirements of the FWS-I performance specifications. PQT qualification by similarity is encouraged and requires Government approval. Re-qualification is required if the system or component manufacturer has not produced the contracted item within the prior 12-month period. The contractor shall notify the IPPT before any changes are made to the materials (to include suppliers) or processes utilized to manufacture the qualified FWS-I systems. Changes to materials, processes, procedures, equipment, and facilities may require a portion of the respective PQT to be rerun, as determined and agreed upon by the IPPT. The PQT shall demonstrate that the contractor’s design meets all requirements of the FWS-I Performance specification. For PQT, the contractor shall use the sampling plan as outlined in Section 4 of the FWS-I Performance Specification. For those performance requirements not listed in Section 4, the contractor shall propose a logical sampling plan. At the conclusion of each PQT conducted, the contractor shall submit a PQT test report in accordance with the requirements of paragraph

3.4.12 of this SOW. Initial qualification (if required) of the FWS-I shall require successful completion of the Government witnessed PQT to include Reliability Testing, successful completion of Government conducted DT/OT, including Follow-on Testing if required, in accordance with paragraph 3.4.9.1, as well as meeting all of paragraph

3.5 (Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) & MANPRINT) and sub-paragraph requirements for the system and achievement of Type Classification - Standard. If failures occur during FWS-I testing, the contractor shall be responsible for subsequent costs associated with any design modifications and corrective actions, support documentation updates, and retesting actions required to validate all corrective actions and successfully complete all contractor tests and Government tests/re-tests. Following completion of DT/OT, the contractor shall complete a FAT if required on FWS-I systems, and shall transition to CI testing in accordance with section 4 of the FWS-I performance specification. At a minimum, FAT shall include all CI (Group A, B, C and D) identified in the approved QVM. At the conclusion of the FAT, the contractor shall submit a FAT Test Report in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 3.4.12 of this SOW. The contractor shall present Group A-test results (number of units tested, pass fail rate, failure Pareto charts to include reasons for failures, corrective actions, and analysis of corrective action effectiveness) at each program review. Reduction of CI based on in-process inspection and control

of processes is encouraged, but must be concurred upon by the IPPT based on data.	Recommend any design changes or qualification efforts of either a licensed TDP or GFI TDP be CPFF	The Government will not be providing a TDP. The Government considered the option of cost-type CLINs for design and decided against this approach.		JM
	18	FWS-I SOW	3.2.3	The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring the FWS-I devices procured under this contract are compliant with the ISW ICD, the buttonology located in the TM 11-588-343-10, and the
keep-out zones referenced in Appendix L of the Performance Specification. All Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT)/man-machine interface characteristics shall be maintained as established in previously fielded systems.	The buttonology located in the TM 11-588-343-10, and the
keep-out zones referenced in Appendix L of the Performance Specification have are not provided as part of this package and cannot be assessed. Would it be possible to assess drafts of these documents prior to the final RFP?	The keep out zones were included in the draft specification in the form of height and width restrictions. The Government will include the TM in the final RFP.	Add FWS-I operator's manual as RFP attachment.	Hal/JM
	19	General	General	N/A	Section L, M and TEP for this source selection were not provided with this draft RFP. Would it be possible to assess drafts of these documents prior to the final RFP?	Drafts of sections L and M were posted via beta.SAM.gov. The TEP will not be released until the final RFP.	JM
	20	FWS-I SOW	3.3.8.2	On-Line Technical Information. It is the intent of the Government to gain on-line access to

contractor maintained data, configuration files, to include drawings down to the spare parts level, and information supporting the FWS-I program. The type of information to be available on-line shall be concurred to by the IPPT

