Remote Weapon Systems (RWS)

Closed Solicitation Posted Aug 23, 2021

This opportunity was awarded. See the award notice from Oct 31, 2022.

Solicitation number: W15QKN-21-R-0025
Agency: ACC Picatinny Army Contracting Command, Department of Defense
Responses due: Jan 31, 2022, 12:00 PM ET
Set-aside: No set-aside

Opportunity facts

NAICS code: 332994 Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing
PSC: 1090 Assemblies Interchangeable Between Weapons In Two Or More Classes

Notice details come from SAM.gov. Updated Jan 25, 2022.

About this opportunity

Written by GovTribe AI · Jan 1, 2024

The Army Contracting Command - New Jersey, on behalf of Project Manager Soldier Lethality, is soliciting proposals to award an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity hybrid firm fixed price and time and material contract to procure Common Remotely Operated Weapon Stations, related kits, spare parts, engineering services, and logistics support for new and existing remote weapon system requirements. The solicitation requires the procurement of Common Remotely Operated Weapon Stations, along with variants such as the Abrams Low Profile, Navy Mk-50, United States Marine Corps Amphibious Remote Weapon Station, and Stryker, as well as associated spare parts, kits, conversions, shop and line replaceable units, engineering services, depot labor, field service technician support, and logistics services. Proposals are due by contacting the contracting officer prior to the deadline of January 31, 2022.

No set-aside is designated for this procurement. The primary NAICS code is 332994 and PSC code is J067. The incumbent contractor is Kongsberg. The period of performance is five years and the place of performance is Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. The Army anticipates procuring over 100 individual items in quantities ranging from single units to hundreds per item. The total contract value is not specified but will include requirements for initial production rates of 50 systems per month ramping up to 150 systems per month as needed.

Notice text

20 versions

As posted on SAM.gov.

Update #20 · Latest · Jan 25, 2022

1/25/2022

Attachment 0001 Government Furnished Property -Update - 1-18-22 has been added in the attachments sections and replaces the previous version. The list includes additional obsolescence / GFM items.

1/21/2022

W15QKN-21-R-0025 Master List 20220121 rev has been uploaded to the attachments section with recent Q&As.

Q&As 1/13/2022

QUESTION: Will the Government please clarify if the NRE for First Article Test (FAT) in OPY2-OPY5 is to cover testing for the following configurations: 60201886-03, 60201886-08-C02-L01, 60201886-11-C01-L01?

Answer: NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation.

QUESTION: Will the Government please clarify if the NRE for First Article Test (FAT) in OPY2-OPY5 is to cover testing on one system or three systems for the following three configurations - 60201886-03, 60201886-08-C02-L01, 60201886-11-C01-L01?

Answer: NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation.

QUESTION: Since the events that may generate the need to perform subsequent First Article Test as defined by C.3.4.2 are unknown and reasonably unpredictable, will the Government exclude the NRE for First Article Test (FAT) in OPY2-OPY5 in the Total Evaluated Price?

Answer: NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation.

12/16/2021

Q: Based on lack of responses to date on specific questions provided with affected files concerning TDP artifacts in foreign languages, several incomplete drawings, and undetermined availability of parts identified as sole-source to Kongsberg, will the Government extend the due date to 30 days after the provision of these specific responses to allow the Offeror to prepare competitive pricing?

A: The RFP due date has been extended to 31 January 2022 on account of a revised TDP now available to be provided upon request.

12/14/2021

Attached are the following two excel documents:

Unique Obsolete Item Response

W15QKN21R0025 Questions and Answers

11/19/2021

The Government will be posting all Q&A's on a word document which will contain all Q&As to date, if you have any questions please email the POCs below:

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Army Contracting Command - New Jersey (ACC-NJ), Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, on behalf of Project Manager Soldier Lethality (PM SL), issues this competitive request for the procurement of the RWS. This requirement is in support of new and existing RWS for continued support of the existing fielded Common Remotely Operating Weapon Station (CROWS). CROWS is to be procured under this acquisition. The program will support new and emerging customer requirements to include RWS variants such as Abrams Low Profile, Navy Mk-50, United States Marine Corps (USMC) Amphibious Remote Weapon Station (ARWS) and Stryker. This acquisition will also include requirements for kit spare parts, kits, conversions, shop replaceable units, line replaceable units, engineering services, depot labor, field service technician support, and logistics services. The applicable NAICS code is: 332994.

The acquisition approach is to issue a full and open competitive (F&OC), Hybrid Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) and Time and Material (T&M) contract will be awarded to one (1) contractor.

For U.S. & Canadian Companies: In order to process a request for the data, each requester (U.S. & Canada) must complete and submit a DD2345 Military Critical Technical Data Agreement, AMSTA-AR Form 1350 Technical Data Request Questionnaire, and Non-Disclosure Agreement which will be provided. The agreement will include requirements for limiting distribution of data and the destruction of data provided or reproduced.

For Other Foreign Companies: In order to process a request for the data, each requester (Other Foreign) must complete and submit a AMSTA-AR Form 1350 Technical Data Request Questionnaire and a Non-Disclosure Agreement which will be provided and also be compliant with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The agreement will include requirements for limiting distribution of data and the destruction of data provided or reproduced.

This announcement serves as notification that export control procedures regulated by the ITAR are in effect on the above stated data. Contractors that are interested in receiving this data must be in compliance with the ITAR and possess the proper authorities to receive this data and are encouraged to do so as soon as possible. The data will be marked Distribution Statement B Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only. All other requests for this data shall be referred to Project Manager Soldier Lethality. Foreign vendors and contractors shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items, including, but not limited to, the requirement for Contractors to register with the Department of State in accordance with the ITAR. The Contractors responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, the information provided above.

The Government anticipates making one award. All information is to be furnished at no obligation to the Government. The contractor should ensure that all attachments are down loaded and reviewed carefully prior to submission. If a contractor is planning on submitting a proposal in response to the RFP, the contracting officer should be notified prior to the due date to arrange drop off.

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

The points of contact for this action are:

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Angelica M. Merino, Contract Specialist,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

AND

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

Update #19 · Jan 21, 2022

1/21/2022

W15QKN-21-R-0025 Master List 20220121 rev has been uploaded to the attachments section with recent Q&As.

Q&As 1/13/2022

Answer: NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation.

12/16/2021

A: The RFP due date has been extended to 31 January 2022 on account of a revised TDP now available to be provided upon request.

12/14/2021

Attached are the following two excel documents:

Unique Obsolete Item Response

W15QKN21R0025 Questions and Answers

11/19/2021

The Government will be posting all Q&A's on a word document which will contain all Q&As to date, if you have any questions please email the POCs below:

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

The points of contact for this action are:

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Angelica M. Merino, Contract Specialist,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

AND

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

Update #18 · Jan 13, 2022

Q&As 1/13/2022

Answer: NRE is not required to be proposed for OP2-OP5 of the solicitation.

