SPECIAL NOTICE
99 -- OMFV Request for Information for Lethality Subsystem Trade Study
- Notice Date
- 3/8/2021 8:30:07 AM
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- Contracting Office
- ACC WRN
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Response Due
- 4/2/2021 2:00:00 PM
- Archive Date
- 04/17/2021
- Point of Contact
- Michael R. Chaney
- E-Mail Address
-
usarmy.detroit.peo-gcs.mbx.mcs-omfv-contracting@mail.mil
(usarmy.detroit.peo-gcs.mbx.mcs-omfv-contracting@mail.mil)
- Description
- OMFV Request for Information for Lethality Subsystem Trade Study Introduction and Study Executive Summary The United States Government (USG) is soliciting Industry assistance in conducting a Lethality subsystem trade study. The USG seeks to understand the lethality capabilities that are available in Industry. In order to accomplish this, the USG is requesting information from Industry (offerors, suppliers, distributors, vendors, or firms that furnish supplies or services) of Lethality solutions. The information collected allows Industry to help inform Lethality requirements and Lethality solution sets for a future Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). The USG intends to conduct the study in a sequential three step approach. Step one began with the development of the Draft Request for Information (DRFI) template (developed internally) and is contained within Appendix A (Lethality Solution Request for Information). The template will be used as input into the Lethality subsystem trade study.� The USG is asking Industry to review and provide feedback on the DRFI template. Any questions, comments, or responses on the DRFI should be recorded within the Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) and workbook provided (Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) and Workbook for Lethality Trade Study condensed). Comments may include additions or deletions, as well as recommendations on how to conduct the study. Step one concludes in two (2) weeks (18 November 2020) when Industry has provided their comments on the DRFI template. �All comments and responses for the DRFI, should be emailed to usarmy.detroit.peo-gcs.mbx.mcs-omfv-contracting@mail.mil no later than 1700 local time on 18 November 2020 with the company name and DRFI CRM identified in the subject line (ex: ABC Company-DRFI CRM).� The USG is not collecting solutions or data on lethality solutions during DRFI Step one, only feedback on the Draft Appendix A listed below.� Interested parties are cautioned against providing data that may be proprietary. All responses shall be unclassified. Step two will commence once Step one DRFI input has been provided by Industry. The USG will collect and review responses provided, and revise the DRFI as needed.� The final RFI template will be posted allowing Industry the opportunity to provide a formal response.� The USG is planning for Industry to have four (4) calendar weeks to complete the RFI.� Step two is planned to begin in 4 January 2021 and conclude 4 February 2021. Step three begins upon obtaining RFI responses from Industry. The data collected will be used to complete a Lethality Suite Subsystem Trade study and solution analysis. Instructions: Review and provide feedback on Appendix A (Lethality Solution Request for Information). Any questions, comments, or responses on the DRFI should be recorded within the Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) provided. Comments may include additions or deletions to information being requested, as well as recommendations on how to conduct the study.� All responses shall be unclassified. Draft Lethality Solution Request for Information The OMFV program is looking for lethality solutions for the following target engagements: Future near-peer soldiers, infantry fighting vehicles, helicopters, small unmanned aerial systems, and tanks in both rural and urban terrain. Provide the following information as applicable and available for the proposed lethality solution. 1. Composition a) What is the recommended lethality suite configuration for the IFV based on the target engagements identified? Provide specific subsystems for inclusion (weapon types, ammunition handling systems, target acquisition sensors, fire control systems, etc.) b) Is the recommended lethality suite an integrated solution, or individual system solution(s)? c) If the proposed solution is an integrated system, is your solution manned, unmanned, or man accessible? d) What is the size, weight, and power draw of the each recommended weapon system in the suite? ���� (1) Provide any SWAP-C considerations, or challenges. ���� (2) What is the size and weight of the associated munition(s)? ��������� (a) Provide any applicable 2D and 3D CAD drawings, or envelope Solid Models ��������� (b) Provide any additional weight attributes (i.e. center of gravity, material properties, etc.) 2. Performance a) Identify the specific IFV target(s) the recommended solution can address? Be sure to include subsystem performance against the specific targets. b) To what effect (i.e. defeat/incapacitate/suppress) does the system/subsystem(s) address the target(s)? Provide supporting performance/lethality data. c) How does the recommended lethal solution operate (i.e. include descriptions of feed systems, manual backup, etc.)