prior to its implementation. The most recent version of all data shall be made available within five working days of being updated. The contractor shall allow the Government the capability of retrieving on-line all current and lastmodified versions of documentation, as well as uploading documentation to facilitate an information sharing medium. Classified data shall be handled in accordance with National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual DOD 5220.22M and DD Form 254, and applicable Security Classification Guides. Any restrictions on the use of the electronic data shall be as prescribed in FAR clause 52.227-14.	In the case of a licensee this data may not be available for all levels. Recommend removal of 3.3.8.2	This paragraph refers to data that is not delivered to the Government and the Government is not requesting rights to it. Access is still required to monitor performance and assess failure responses and corrective actions. Vendors are strongly encouraged to ensure that licenses allow them to share data with the Government. Ultimately, the SOW states that the data types will be occurred to by the IPPT.
	21	FWS-I SOW	3.4.4	Thermal Sensor Measurement standards. The contractor shall maintain not less than five (5) each contractor-owned FWS-I systems as standards and provide the Government three (3) FWS-I systems of the qualified configurations. For these thermal sensor standards, the contractor shall maintain measurement records for critical

performance parameters including FWS-I Minimum Resolvable Temperature (MRT), Signal Transfer Function (SiTF), Uniformity, 3D Noise, Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), and RTA performance parameters including full ISW ICD compliance. These measurements shall be made and documented on at least a quarterly basis, using actual production test and acceptance equipment, and data shall be presented to the Government at each program review to include comparisons to past data and the identification of any trends, positive or negative. In addition, correlation testing shall be conducted with the Government laboratory, on an as-needed basis, to ensure acceptable standards are being maintained. This may require a Government visit quarterly, or additional visits if there are correlation issues, and the contractor shall measure during this visit up to three (3) each Government-maintained FWS-I systems. The contractor shall be responsible at no additional expense to the Government to address and

rectify to the Government’s satisfaction any correlation issues identified through Government correlation testing.	All test equipment is being calibrated on the regular basis, recommend removing this requirement or changing the frequency to yearly.	The Government will consider this recommendation; the requirement is as much about process and software as it is about hardware calibration.	Make 3.4.4 correlation requirement annual?	JM
	22	FWS-I SOW	3.4.10	Test Plans. For any system that has not attained MR, the contractor shall prepare and submit a Test Plan, DI-NDTI-80566A, for each system(s) prior to PQT, FAT, and for any configuration change after FAT. The test plan shall provide the approach for ensuring the system and/or major components meet the required performance specifications and applicable drawing requirements. The test plan shall include for each specification requirement, as a minimum, the method of validation (e.g., test, demonstration, inspection, analysis, similarity); test conditions and applicable test standards, sample size, test schedules, and test sequences. The test plan shall address all inspections, demonstrations, testing, and analysis required to validate the Product Baseline, including validation of the processes necessary to build the design. For configuration changes after FAT, the test plan shall include a description of all changes, to include the reason for the change(s), performance parameters that could be affected by each implemented change, and all other requirements of this paragraph. Acceptance Testing (AT) required for final Government acceptance shall be identified in the test plan. Any modifications to the test plan shall be agreed to in writing by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) prior to being implemented. FWS-I Test Plans are a deliverable under CDRL-D003.	Test plan development and iteration has traditionally driven increased cost and schedule on these programs. Recommend changing 3.4.10 to 'contractor format' and constraining the amount of iteration to one set of comments/revisions.	The government will not consider a change to limit the number of iterations of test plans, test procedures, FIARs and test reports. The Government believes the value to be worth the cost. One round of comment/revisions is possible with high quality initial submissions.F28	Nathan
	23	FWS-I SOW	3.4.11	Test Plans. For any system that has not attained MR, the contractor shall prepare and submit a Test Plan, DI-NDTI-80566A, for each system(s) prior to PQT, FAT, and for any configuration change after FAT. The test plan shall provide the approach for ensuring the system and/or major components meet the required performance specifications and applicable drawing requirements. The test plan shall include for each specification requirement, as a minimum, the method of validation (e.g., test, demonstration, inspection, analysis, similarity); test conditions and applicable test standards, sample size, test schedules, and test sequences. The test plan shall address all inspections, demonstrations, testing, and analysis required to validate the Product Baseline, including validation of the processes necessary to build the design. For configuration changes after FAT, the test plan shall include a description of all changes, to include the reason for the change(s), performance parameters that could be affected by each implemented change, and all other requirements of this paragraph. Acceptance Testing (AT) required for final Government acceptance shall be identified in the test plan. Any modifications to the test plan shall be agreed to in writing by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) prior to being implemented. FWS-I Test Plans are a deliverable under CDRL-D003.	Test procedure development and iteration has traditionally driven increased cost and schedule on these programs. Recommend changing 3.4.11 to 'contractor format' and constraining the amount of iteration to one set of comments/revisions.	The government will not consider a change to limit the number of iterations of test plans, test procedures, FIARs and test reports. The Government believes the value to be worth the cost. One round of comment/revisions is possible with high quality initial submissions.	POC
	24	FWS-I SOW	3.4.13.2	Reliability Program Plan (RPP). The contractor shall prepare and submit an RPP as a comprehensive summary of the FWS-I reliability activities, functions, processes, test strategies, measurements, data collections, resources, and timelines required to ensure that the specified reliability of the FWS-I will be achieved before fielding IAW CDRL-D006. Documentation of the reliability program activities shall be provided in the Reliability Case, which shall be made available to the Government upon request. The RPP shall address the management and organizational structure of personnel responsible for conduct of reliability activities, resources required to implement the plan, detailed descriptions of all planned reliability activities and schedule for completion, process for documentation and coordination with the customer, the plan to flow reliability down to subcontractors and suppliers, and how it is ensured that reliability activities are an integral part of systems engineering. The contractor shall identify the primary drivers of the overall system reliability and describe plans to mitigate the