12/16/2021

A: The RFP due date has been extended to 31 January 2022 on account of a revised TDP now available to be provided upon request.

12/14/2021

Attached are the following two excel documents:

Unique Obsolete Item Response

W15QKN21R0025 Questions and Answers

11/19/2021

The Government will be posting all Q&A's on a word document which will contain all Q&As to date, if you have any questions please email the POCs below:

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

The points of contact for this action are:

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Angelica M. Merino, Contract Specialist,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

AND

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

Update #17 · Dec 16, 2021

12/16/2021

A: The RFP due date has been extended to 31 January 2022 on account of a revised TDP now available to be provided upon request.

12/14/2021

Attached are the following two excel documents:

Unique Obsolete Item Response

W15QKN21R0025 Questions and Answers

11/19/2021

The Government will be posting all Q&A's on a word document which will contain all Q&As to date, if you have any questions please email the POCs below:

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

The points of contact for this action are:

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Angelica M. Merino, Contract Specialist,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

AND

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

Update #16 · Dec 14, 2021

12/14/2021

Attached are the following two excel documents:

Unique Obsolete Item Response

W15QKN21R0025 Questions and Answers

11/19/2021

The Government will be posting all Q&A's on a word document which will contain all Q&As to date, if you have any questions please email the POCs below:

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

The points of contact for this action are:

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Angelica M. Merino, Contract Specialist,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

AND

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

Update #15 · Nov 19, 2021

11/19/2021

The Government will be posting all Q&A's on a word document which will contain all Q&As to date, if you have any questions please email the POCs below:

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

The points of contact for this action are:

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Angelica M. Merino, Contract Specialist,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

AND

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

Update #14 · Nov 19, 2021

The Government has additional responses to submitted questions, due to system restrictions they cannot be posted here. To receive a copy of the questions send a request to Angelica, Renee or Stephanie @

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/19/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Q: Request the government extend the proposal due date at least 30 days after provision of complete TDPs to permit complete screening of the TDP for accuracy anda common build-to-print for all Offerors.

A: Proposal due date has been extended.

Ref: General

Q: Offeror requests the Government to extend the due date of proposals to February 22, 2022 because of the following issues that impact our ability to generate a detailed proposal for US Government consideration.

A: Proposal due date has been extended.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Review of the TDP identified the part below with two different screw descriptions.

o Pan Head Screw 50033917 A Hexagon Socket Head Cap Screw ISO 4762-M5x12-A4-70 Blackening KVS-50

Q: Will the Government identify the correct description?

A: Pan head" is a typo in this case. The correct description is "hexagon socket head cap screw.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Review of the TDP has identified the following drawing in a language other than English. See attached drawing. o A104550

Q: Will the Government provide the listed drawing in English?

A: The Government will not be able to provide the drawing in English

Ref: Previous Q&A

Q: Is data available on historical parts consumption in support of remanufacturing / repair activity?

A: Depot maintenance cost reports (without cost data) will be provided as at attachment to the RFP.

Q: It does not appear as if the USG provided the Depot maintenance cost reports (without cost data) as promised in the Industry Day Q&A response. This data is also listed as being provided in the solicitation as Attachment 0025 (ref pg 75, Ref J of solicitation W15QKN-21-R-0025). This data is required in order to properly plan for the procurement of parts in support of the depot activity. We will need at least 90 days after receipt of the Depot Maintenance Cost Reports to obtain costing information and submit a proposal.

A: This was omitted in error and is now on SAM.GOV for download.

Ref: Section C, para C.3.2.3

Para C.3.2.3. of W15QKN-21-R-0025 states “The Contractor shall convert RWS systems from the M151 or RWS configurations to any other feasible RWS configuration and test, and deliver to the Government. The parts delivered shall satisfy all the requirements of GSPEC00008 unless otherwise noted in this SOW.”

Q: No information has been provided to date on the M151 configuration and the differences between that configuration and the other RWS configurations. We will need at least 90 days after receipt of the M151 configuration to obtain costing information and submit a proposal.

A: Conversion production are not currently separate LINs to be proposed within this solicitation. The Government has already provided a conversion TDP as a reference for the offerors under ECP-10896 and ECP 10919. Conversions will be priced after contract award utilizing the awarded labor rates from exhibit K and material prices in exhibit G.

Ref: Attachment 0016, Exhibit K

Solicitation Attachment 0016, Exhibit K – Depot (Pricing Matrix) states: “Material costs will be proposed on a task/delivery order basis, utilizing the unit prices negotiated and incorporated of the resultant contract in Exhibit G - SRUs. The Government provided amounts are shown in the chart below for evaluation purposes only.”

Q: Our interpretation of Exhibit G is this only includes pricing for “new production” SRU’s. There are no provisions in Attachment 0016 to provide overhaul/repair pricing for SRU’s (or LRU’s) for use in depot maintenance of the Systems, Attachment 0016, Exhibit K. Standard Depot Maintenance practices are to utilize overhauled or repaired material for LRU’s and SRU’s where allowed and practical as this practice results in lower costs and lead times. Please clarify the acceptability of overhauled / repaired LRU’s and SRU’s for the depot operations and provide guidance on where these items are to be priced in Solicitation Attachment 16.

A: Exhibit G is the Government's expected material needed at depot based on historical operations. if the Contractor chooses to repair at a different level and is bilaterally agreed to by the Government, then the material cost shall be invoiced at the actual labor hours and cost of the material used for the SRU repair.

Ref: TDP

In Section 1, pg 4-5 and Section 7, pg 99 of Document 1DOO60201888-01 (Work Instruction for Mechanical assembly of Main Frame Assembly, Part Number 60201888-01) there is a reference to a test document “4DOO68095598, Work Instruction for Leakage Test of Main Frame Assembly”. We are unable to locate the 4DOO68095598 document anywhere in the supplied technical data.

Q: Please provide the missing 4DOO68095598 document ASAP to support the estimating for the Main Frame Assembly testing.

A: Test procedures will not be provided. Test requirements are provided in the TDP. For the MFA 60201888-01, the leak test requirements are provided in A124313.

Ref: RFP, page 117, d. Total Evaluated Price:

States: The total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the evaluated prices for the Service LINs, the weighted evaluated prices for the Supply LINs and the price evaluation preferences for HUBZone Small Business Concerns and the Royalty adjustment, when applicable

Q: Will the government confirm the Royalty adjustment is applied to new production items only and is not applied to repair or depot repair items?