reliability risks. The contractor shall describe how they propose to monitor, assess and report reliability data and findings during the program. The contractor shall provide a reliability prediction/allocation to the Line-Replacement- Unit (LRU) level for the complete FWS-I system. The contractor shall address the planned reliability demonstration, to include sample size, number of planned test hours, description of the test profile and environments, operational

checks to be performed, and facilities required.	RPP iteration has traditionally driven increased cost and schedule on these programs. Recommend constraining the amount of iteration to one set of comments/revisions.	The government will not consider a change to limit the number of iterations of test plans, test procedures, FIARs and test reports. The Government believes the value to be worth the cost. One round of comment/revisions is possible with high quality initial submissions.
	25	FWS-I SOW	3.4.15	Failed Item Analysis Reports (FIARs). The contractor shall submit a FIAR for each failure that occurs during system and component-level PQTs, FAT, CI testing, reliability testing, and Government DT/OT. The Contractor shall notify the Government within 48 hours of failure occurrence for failures occurring during system

and major components paragraph 3.10, PQT, FAT, CI testing, and reliability testing. The Government reserves the right to stop acceptance of product at any time while any FIAR is pending based on the impact of the failure in question. The complete content of the FIAR and a list of personnel to be notified of failures shall be concurred on by the IPPT at the PAC. A FIAR shall not be considered closed until the IPPT has concurred on the report. Concurrence by the Government is required prior to shipment of any potentially affected production units. 100% inspections/test (Group A) performance data shall be made available to the Government for review upon request. Each FWS-I Failure Notification shall be prepared and submitted as a deliverable under CDRL-D007. Each FWS-I

FIAR shall be prepared and submitted as a deliverable under CDRL-D005.	FIAR iteration has traditionally driven increased cost and schedule on these programs. Recommend constraining the amount of iteration to one set of comments/revisions.	The government will not consider a change to limit the number of iterations of test plans, test procedures, FIARs and test reports. The Government believes the value to be worth the cost. One round of comment/revisions is possible with high quality initial submissions.
	26	FWS-I SOW	Section H	SPECIAL CONSIDERATION:

Contractor Performance. If the contractor fails to meet performance requirements or contractual delivery schedules during contract execution, Government acceptance of Contract Line Items is suspended until all issues are resolved to the Government's satisfaction and a revised delivery schedule and associated consideration have been negotiated and incorporated into the contract. Additionally, the contractor may be suspended from competing in future Fair

Opportunity Delivery Order competitions until all issues are resolved to the Government's satisfaction. Consideration will be negotiated between both parties before any deviation is granted by the Government.	Missing a fair opportunity could cause suspension of the production line activities and would be make very difficult to ensure competition on future fair opportunities. Recommend removal or revision of this clause to allow contractors to maintain a hot assembly line well working through any issues.	This clause only gives the Government an optional course of action; it does not mandate that the contractor be restricted from fair opportunities.
	27	FWS-I Spec	General	N/A	The specification included in the draft does not include track changes making it very difficult to evaluate designs tailored to the previous specifications against it. Can the government supply a version of the specification that includes outlined changes?	The Government will not provide a red-line specification. It described key specification changes during April 1-on-1 sessions with industry, in written Q&A posted to beta.SAM.gov, and at the October industry day.
	28	FWS-I Spec	Table 4.6-1 - Group B		Group testing has traditionally added significant schedule risk to soldier programs. Please consider the following revisions to mitigate USG fielding risks:

-Changing all Group B production testing to Semi-annually.

-The following tests are qualified in PQT/FAT and are not related to variable performance, recommend removal from Group B: SiTF, Total Thermal Time constant, Weapon sight latency, RTA performance characteristics, Image Alignment, RTA Image Latency, RTA ENVG Image Latency, Initial Alignment, Manual Alignment, wireless link operational testing, low probability detection, Allowable Data Loss.	The Government does not expect Group B testing to be a cost driver. The contract contains provisions allowing reduced test frequency based on test data after award.
	29	FWS-I Spec	Table 4.6-1 - Group C	Group testing has traditionally added significant schedule risk to soldier programs. Please consider the following revisions to mitigate USG fielding risks:

-Changing all Group C production testing to Annually

-The following tests are qualified in PQT/FAT and are not related to variable performance, recommend removal from Group C: EMI, Humidity	In most cases, low quality equipment poses a much larger risk to the Soldier than slightly delayed fielding. Annual Group C testing represents an unacceptable risk to the Soldier.
	30	FWS-I Spec	Table 4.6-1 - Group D	Reliability testing has traditionally added significant schedule risk to soldier programs. Please consider the following revisions to mitigate USG fielding risks:

-Changing all Group D testing to Annually, testing reliability more frequently does not necessarily equate to a more reliable product but does increase the cost and risk of production.

	Testing doesn't make a product reliable; it prevents unreliable product from escaping. Testing reliability less frequently transfers risk of unreliable product to the Soldier. It also increases cost risk to the vendor, as the vendor would owe consideration for an entire year of production if the test does not demonstrate the required reliability.
	31	FWS-I Spec	3.3.7.1.2 Reliability Operational Conditions
3.3.8.1 Vibration		Recommend removal of the continues monitoring and data storage in favor of a method that accurately captures video during anomalies only. The current wording reduces throughput due to the increased infrastructure and adds more points of failure.	Monitoring must be continuous. Digital monitoring is acceptable. A method that identifies anomalies and only saves data proximal to anomalies may acceptable with sufficient validation.
	32	FWS-I Spec	3.3.2.1 - 3.3.2.6, 3.3.4.2-3.3.4.3, 3.3.6.3.2	RTA related requirements are outside of the scope of the FWS-I weapon sight. Please consider removal of the following:

3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.6 are outside of the scope of the weapon sight