A: Correct, royalty adjustment is only applied to new production.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

A thorough review of the TDP has not resulted in an identifiable Bill(s) of Materials.

Q: Would the government point us to the indented BOM for each CROWS variant?

A: Each CROWS variant is described by a part number starting with 60201886. Within the TDP HTML structure, these are defined as type "System Part". The parts list icon ( ) can be clicked next to the "System Part" to show the BOM for the configuration.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Pricing efforts have encountered parts that are available exclusively to Kongsberg and unavailable for purchase. We are compiling a list but provide the following example: sell to Kongsberg only list from one wire vendor TE Connectivity (attached, TE Connectivity No Buy List.png).

Q: Will the Government arrange for such exclusive parts to be made available for Offeror pricing/purchase or provide these separately as GFE?

A: The government will provide direction at the conclusion of its resolution effort on this matter.

Ref: Q&A’s released 11-02-2021

States: We will provide the approved LCSP and CPD. The LCSP should contain information pertaining to sustainment metrics. We do not have a baseline of the 12 IPS elements that we can share. We will answer any specific questions with respect to the 12 IPS elements that the LCSP does not address.

Q: To support generating the required draft ISP for the response, when will the Government provide the LCSP and CPD?

A: These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE, if you did not receive a copy please request the documents with the contract specialist.

Ref: RFP, Section C, Performance Work Statement, C.3.6.4 Depot Setup and Operation

States: The Contractor shall manage and maintain a depot-level maintenance and repair capability for components to include overhaul, recapitalization, warranty repairs, all Subcontractor repair actions, and other support required to return the system (new, existing, and recapitalized), assemblies or components to a serviceable condition

Q: Is the word ‘depot’ in Section C.3.6.4 defined to be an existing U.S. Army depot facility? If the definition is an existing U.S. Army depot facility, is the Offeror expected to establish a support relationship with a specific U.S. Army depot? If Offerors are expected to establish a support relationship with a specific U.S. Army depot, would the Government provide which U.S. Army depot the relationship is to be established?

A: No, the word depot is not defined to be an existing U.S. Army depot facility. Offerors are required to establish their own depot facility.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

A review of the TDP has discovered that the documentation for 50031661-00 CABLE TWINAX 0026A0024-9X 100OHM WHITE, attached (A31137_-.pdf), is incomplete and lacks reference to the part.

Q: Will the Government provide the complete / correct document?

A: Updated document will be provided.

Ref: Q&As 11/03/2021

States: The Government is currently updating the technical manuals for the tech refresh versions. For information purposes the Government will provide the TM 9-1090-219-10, TM 9-1090-222-10, TM 9-1090-219-23&P, and TM 9-1090-222-23&P as attachments to the RFP.

Q: To support generating the response, when will the Government provide the listed Technical Manuals?

A: These were sent 5NOV21 via SAFE, if you did not receive a copy please request the documents with the contract specialist.

Ref: RFP, Section C.3.3.5 Configuration Management and Control

Ideally CM would be supported by a real-time interface between the Government and the Contractor’s CM systems, or by Contractor access to the Government’s tools.

Q1: What are the government’s tools for configuration management?

A1: The USG uses a collaborative data environment called Windchill. This is also the same environment used for CDRL delivery.

Q2: Will the contractor have access to the government’s CM tool(s)?

A2: Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the contractor awardee will be given access to all relevant tools.

Q3: Will the contractor also have digital connectivity to pass data to/from the government’s CM tool(s).

A3: Yes after requesting certificates to access the site, the contractor awardee will be given access to all relevant tools.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Pricing and execution necessarily include assessing the contractor’s performance risk after contract award. To that end:

Q: Does the Government own and possess the TDP documents/ native files that were not originally released with the solicitation?

A: Yes

Ref: SOW, C.3.3.5.5

SOW C.3.3.5.5 states to procure all hardware/software/firmware to a single design.

Q: When there is an Engineering Change or a variant of the single design (i.e., an option/change would classify as a variant to the single design), does the requirement need the Offeror to:

(1) rev dash each variant (meaning there is a single design for the RWS, but if the option for a specific caliber was activated the result would be the same core part number with a different dash number (e.g., main design is XXXXXX-001 and the one with the specific caliber option would be XXXXXX-004); or (2) wrap the entire design in a single rev dash number with options (meaning there is a single design for the RWS, and if the option for a specific caliber was activated the same part number would be utilized with no differentiation, therefore main design and the option activated designs will be XXXXXX-001 and the Serial Number will determine if the option is enabled or not)?

A: The Offeror will need to deliver everything to the one design contained in the TDP unless there is an approved ECP. If there is an approved ECP, there would be a change in Revision or part number. It is also possible that through engineering services the Government would add additional designs, but when the Government buys to a given design, the Offeror cannot make changes to it without an ECP (that is then reflected through a change in Revision or part number)

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Drawing A104550_-.pdf (attached) is in a language other than English.

Q: Will the Government provide the drawing in English?

A: No, the Government will not provide the drawing in English.

Ref: Q&A, Released 10-23-2021

In an earlier question from 10-22-2021, the question was asked about a number of drawings written in a language other than English. In response to the Government reply “The alleged issues are stated generally and without specifics, thus preventing the GOV from addressing or explaining any perceived issues,” we provided specific examples of documents in the TDP that are in a language other than English.

Q1: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents released to offerors as of today (Nov 9, 2021) are in English language only?

A1: The Government acknowledges that there are documents in our TDP in languages other than English.

Q2: Will the Government confirm all TDP documents in their possession are in English and not in a language other than English?

A2: The Government acknowledges that there are documents in our TDP in languages other than English.

Q3: Will Government re-issue those documents in the TDP that are in a language other than English to Offerors prior to the current proposal due date of 22 November?

A3: No, the Government will not re-issue documents that are currently in a language other than English.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/10/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The request for proposal has been extended to December 23, 2021 at 12:00pm.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/09/2021--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

Ref: Multiple documents in the TDP are in languages other than English. Examples of these are Drawing 81-053 (French), Drawing A102921 (German), and others are believed to be in Nordic.

Q: Request the Government provide these documents and all documents in the TDP in English.

A: 81-053: Part number 68112449 is a source controlled part. This part can be purchased from EMKA Beschlagteile, with vendor part number 6004-U30-JD.
A102921: Part number 60202420-00 is a source controlled part. This part can be purchased from Norelem, with vendor part number 03025-04. For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified.

Ref: Multiple documents in the TDP are incomplete or missing drawings and/or data. Examples of these are Drawing 81-053 (part of the drawing is cut off as well as the distribution statement is missing); Drawing 68098107 (missing length and width of a part); and Drawing S405009_U (data on the drawing is cut off as well as the distribution statement is missing).