3.3.4.2 through 3.3.4.3 are outside the scope of the weapon sight

3.3.6.3.2 is outside the scope of the weapon sight	The Government will remove the Image Alignment requirement. The Government agrees that the other performance parameters are not completely controlled by the FWS-I, but the FWS-I contributes to these system of systems performance parameters. The FWS-I design and performance must enable these requirements.
	33	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.1.1 (KPP) Clear-Air Target Recognition	FWS-I shall have a 70 percent or greater probability of recognizing a personnel-sized target (standing) out to a range of 960 meters (T), and 1200 meters (O) meters during night engagements in atmospheric conditions which provide seven kilometer visibility along an unobstructed line of sight (3.6.22). The FWS-I in clip-on mode must enable the Soldier to recognize a personnel-sized target (upright moving man) 70% of the time out to 960 meters (O). FWS-I, while in spatially aligned RTA mode (3.3.2.1.1), shall have an 80 percent or greater probability of recognizing a personnel-sized target (standing) out to a range of 300 meters (T), and 480 meters (O) meters during night engagements in atmospheric conditions which provide seven kilometer visibility along an unobstructed line of sight (3.6.22).	Requirements are established for recognizing a standing target at 70% probability (mode not specified) at threshold and objective ranges and recognizing an upright moving target at 80% probability (clip-on mode) at objective range only. 3.3.1.1.3 indicates use of V50=1.53 for both recognition tasks. Please clarify apparent conflict.	The target should be an "upright moving man" in all cases.
	34	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.2 Minimum Resolvable Temperature (MRT)	... Temperature differences at the nominal % Nyquist frequencies based on focal length and pixel pitch should be encapsulated in the spatial frequencies in Table 3.3.1.2-1. ...
	Please clarify the purpose of the italicization	The italics had no meaning and will be removed.
	35	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.3.1 Image uniformity	Both large and small area uniformity requirements specified below (3.3.1.3.1.1 to 3.3.1.3.1.4) shall be measured using the methodology described in Appendix B with the sensor viewing a uniform irradiance background having a temperature difference between -30°C and +30°C from the ambient air condition over the specified operating temperature extremes (Table 3.3.1.3.1- 1). The image uniformity shall be measured using both a digital output from the thermal sensor and measured viewing the display through the eyepiece.
	Measurement equipment for display-level uniformity requirements (3.3.1.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.3.1.4) is not rated for temperature extremes (below 0 C, above 40 C). Previous Army programs have specified the display-level requirements (3.3.1.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.3.1.4) to be at ambient only, while maintaining the thermal sensor requirements (3.3.1.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.3.1.2) at all the temperatures listed in table 3.3.1.3.1-1. Request similar spec modification here.	The Government will consider this request and revise the RFP appropriately.	Talk to Stephen Burks to see if we should only require system-level (display) uniformity at ambient?	JM
	36	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.3.2.1 Visual Image quality	... The FWS-I shall have no degradation of performance when used to observe, track, and/or fire at stationary or moving targets under all operational conditions. …	This sentence in the requirement has no quantitative methodology for a vendor to test, noting that degradation of performance is defined (3.6.2) as "a cumulative change of the measured level of performance to a value that is greater than 110% or less than 90% of the post-ESS measurement while remaining within the specified performance requirements. Cumulative change is that change which occurs or has occurred during one test or a series of tests.". Recommend changing the "shall" in this sentence to a "will".	This phrase will be removed from the paragraph
	37	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.3.3.3 Defective/No Information Pixels	No-information pixels (3.6.7 and 3.6.30) shall be substituted with information from nearby pixels to minimize visibility to the operator. …	3.6.30 addresses defective display pixels. Technology does not exist to perform the electronic correction (substitution) required by this paragraph. Recommend changing to: "No-information pixels (3.6.7) shall be substituted with information from nearby pixels to minimize visibility to the operator. The FWS-I shall conform to the defective/no information pixel requirements of Appendix E."	The reference to 3.6.30 will be removed
	38	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.5 (KPP) Field-of-View (FOV)	… NFOV and indicator line widths shall be in accordance with 3.3.3.12.1. …	Referenced paragraph 3.3.3.12.1 should instead refer to 3.3.3.13.1	References to 3.3.3.12.1 and 3.3.3.12.8 will both be corrected.
	39	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.5.2 FOV Interalignment	… a target in the center of the wide field of view optics shall be within 1 IFOV in target space of the center of the narrow field of view…	The term "IFOV" is not defined within this document. To remove ambiguity, we recommend defining it as the angular extent of a central single thermal sensor pixel	IFOV will be defined in this paragraph.
	40	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.6 Operational Readiness	… The functioning of standby mode is described in Section 3.3.3.13.7.	The paragraph referenced to describe standby mode (3.3.3.13.7) addresses the Mil-Scale Reticle, not standby mode and should be changed to 3.3.3.14.7	The reference will be corrected.
	41	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.9.1 FWS-I Eyepiece	The FWS-I eyepiece, when used in conjunction with a DVO, shall be designed to be optimized for the systems included in Table 3.3.1.9.1-1:

Table 3.3.1.9.1-1. FWS-I Optimized Direct View Optic

System Name Aimpoint M68 Close Combat Optic (CCO) Trijicon M150 ACOG (RCO)

NGSW-FC	When will information on the NGSW-FC be available to support the optimization required by this paragraph?	The Government will share interface parameters as soon as they are available. The three primary optimization parameters are zoom, focus, and alignment of the optical axis. The NGSW-FC is actually controlling these features to match the current FWS-I.
	42	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.13 Display Brightness	... When viewed through the eyepiece, the display brightness level (with the display color of the thermal imagery) shall be adjustable from 0.05fL (minimum brightness setting / addressable gray-level 1) to at least …	Specifying the minimum brightness setting as a value as opposed to a limit leads to ambiguity. Recommend changing

from: " ... When viewed through the eyepiece, the display brightness level (with the display color of the thermal imagery) shall be adjustable from 0.05fL ..."

to: " ... When viewed through the eyepiece, the display brightness level (with the display color of the thermal imagery) shall be adjustable from no greater than 0.05fL ..."

The Government will incorporate the recommendation.
43	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.14.1 (KPP) Battery Life	The FWS-I shall be fully operational over the battery life requirements specified in Table 3.3.1.14.1-1:	Are certain operational conditions such as display brightness, full-on/standby, RTA mode, etc that reflect an operational mode summary required for meeting the battery life, or is that left to the contractor?	Battery life shall be tested in full-on mode with the display brightness set to at least 4 fott-lamberts and transmitting video via ISW 100% of the time
44	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.14.2 (KPP) Low battery indicator (LBI)	... The low battery indicator shall be optimized for the primary battery. …	Please clarify this portion of the paragraph: " The low battery indicator shall be optimized for the primary battery." Does this mean the 20-min requirement only applies to the primary battery?	Correct, the 20-min (+20/-15) requirement only applies to the primary battery?
45	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.1.14.3 Battery Voltage Indicator	... Refer to Table 3.3.1.14.3-1 for a breakdown of graduations shown on the battery voltage indicator display with respect to temperature and battery life remaining. …	(1) Paragraph mentions temperature but the referenced table has no temperature information. How does temperature apply to this table? (2) Table 3.3.1.14.3-1 has no tolerancing between each level. Recommend adding a +/- 5% tolerance (3) Recommend adding a reference that this only applies to the primary battery	(1) The Battery indication shall be accurate for the temperature the sight is operating in for any temperature in the Operating temperature range. The sight should measure temperature and battery voltage and display the appropriate bars based on those conditions.

(2) The Table provides only provides nominal voltage percentages

(3) This statement will be added

46	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.1 RTA Modes	Over the full operating temperature range of the FWS-I (3.3.8.2.) and the ISW ICD compliant headset, the RTA modes shall be available 130 milliseconds after the user toggles an RTA mode change. …	Recommend changing from "shall be available 130 milliseconds after" to "shall be available within 130 milliseconds after" so that the requirement does not preclude faster performance.	The current language is not restrictive. If the mode is available starting at 100 milliseconds, it will also be available at 130 milliseconds.
47	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.1.1 (KPP) Spatially Aligned	Partial weapon sight imagery and reticle warped/scaled and spatially aligned with the thermal imagery of the ISW ICD compliant headset.	Recommend moving the text of this paragraph to section 3.6 as it is a definition of spatially aligned.	The definition was added to section 3.6
48	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.1.2.1 Presentation	no requirement is stated	Paragraph 3.3.2.1.2.1 is not present in the specification but is listed in Table 4.6-1 as "Presentation"	The FOV requirement will be changed to 3.3.2.1.2.1, and the table updated
49	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.1.3.1 Presentation	no requirement is stated	Paragraph 3.3.2.1.3.1 is not present in the specification but is listed in Table 4.6-1 as "Presentation"	The reference will be corrected.
50	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.2.2 Presentation	no requirement is stated	Paragraph 3.3.2.2.2 is not present in the specification but is listed in Table 4.6-1 as "RTA ENVG Image Latency"	The reference will be corrected.
51	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.3 RTA Frame Rate	The frame rate for all RTA modes (3.3.2.1) shall be 59.1 Hz ± 0.1 Hz.	Is the RTA Frame Rate requirement (59.1 Hz ± 0.1 Hz.) the same for both threshold and objective FWS-I Frame Rates (3.3.1.3.4)?	The FWS-I must conform to the ISW ICD. The Government is considering removing this paragraph from the FWS-I spec to prevent overly specifying the FWS-I ISW output.	replace this paragraph with "deleted"	JM
52	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.4 Deleted	no requirement is stated	Paragraph 3.3.2.4 is "Deleted" in the specification but is included in Table 4.6-1	This will be corrected.
53	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.4.1.2 FWS-I Calibration	If the FWS-I requires a Calibration that lasts longer than 0.5 seconds due to a large change in ambient temperature (lookup table change), an indicator informing the user a calibration is needed shall appear in the display of the ISW ICD headset. ...	It is not clear what this calibration refers to. Paragraph 3.3.3.14.9 limits loss of imagery to no more than 1/2 second. Does this paragraph allow paragraph 3.3.3.14.9 to be violated? By locating this in the RTA section, does it apply only when video is being output for RTA?	FWS-I calibration shall take no more than 0.500 seconds. This paragraph will be deleted.
54	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.4.1.4 Zoom	When applicable, an indicator informing the user that the weapon sight imagery is zoomed shall be displayed in the ISW ICD headset Goggle. The indicator shall only be displayed during the time the imagery is zoomed. The indicator shall be white text/symbology.	Does this establish a requirement for the FWS-I to add a zoom symbol within the video, or does it pass the zoom state to the ISW ICD headset as a discrete?	The FWS-I passes the zoom state in accordance with the ISW ICD.
55	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.5.1 RTA Image Characteristics	The RTA image characteristics shall maintain a Structural Similarity (SSIM) value of that stated in table 3.3.2.5.1-1 for all RTA modes. …	SSIM is not defined within this specification. Does rotation apply to rotation about parallel optical axes for the FWS-I and the paired ISW ICD headset?	The Government will remove this requirement.
56	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.5.2 RTA Visual Image Quality	Spurious images and noise patterns shall not be discernible over the ISW ICD headset entire field of view (ISW ICD headset PD, 3.7.37). …	What does "ISW ICD headset PD, 3.7.37" refer to? FWS-I performance specification should only specify its requirements as it is unable to impact other hardware.