Q1: Will the Government correct these drawings and issue to offerors?

A: 81-053: Part number 68112449 is a source controlled part. This part can be purchased from EMKA Beschlagteile, with vendor part number 6004-U30-JD. The distribution statement is on the datasheet in the TDP.
68098107: All information for this part is in the provided drawing.
S405009_U: We acknowledge that there is some information cutoff, but all the relevant information to procure this part is legible. The distribution statement is on the datasheet in the TDP. For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified.

Q2: Will the Government review all drawings in the TDP for accuracy and complete details and information?

A: The TDPs are provided to set the parameters within which the contractor shall build the RWS hardware. The Government does NOT warrant that all RWS built to the Technical Data Package will meet requirements or interface seamlessly with the provided software. The Government only warrants that it is possible to build RWS, within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, which meet requirements. This is represented by the RWS provided to the contractor. The contractor shall be responsible for determining how to build RWS within the constraints of the Technical Data Package that (when combined with the provided software executable code) meet all requirements as outlined in this Statement of Work and the Detail Specification.

For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified.

Ref: Attachment 11 is the QSPEC008 dated 6 October, 2020. The document is watermarked as “Draft”.

Q1: Will the Government confirm the Draft Document is the most recent and authoritative QSPEC008 for Offerors?

A: Attachment 0011 GSPEC00008 dated 06 Oct 2020 is not a DRAFT. A DRAFT GPEC00008 was released with the DRAFT RFP.

Q2: If the Attachment issued with the solicitation is not the most recent and authoritative QSPEC008 for reference, will the Government either acknowledge the draft document and provide instructions for use or will the Government issue the approved QSPEC008 for use by Offerors?

A: Attachment 0011 GSPEC00008 dated 06 Oct 2020 is not a DRAFT. A DRAFT GPEC00008 was released with the DRAFT RFP.

Ref: In Exhibit D, the CROWS M153 listed as LIN 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 are annotated as “TBD”. The configuration of these systems is not found in the solicitation or the TDPs.

Q1: Will the Government provide the configuration of these documents in order to configure and estimate each LIN?

A: The TBD is in reference to the model number (M153Ax) only. The TDP for these LINs can be found within the entire TDP package released.

Q2: Is the Government’s intent for LIN 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 to provide a plug value for all Offerors to use in our response?

A: No, it is the USG's intent for the Offerors to bid based on the provided TDPs.

Ref: In the TDPs and Attachment 16 there is not a list of parts that Offerors may not deviate from.

Q: Request that the Government define a list of parts for each system and variant that Offerors will not deviate from, and that list be provided to Offerors.

A: All Offerors must meet all requirements of the TDP. If an item has detailed drawings, it must meet those detailed drawings. If an item is a product specification, it must meet all specifications,. For items that are source controlled, must be procured from the identified source. Any deviations to the TDP must be approved by the Government via an ECP per the requirements in the SOW.

Ref: While absorbing the GFI Technical Design Packages, multiple items have been identified as sole-source products of American Rheinmetall Systems, LLC., Rheinmetall AG, Hansen Protection, and MOOG. The list is expanding daily. To date, two of the vendors listed in the TDP (American Rheinmetall Systems and Hansen Protection) have declined to provide prices due to an exclusive agreement with Kongsberg. We are unable to procure quotes from alternate sources as detailed dimension data (i.e., SolidWorks drawings) are not being provided until post-award. Consequently, we are unable to provide prices for these items. Once provided Solidworks drawings, qualifying new suppliers and products with materials made by these new suppliers will add cost and risk to the proposal for all non-incumbents.

Q1: Will the Government address this issue by providing Solidworks drawings? If so, will the Government extend the proposal due date to allow time to obtain quotes from alternate vendors for these items?

Q2: Alternatively, will the Government provide such items as GFE and/or provide a material plug number for all offerors to use?

A: Government is looking into resolving any perceived exclusivity agreements. Please provide specific part numbers for the affected parts.

Ref: Accurate prediction of risk, failure rates and estimated costs associated with the warranty program of the current design cannot be accomplished without historical reliability data for each variant at the system, SRU, and LRU levels.

Q1: Will the Government provide failure data, with a minimum of two (2) years of data?

Q2: Will the Government provide warranty utilization data for the previous three (3) years?

A: Historical data is provided in Attachment 0025.

Ref: Paragraph C.3.3.1.3.1 states, in part: Contractor personnel shall have a favorably adjudicated Secret security clearance, at minimum, prior to perform on this contract, and prior to access to classified information/material. Also, in part: The Contractor will be required to have a Secret facility security clearance with up to Secret safeguarding capabilities for receiving, generating and storing classified information, material, software, and hardware. The Contractor will have the appropriate level of investigation and security clearance for each site of performance of work. Most of the manufacturing and production work performed under this contract is unclassified.

Q1: Is there a requirement to flow down classified facility requirements to subcontractors performing unclassified work on unclassified systems in unclassified facilities?

A: No, if a subcontractor is exclusively performing unclassified work on unclassified systems, then classified facility requirements need not be flowed down.

Q2: Is there a requirement for personnel performing unclassified work on unclassified systems in unclassified facilities to possess security clearances?

A: No, there is no requirement for personnel performing unclassified work on unclassified systems in unclassified facilities to possess security clearances.

Ref: Review of the provided TDP reveals no classified components.

Q: Will the government provide a list of classified components and subsystems on each of the variants?

A: At this time there are no components on any of the systems that are classified.

Ref: Review of the TDP has identified the following irregularities in the Technical Data Packages which currently deny Offerors other than the incumbent the ability to competitively price:
a.       Missing portions of drawings
b.       Drawings and technical data in languages other than English
c.       Missing distribution lists
d.       Missing specifications
e.       Identified vendors in drawings that decline to provide alternatives or pricing of components and subsystems

Q: Will the government provide an updated complete and correct TDP for all Offerors?

A: Please provide specific part numbers where vendors have declined to provide pricing for source controlled parts.

For any other perceived material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/03/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Our review of TDPs reveals 11,711 missing documents of CAD models, CAD drawings, specifications, SolidWorks drawings, SolidWorks components, SolidWorks assemblies, test descriptions, technical notes, and more (see attached spreadsheet).
These documents are important to develop BOM and our pricing. Without the documents Offerors are at a distinct disadvantage in estimating costs without undue risk to both the Offeror and the government.
Q: Will the government provide these documents to all Offerors?

A: The native files are not necessary for bid but will be sent to the winning contractor upon contract award.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

Q: Given the volume of missing documents and the potential impact on our ability to develop accurate, reasonable pricing, will the government extend the due date of proposals at least 30 days beyond the release of the 11,711 missing documents?

A: The Government does not believe that the TDP released to prospective offerors is missing any files. If the TDP contained any material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified.

Ref: SOW, C.3.2.4.2

States: The delivered RWS shall be built within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, and the delivered RWS components shall be seamlessly interchangeable in both directions with all existing RWS components down to the lowest individual piece/part level. [emphasis added]

Q: Does “individual piece/part level” mean LRU?

A: The “individual piece/part level” means Shop Replaceable Unit (SRU) and is defined by Exhibit G which is titled SRU.

Ref: SOW, C.3.2.4.2

Q: If “individual piece/part level” does not mean LRU, will the government define “individual piece/part level”?

A: The “individual piece/part level” means Shop Replaceable Unit (SRU) and is defined by Exhibit G which is titled SRU.

Ref: SOW, C.3.3.5.5-, tates: For each item produced under this contract, all hardware, software, and firmware delivered shall be of a single design.

Q: Does this requirement apply to each variant as an instance dash number or does this apply to all variants as a whole instance dash number?

A: Don't understand the question.

Ref: C.3.4.5 states: The Contractor shall perform Conformance Inspection and Testing as specified in Section 4 of the respective Specification and Section E of the contract.

Q: Would the Government clarify the reference to Section 4?

A: As of now, the only respective specification is GSPEC00008

Ref: SOW, C.3.4.5

Q: If this Section is in the solicitation documents, would the government point to the referenced Section 4?

A: As of now, the only respective specification is GSPEC00008

Ref: C.3.6.2.1 states: The Contractor shall conduct a warranty program for a period of two years from the date of delivery of each production system to ensure that any workmanship or material deficiency of any delivered system is corrected by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government.
Q: Will the government change “…two years from the date of delivery…“ to “…two years from the original date of delivery as shown on the DD250…”?

A: No. The USG doesn't see the value of making this change at this time.

Ref: C.3.6.2.2.2 states: The Government will be responsible for shipping items returned for warranty service, and the Contractor shall be responsible for shipping costs for returning the warranted item to the Government within CONUS.

Q: Is the contractor responsible for shipping costs of new items to FOB?

A: No.

Ref: C.3.6.2.2.2

Q: Is the contractor responsible for shipping non-warranty items for repair or rebuild to the depot and contractor’s facility?

A: No, the contractor is not responsible for shipping non-warranty items from/to the Government.

Ref: SOW, C.3.6.4.1.1. states: If field maintenance does not have the capability to repair a particular component or system-level failure, that component or system is designated a "Not Repairable This Station" item and forwarded to the next higher repair authority: the depot.
Q: What is the process for depot maintenance work requests (DMWR)?

A: The USG will establish a process with the contractor after contract award to properly integrate the USG and contractor's established processes.

Ref: SOW, C.3.6.4.1.1

Q: Is the DMWR generated by the contractor or the field maintenance?

A: The USG will establish a process with the contractor after contract award to properly integrate the USG and contractor's established processes.

Ref: Q&A released 10-21-2021 states: The Government’s permission to release the CROWS TDP for competition purposes and the royalty for non-incumbent-made systems are both terms of license agreement with the incumbent. The agreement itself is not releasable.
Q: Will the government release the CROWS TDP in its entirety to Offerors?

A: We have released the CROWS TDP in its entirety for the purposes of this competition and will release the native files to the winning offeror upon award.

Ref: SOW, C.2.1.2, Technical Manual 9-1090-219-23&P contains data and information that would benefit Offerors in identifying parts and subsystems to Remote Weapons Systems.
Q: Would the government provide an electronic media copy of the Technical Manual to Offerors?

A: The Government is currently updating the technical manuals for the tech refresh versions. For information purposes the Government will provide the TM 9-1090-219-10, TM 9-1090-222-10, TM 9-1090-219-23&P, and TM 9-1090-222-23&P as attachments to the RFP.

Ref: Attachment 0016/SOW C3.6.4.5, Exhibit K

RFP States: C.3.6.4.5. Report. The Contractor shall submit a Depot Maintenance Cost Report every 90 days that includes a breakdown of labor categories, labor hours, labor rates, materials, and material prices per Contractor and Subcontractor line item repair. The Depot Maintenance Cost Report shall include the average LRU repair cost for each LRU during the reporting periods (CDRL A028, DI-FNCL-80462, Depot Maintenance Cost Report)
Q: The RFP requires pricing of Depot and repair by use of the same fully loaded rates that is priced in Exhibit C. Exhibit K excludes the ability to propose for performance at a subcontractor location. If the Government requests reporting of subcontractor labor/rates, will the Government update Exhibit K to include subcontractor labor rates?

A: The labor rate proposed on Exhibit K on this contract will be used for depot and repair regardless of whether the repair is performed by the prime or a sub-supplier. For CDRL A028 reporting, subcontractor repairs labor categories and rates shall be based on Exhibit K.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------11/02/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FYI, the POC's email have been changed to the following:

renee.a.sarinelli.civ@army.mil

angelica.m.merino.civ@army.mil

stephanie.g.kless.civ@army.mil

Attachment 0016 has been updated and attached along with Attachment 0025

Questions and Answers

Ref: C.3.6.2.1. The Contractor shall conduct a warranty program for a period of two years from the date of delivery of each production system to ensure that any workmanship or material deficiency of any delivered system is corrected by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government. Warranty shall not apply to spare parts or repairs.

Q: Exhibits G (SRUs) & H (LRUs) specify a 2-year warranty period for spares, however Exhibit D (Systems) does not specify a warranty period. The SOW specifies that warranty is not to be applied to spares or repairs, but is to be applied to systems, which is opposite of what is requested in Attachment 16. Will the government please clarify how warranty is to be applied in Attachment 16 and correct the spreadsheet if it is in error?

A: We don't want warranty on spares but we do want it on systems. This will be corrected on the attachment.

Ref: RFP, Section C.3.6.1

C.3.6.1. states: The Contractor shall establish an Integrated Product Support program as an integral part of the RWS Production and or development process and ensure realistic application of each IPS element. The Contractor shall assess the impact of design changes on each of the IPS elements, identify risks to include achieving the necessary support for each of the IPS elements, and outline strategies to mitigate these risks. This assessment shall be documented in the Integrated Logistics Support Plan. The objective in this phase is to ensure the program develops an integrated logistics system that meets production and or development requirements, sustains system performance specifications, manages operating and support costs, optimizes the logistics footprint, and complies with environmental and other logistics-related regulations. The Contractor shall use MIL-HDBK-502A, AR 700-127, and the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) IPS Guidebook as guides for the IPS effort. The Contractor shall plan required support actions and provide the transition of all data, files, information, and records established and/or maintained under this contract to the Government. The Integrated Support Plan shall address how the Contractor shall interface with and support the 12 IPS elements as detailed in MIL-HDBK-502-A and DAU IPS guidebook.