The first sentence of this requirement seems unnecessary since its requirements are addressed in paragraph 3.3.1.3.2.1 "Visual Image Quality"	The Government will remove the first sentence of this paragraph.
	57	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.2.6 RTA Operational Readiness	Over the full operating temperature range of the FWS-I (3.3.8.2.) and the ISW ICD headset (ISW ICD headset PD, 3.5.2), the RTA capability shall be available within 15 seconds after the user toggles the FWS-I and ISW ICD compliant headset power.	What does "ISW ICD headset PD, 3.5.2" refer to? FWS-I performance specification should only specify its requirements as it is unable to impact other hardware. Recommend the Army consider establishing a "RTA Performance Specification" that the FWS-I and any ISW ICD Compliant headset reference and require that each end of the link perform its part of the RTA.	The reference to ISW ICD headset is unnecessary.
	58	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.1 (KPP) Weight	The maximum allowable FWS-I total system weight is 1.5 lbs. (threshold) 1.0 lbs. (objective). The specified weight limit includes the weight of ... one additional set of batteries (if required), and the eyecup (3.2.2.i). …	The eyecup is paragraph 3.2.2.h in this document. What is meant by "one additional set of batteries (if required)"?	The Government will correct the reference. That is a vestigial reference from last solicitation. It will be deleted as will the weight objective.
	59	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.6 Transit/storage case	... The FWS-I, in its transit/storage case or commercially acceptable container, shall survive, without damage or performance degradation, normal commercial (i.e., tractor trailer, flatbed trailer, delivery truck, overnight delivery aircraft) and military methods of transportation (i.e., cargo aircraft/truck, helicopter).	Traditionally compliance to the 2nd half of this spec paragraph is validated by testing to paragraph 3.3.8.15 (Transit Drop Shock). Recommend including a reference to paragraph 3.3.8.15 here. Also ensure table 4.6 aligns these two paragraphs (currently there are different sample-sizes)	The second half of this requirement will be validated via transport vibration profile.
	60	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.7 Mechanical Zero	The infrared line of sight corresponding to the center of the FWS-I display shall be parallel to the sight’s mounting surface to within 10% of the NFOV with the reticle position indicator at zero/zero (in standalone mode only). ... and in accordance with paragraph 3.3.3.12.	Does 10% of the NFOV refer to the vertical or horizontal narrow field of view? Referenced paragraph 3.3.3.12 refers to Symbology Burn-In and should be changed to 3.3.3.13 (Reticle)	The Government will clarify that the requirement refers to the vertical NFOV. Reference will be corrected.
	61	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.9 Eyepiece Lens Focus	The FWS-I shall have a fixed diopter setting of +0.04/-0.06 diopters. The diopter settings shall not be changed by environmental conditions including weapon fire.	Does this mean that the diopter shall be no less than -0.06 and no greater than +0.04? Recommend clarifying the requirement to remove ambiguity.	The government will add clarification that the target value is 0.00.
	62	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.10 Proscribed area Concerning M4/M16 Series Weapons	... All controls on the FWS-I shall be accessible by the operator when mounted on the MIL-STD-1913 rail as configured in Figure 1. ...	Referenced Figure 1 does not exist in this document and should instead refer to Figure 3.3.3.10-1	No figure reference is necessary. The phrase will be changed to standalone mode.