Per the referenced DAU IPS guidebook and DOD 5000.02 the government program office should have existing documentation including:

- A Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP),

- Capability Production Document (CPD) with defined Sustainment KPPs/KSAs

- Product Support Arrangements, (PSAs)

- Established or planned Material Availability (Am), Material Reliability (Rm) and other sustainment metrics.

- A baseline for the 12 IPS elements

1Q: Will the government provide the above supporting documentation required to support an informed ISP or is the expectation that the offeror will develop an ISP without benefit of the baseline documentation which would be available to the incumbent?

A: We will provide the approved LCSP and CPD. The LCSP should contain information pertaining to sustainment metrics. We do not have a baseline of the 12 IPS elements that we can share. We will answer any specific questions with respect to the 12 IPS elements that the LCSP does not address.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

TDP files provided are incomplete and insufficiently describe the parts, subassemblies, assemblies, subsystems, and systems at a level necessary to bid and produce the CROWS variants. For example, within TDP 60201886-11-CXX-L01 the PDF file entitled K)983987_ states that the document contains native files for the TDP. TDP 60201886-11-CXX-L01 as provided by the government contains no SolidWorks files (3D models and 2D drawings), and many referenced files/drawings contained within the html index file are non-existent. The TDP is missing many work instructions, test procedures, parts lists, specifications, etc. For example, Cable Harness W2 (Assembly Part 60265468-00) references several files that are missing: ECAD Model 6026548-A, Assembly Drawing ASSY60265468_A.pdf, WD—60265468_.pdf, WL—60265468-00.xls, WL—60265468_.pdf.

2a Q: When will the government provide complete TDPs including the native files that are referenced as being contained in the TDP?

A: With respect to your example cable harness W2, we have provided the assembly drawing, wiring diagram and wiring list in pdf. We have deleted the xls native file of the wiring list. The native files are not necessary for bid but will be sent to the winning contractor upon contract award.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

2b Q: Will the government screen all of the files in the TDPs for accurate and complete records to enable all Offerors a common build-to-print basis for pricing?

A: The TDPs are provided to set the parameters within which the contractor shall build the RWS hardware. The Government does NOT warrant that all RWS built to the Technical Data Package will meet requirements or interface seamlessly with the provided software. The Government only warrants that it is possible to build RWS, within the constraints of the Technical Data Package, which meet requirements. This is represented by the RWS provided to the contractor. The contractor shall be responsible for determining how to build RWS within the constraints of the Technical Data Package that (when combined with the provided software executable code) meet all requirements as outlined in this Statement of Work and the Detail Specification. If the TDP contained any material accuracies or omissions, the Government will address them if they are specifically identified.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

A review of TDP 60201866-11-C01-L01 reveals 1792 documents referred to in the index file are not present in the zip file issued via DoD SAFE. The attachment provided with these questions is not the entire list but instead those documents we could readily identify as missing.

3a Q: Will the government confirm that the missing documents are not required by Offerors to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of RWS and each variant?

A: We confirm that the deleted native files are not required by Offerors to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of RWS and each variant

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

3b Q: Will the government provide a listing of those documents that are required by Offerors to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of RWS and each variant?

A: The TDP released to prospective offerors states all the requirements needed to develop reasonable and realistic pricing of the RWS and each variant. See answer to question 2b.

Ref: TDP, Multiple Documents

3c Q: Will the government extend the solicitation date permitting adequate time to obtain the missing files, issue the files to Offerors, and permit Offerors time to develop correct pricing in response to the solicitation?

A: The Government does not believe that the TDP released to prospective offerors is missing any files. See answer to question 2b.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------10/22/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

Ref: Solicitation, SF 33, Item 9

Item 9 states offers are due to the Government by 4:00 PM 2021NOV22. While the final count is undetermined, a significant number of technical drawings are written in a language other than English, are missing parts of drawings, are missing distribution lists, and some are missing specifications. The deficiencies and missing data result in Offerors being unable to adequately estimate each system without undue risk to the Government and Offeror.

QUESTION: Request the Government extend the due date of proposals 30 days beyond the time necessary to complete an in-depth review of drawings, technical documents, instructions, and specifications to translate documents where foreign language is found, replace missing drawings, and complete the technical specifications and instructions. This review and correction will result in Offerors having an equal opportunity to reasonably price systems in response to the solicitation.

Answer: The GOV will not be extending the proposal date at this time for this reason. The alleged issues are stated generally and without specifics, thus preventing the GOV from addressing or explaining any perceived issues. For TDP issues that have been specifically identified and addressed please review the answers to other questions posted concurrently with this answer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------10/21/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

Q: We do not see that there is access to foreign companies could you please confirm this? Also if the system that must be produced is the Kongsberg system, or if the technical evaluation will support others.

A: Proposals will be evaluated IAW section L and M of the RFP, this acquisition is being solicited Full and Open Competition.

Q: In reference to Attachments 10 and 11 (GSPEC00008) in page 8. I understand that first I need to sign the NDA and NON-USE agreement, correct? After that we should send the receipt of the Technical Data Package to be able to receive the technical documentation? Could you please explain this process?

A: Attachment 0002 Form 1350, 0004/0006 (NDAs) and 0003 approved DD 2345. These forms need to be submitted in order to receive the TDP.

Q: Is there a certification we need to have by the US and Canada JCO?

A: Yes, DD2345

Q: We did not see the DD form 441 – Security Agreement or DoD5220.22-M and any revisions to it can Foreign Companies apply and how the rules about access to the information for only US nationals work? Also, if foreign companies can register in ATCTS?

A: The solicitation provides the list of all documents that need to be filled out and submitted to the Government. Additional information relating to registration in ATCTS is available at the website.

Ref: RFP, 2. PROPOSAL FILES b.

RFP states: Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. Accomplishing this requires setting the security permissions on each PDF file, i.e., passwords need to be applied to the file so that the security setting can’t be changed (two unique passwords in fact, one password to open the file and the other password to prevent changes). To meet this requirement, the Government must be provided the first password to open the file.

Q: Request provide instructions for passing this information securely to the Government.

A: At least 7 days prior to the solicitation closing date, request a DOD safe from the Government to submit the files securely. Make sure to take into account upload times when submitting the submission.

Ref: RFP, 2. PROPOSAL FILES b.

RFP states: Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.

Q1: Is the Table of Contents excluded from page count restrictions?

A: Yes

Q2: May offerors include other typical front matter exclusive of page count? (Title Page, List of Tables, List of Figures, Acronym List, Cross-Reference Matrix if included)

A: Yes

Ref: RFP, Section K, (a) (1) and RFP Section L, (v) VOLUME V Past Performance

RFP states: The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 332994. In Section L, (v) VOLUME V Past Performance, line 5 states: Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 332994, Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing) required by the RFP.

Q: Will the Government confirm that “similar to” Is interpreted to mean that similar programs can have a NAICS code other than 332994 as long as they were similar work, and therefore can be provided as past performance?

A: Yes

Ref: RFP, B.1 Ordering Periods

Q: For pricing purposes, what date should be used for the period of performance start date?

A: Assume a start date of August 31, 2022 for the purposes of pricing the proposal.

Ref: RFP, M Factor 4 Cost/Price Factor, section (d)(iv) Evaluated Royalty Amount

Q1: Given the significant competitive advantage the incumbent has due to the $10K per system royalty on all other offerors, will the government provide the evaluated royalty amount that will be added to the total evaluated price of offerors other than KDA?

A: The added evaluated amount for the royalty is $10k per unit.

Q2: Will the Government identify what the royalty is for? Can a copy of the license be provided to the Offerors?

A: The Government’s permission to release the CROWS TDP for competition purposes and the royalty for non-incumbent-made systems are both terms of license agreement with the incumbent. The agreement itself is not releasable.

Ref: Attachment 0006 - Recipient may disclose portions of the Data to a prospective or actual subcontractor or supplier for the purpose of obtaining proposals or quotations from such prospective subcontractor or supplier for use by Recipient in its own proposal for submission in response to the Solicitation. Recipient shall release to each such prospective or actual subcontractor or supplier only such portion of the Data that is necessary for such subcontractor or supplier to provide to Recipient the information necessary for Recipient to prepare its proposal for submission to the Government. Prior to such disclosure, Recipient shall obtain from each such prospective subcontractor or supplier a Use and Non-Disclosure Agreement executed by such prospective subcontractor or supplier which contains the same requirements and restrictions as are imposed upon Recipient by this Agreement, modified as necessary to identify properly the parties thereto. Recipient shall notify Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer, usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil, of the identity of each subcontractor or supplier to whom a release or disclosure of any portion of the data has been made and the specific contents of such release or disclosure. Upon request, Recipient shall also provide a copy of the Use and Non-Disclosure Agreement executed by such subcontractor or supplier.

Q: For any subcontractors that we may need to share parts of the TDP with, we should follow the Attachment 0006 instructions where each sub should complete this Attachment and then send to us, and then we will notify Stephanie G. Kless as described below. Is that correct?

A: That is correct.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------10/7/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

Q: The RFP requires mandatory per unit rental pricing for all quantity ranges and for all line items. What shall we put in this field if our offer is not "predicated on the use of Government Property" to ensure fair evaluation of our price against other offerors?

A: The rental value to be entered is 0 if your proposal is not "predicated on the use of Government property".

Q: SOW section 3.4.2 does not include a schedule. Will the Government please confirm that completion of FAT for the three variants must be completed with in 18 months of Contract Award as stated during the Pre-Solicitation Conference, dated 17 March?

A: The completion of FAT for the three variants must be completed within 18 months of contract award. Need to change RFP to include schedule, currently missing.

Q: The RFP requires pricing per unit and per unit rental value for all option periods (OP). Assuming FAT needs to be completed no later than 18 months after Contract Award, will the Government please provide guidance on how to treat option periods 2-5? Also, what shall we put in the "rental value" field if our offer is not "predicated on the use of Government Property" to ensure fair evaluation of our price against other offerors?

A: Initial FAT needs to be completed no later than 18 months. Subsequent option periods are for subsequent FATs if ordered. The rental value to be entered is 0 if your proposal is not "predicated on the use of Government property".

Q: Since Section B does not contain the majority of government identified CLINs will the government please identify FOB origin or FOB destination for each of the CLINs.

A: Supply CLINs will be FOB origin and Service CLINs will be FOB Destination.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/30/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

Ref: "Prices proposed in the Price Matrix will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price based upon price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a). For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offerors proposed fixed-price LINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable."

"The Government will perform a cost realism analysis of the proposed indirect costs applied to the Government provided T&M Material and Travel to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the proposed method of performance described in the Offeror's proposal to determine the most probable cost of performance. If the Offeror fails to support any portion of the indirect rates applicable to the proposed T&M Material and Travel costs, the Government reserves the right to adjust the costs to the higher of the proposed amount or readily available data in the cost realism position. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Governments best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offerors proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed, the evaluated becomes the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost."

Q: FAR 15.404-1(d)(3) provides that: “Cost realism analyses may also be used on competitive fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts when new requirements may not be fully understood by competing offerors, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates that contractors’ proposed costs have resulted in quality or service shortfalls. Results of the analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. However, proposals shall be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation, and the offered prices shall not be adjusted as a result of the analysis.”

The nature and complexity of the CROWS ACAT 1 Program, critical safety and performance requirements, need for high quality, define this as an "exceptional case", and supports conducting a price realism analysis on the fixed price elements. Will the government consider adding appropriate language and conducting such an assessment for the fixed-price CLINs and the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)?

A: No, a price realism will not be performed on the FFP portion of the proposal, a cost realism will be performed on the T&M portion.

Ref: Required Recapitalization/Overhaul/Reset Production Rates:

Up to 50 systems per month no later than 180 days after award*.

*For orders awarded in accordance with Section H0001 "H.1. Cumulative Quantity Pricing", "after award" shall be replaced with "after the end of the award Cumulative Quantity Period as defined in H.1.2." Ramp up from 50 per month to a surge requirement of up to 150 per month within four months of PCO direction.

Required Conversions Rate: Up to 50 conversions per month after 180 days from award*.

Ramp up from 50 per month to a surge requirement of up to 150 per month within four months of PCO direction. *For orders awarded in accordance with Section H0001 H.1. Cumulative Quantity Pricing, after award shall be replaced with after the end of the award Cumulative Quantity Period as defined in H.1.2.

Q: The Statement of Work (SOW) and Section F requires the recapitalization and conversion of CROWS legacy units as part of the contractual effort at the rate of 50 units each per month. This exceeds the number of new units being delivered per month and therefore represents a significant portion of the contract scope. However, the current CLIN structure provides no CLIN in which to price this effort. How will the government establish price realism for the entire contract scope if upgrades and conversions are not priced?

A: The recap will be taken into account in our price evaluation based on depot labor rates and LRU/SRU prices.