	63	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.11 Proscribed area Concerning NGSW FC Series Weapons	The FWS-I shall not interfere with lines of sight needed for operation of the NGSW-FC. FWS-Is shall be limited to a height of 2.68 inches above the rail, and maximum width of 3.23 inches.	Does a FWS-I meeting the second sentence (no taller than 2.68 inches, no wider than 3.23 inches) satisfy the requirement in the first sentence? If not, please clarify what is needed to avoid NGSW-FC LOS interference.	Meeting the dimension requirements will ensure compatibility with NGSW-FC.	Need to revise the height, width, and railgrabber dimension.	JM
	64	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.12 Symbology Burn-In	There shall be no residual visible symbology (3.6.24), to include the reticle (3.3.3.12), perceivable by the operator on the FWS-I display, when fully operational, under all display settings (3.3.1.13).	Referenced paragraph 3.3.3.12 is a self-reference and should be changed to 3.3.3.13 (Reticle). Similarly, referenced paragraph 3.3.1.13 should be changed to 3.3.1.14 (Controls)	Agree. The Government will correct both references in this paragraph.
	65	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.13 Reticle	The FWS-I shall have reticles compatible with each supported weapon. The reticle patterns shall be electronically generated in accordance with Appendix F, …	When will reticle information for the NGSW and SDMR be available?	The Government expects to have SDMR and NGSW reticles available at the time of contract award.
	66	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.13.1 Reticle Size	The FWS-I reticle line thickness shall be no greater than one IFOV. …	The term IFOV is not defined. In this context does it mean the angular extent of a central thermal sensor pixel ?	The definition of IFOV will be added to its first use in the document (3.3.1.5.2)
	67	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.13.9 Reticle Alignment with DVO	The FWS-I shall provide a mode that allows for the alignment of the FWS-I reticle with the zeroed DVO aimpoint. When in this mode, the FWS-I display shall maintain the clip-on configuration alignment and any display dithering (if required) shall be disabled. Once aligned, these reticle settings shall be retained for use in the RTA and Standalone modes	Is the intent of this requirement to assure that aligning the FWS-I reticle to the DVO for this mode is accomplished by moving the reticle within the display and not by moving the displayed image?	Yes.
	68	Attachment 001 SPECS FRP-PRF-FWSI.docx	3.3.3.14 Controls	The operator control functions in sections 3.3.3.13.1 through 3.3.3.13.15 shall be provided on the FWS-I. All controls to implement these control functions shall:

a. have positive stops or indicate actuation on the display.

b. indicate function, direction and resulting action.

c. not allow accidental movement of the controls in all environmental conditions including weapon shock.

d. be adjustable using bare hands, MOPP-IV gloves and/or arctic mittens.

e. be easily adjusted by the 5th to 95th percentile of US Army personnel while in the firing position with the FWS-I mounted on all of the supported weapons.

f. not present a discernable delay (3.6.3) between actuation and completion of control adjustment unless otherwise stated. SOW 3.2.3 requires compatibility with buttonology located in the TM 11-588-343-10. Performance spec is missing this requirement. If this is a requirement on the weapon sight, it should be added to this performance spec to preclude conflicting requirements. If it is a requirement, please provide the referenced TM.

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Oct 29, 2020.