Ref: I-60 52.230-6 ADMINISTRATION OF COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

I-209 52.230-2 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

I-210 52.230-4 DISCLOSURE AND CONSISTENCY OF COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES--FOREIGN CONCERNS52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION

Q: Since the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board has yet to offer guidance on how to handle ID/IQ hybrid contracts with respect to CAS application, such as the one contemplated by W15QKN-21-R-0025, will the Government clarify how the relevant CAS clauses will apply to the contract? Specifically, the R-0025 solicitation requests Firm Fixed Price LINs under a competitive acquisition, generally exempt from CAS; and Time&Material LINs, generally non-exempt from CAS.

A: CAS will not be applicable to the contract resulting from this solicitation. The clauses will be deleted at contract award.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/23/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions and Answers

1. Ref: Section L states, "Format. The submission SHALL be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume SHALL be clearly identified and SHALL begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume SHALL be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents SHALL be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files SHALL use the following page setup parameters:

Page Size, Width 8.5

Page Size, Height 11"

Q: Section L requests a number of process charts and technical drawings that will not fit on a single 8.5" x 11" page size even using 8 point font. Will the government please confirm that 11" x 17" (Ledger Size) foldout pages can be used for large drawings and tables as is standard practice on many RFPs?

A: 11" x 17" (Ledger Size) foldout pages can be used for large drawings and tables, but the amount of pages allowed will remain the same.

2. Ref: Section L requires an IMS to be submitted as part of the Management Factor along with a narrative analysis as stated in paragraph L (i) 2.c, "Provide an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that, at minimum, includes all activities required for FAT and all activities leading up to building the FAT systems and conducting a successful FAT; and other appropriate supporting events (e.g., test, approval, and key meetings). The IMS WILL also include major/key subcontractor and supplier schedules. An analysis SHALL be furnished that shows the proposed schedule is supportable and achievable considering other contract requirements, downtime, and delays. The IMS MUST clearly illustrate the interdependencies of all activities, events, and milestones; and explain the critical path and any factors affecting it."

Q: To ensure adequate detail to support effective government analysis, will the government allow the IMS to be presented as an .mpp file as an appendix and excluded from page count?

A: The IMS can be presented in .mpp file as an appendix and excluded from page count.

3. Ref: Required Recapitalization/Overhaul/Reset Production Rates:

Up to 50 systems per month no later than 180 days after award*.

Required Conversions Rate: Up to 50 conversions per month after 180 days from award*.

Ramp up from 50 per month to a surge requirement of up to 150 per month within four months of PCO direction.

*For orders awarded in accordance with Section H0001 H.1. Cumulative Quantity Pricing, after award shall be replaced with after the end of the award Cumulative Quantity Period as defined in H.1.2.

Q: The Statement of Work (SOW) and Section F requires the recapitalization and conversion of CROWS units as part of the contractual effort but does not specify which legacy systems are to be converted and to which configuration. Will the government please clarify which legacy systems are to be converted? Will the government please clarify to which configuration these systems are to be converted?

A: Following contract award, when a requirement for a conversion arises it will be handled via modification.

4. The Offeror shall provide information for small business participation and subcontracting in a table format in accordance with the following example:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Small Business Participation Table (in Millions) |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| Contract Total Price | $43.00 | | |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| SB | $10.34 | 24.00% | $10.34 of $43.00 |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| SDB | $2.86 | 6.65% | $2.86 of $43.00 |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| SDB | $2.36 | 5.50% | $2.36 of $43.00 |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| WOSB | $1.55 | 3.60% | $1.55 of $43.00 |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| HUBZone SB | $1.08 | 2.50% | $1.08 of $43.00 |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| VOSB | $1.55 | 3.60% | $1.55 of $43.00 |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| SDVOSB | $1.46 | 3.40% | $1.46 of $43.00 |

Q: The Small Business Participation Table lists SDB twice with different percentage values for each. Will the government please clarify or correct the Small Business Participation table?

A: This chart is to be used as an example only; offerors should submit their own numbers.

Q: What is the anticipated award date for the CROWS RWS program?

A: Current plan is to award in 4th Quarter FY 2022

Q: Is there flexibility on the delivery timeline after ARO? The FRP lists ARO + 180 days for initial deliveries. Based on industry supply chain lead times and manufacturing schedules the contractor would propose ARO + 15 months for initial deliveries.

A: No. Lead time at 180 days is essential for meeting customer requirements.

Q: Per the RFP, required RWS production rates will be 50 systems per month no later than 180 days after award. Is this 50 of each system variant, or 50 systems total?

A: 50 systems total

Q: Per the RFP, there is a requirement for first article testing and 4 systems of each configuration. Are the 4 systems of each configuration expected to be delivered prior to the ARO + 180 days schedule, or are they expected to be included in initial deliveries?

A: The first article systems are expected to be delivered after successful completion of first article testing.

Q: Is the expectation that the initial award will be for 4 First Article Test units for each system, and then a subsequent award of ARO + 6 months will follow for full rate production?

A: the expectation is that the minimum delivery order (which will be placed at the time of contract award), will not be ARO + 6 months but instead will be delivered 6 months after successful completion of FAT. Additional orders will follow after successful completion of first article and the timeline of ARO + 6 months would become applicable again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/3/2021---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: Can the proposal due date be extended?

Answer: Given the reasoning in this request for an extension, the Government will not extend the 90 day proposal response time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8/31/2021-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The following language will be changed from: The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Officer within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of the RFP.

To: The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Officer fifteen (15) calendar days prior of the closing of the RFP.

Note: The following language will be changed from: The Government must receive this list within thirty (30) calendar days after release of the RFP.

To: The Government must receive this list fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the closing of the RFP.

The following are questions and answers received for the solicitation:

Question: Reference (1) a. above: If an offeror proposes to use past performance as a major subcontractor to a Government program, and as the Government does not have privity of contract with a subcontractor, may the offeror request their Prime Contractor (to the Government program) to complete Part II of the questionnaire? The Prime Contractor is in a position to provide qualitative information.

Answer: Refer to Section L(1)(a) – (k), on page 97 of 121.

Question: Reference (5) above: In some cases the subcontractor does not know the identity of the prime contractor’s Government Agency POCs and may not be able to provide the requested government POC information. In this case, can we submit the prime contractor POCs in lieu of Government POCs?

Answer: Refer to section L(5) on page 98 of 121.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TELEPHONE INQUIRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED

Email: usarmy.pica.acc.mbx.crows-team@mail.mil

The points of contact for this action are:

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Angelica M. Merino, Contract Specialist,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: angelica.m.merino.civ@mail.mil

AND

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey

Attention: ACC-NJ-SL

Attention: Stephanie G. Kless, Contracting Officer,

Building 9, Phipps RD., Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Email: stephanie.g.kless.civ@mail.mil

Update #13 · Nov 19, 2021