? ���� a. Does each weapon provide continuous precision engagements, while stationary and on the move? Explain. ���� b. What are the elevation and depression limits of engagement? d) How do you recommend suppression be addressed? What suppressive capabilities are available in your recommended lethality suite? How do you quantify/measure? e) How many and which types of munitions are required to address the targets for the expected effect on target? f) How many total munitions (on board) are recommended to provide adequate capability against the target sets; munitions in ready, in semi-ready, in stowed? How were the recommendations determined? How long is the mission in this scenario and how many resupplies are conducted? ��� a. Provide a diagram of munition load and stowage plan, if available. 3. Capabilities and Limitations a) Does your system address or provide solutions to any capability gaps, provide any unique or any additional capability (extended range, moving target, etc.)? If so, provide the gap and supporting data explaining how gap is being addressed. b) What is the maximum effective range capability of the system for each target type?� Is your system�s performance limited by any specific technological factors (i.e. sensors, ammunition, fire control, etc.)? If so, what is the plan to improve limiting factor for optimal engagement. c) Is the system performance limited by terrain (i.e. trees, mountains, etc.)? If so, what type? Provide supporting data d) Is your system�s performance limited by any type of environmental conditions (i.e. cold, hot, etc. in MIL STD 810G)? If so, what is the plan to address the limitation(s)? e) Do you see any major interdependencies to other subsystems within the vehicle that may limit lethality solution performance? If so, what are they and how do you recommend they be addressed? 4. Growth a) Does your system have growth capability (i.e. growth margins and open architecture required for rapid upgrades and insertion of future technologies)? If so, explain. b) Does your recommended solution include a Fire Control System? Is the fire control system capable of accounting for all lethal subsystems and sensors within the lethality suite? Is your fire control system designed with Modular Open System Architecture (MOSA) in mind? Is it designed with open architecture in mind? �How mature is the fire control system? Provide supporting data. c) Do you have any available State-of-the-art acquisition technologies that would enable improvements (i.e. automated turret, man-in-the-loop, etc.) to achieve overmatch via reduced target acquisition and Soldier engagement decision timelines (automated search, identification and prioritization)? 5. Cost a) What is the overall system cost of the recommended lethality suite? Include detailed cost per lethality system, and associated munitions. ���� a. Provide unit cost of each system.� Provide cost and quantity breakpoints. �������� i. Provide unit cost information per quantity for any proposed munitions and any assumptions used. Provide cost and quantity breakpoints (i.e. quantity ranges of 1 - 50,000 rounds, 50,001 - 75,000 rounds, missiles, etc.) ���� b. Are any initiatives available for cost reduction (i.e. price breaks at larger quantities, technical data procurement, etc.)? ���� c. Provide a cost estimate for any system upgrades needed to improve performance of �your current lethality solution to defeat/incapacitate/suppress the target engagements listed in this RFI (if it does not already meet those performance measures). 6. Risk a) What is the overall maturity of the system(s)? What is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL), Integration Readiness Level (IRL), and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of the overall system, as well as each sub-system? Has there been an assessment of the current Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) for each lethal system in the lethal suite package based on the latest version of the DoD Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance? (available at https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554900.pdf If so, can you provide? If not, provide any additional supporting data supporting the TRL, IRL, and MRL b) Where along the development phase / product life cycle is your system? Is your system still in development? Is your system in production? Is your system a fielded system? ���� a. If available, provide any associated cost for hardware and software Non Recurring Engineering (NRE) required to mature the technology. ���� b. Are there any future planned upgrades to your technology? If so, what are they? And what is the cost associated? c) Are there any known risks with the system; integration/technical, schedule, human (i.e. toxic fumes), etc. Do you have a risk assessment to support your claims? If so, provide. d) Is a safety assessment report available? If so, provide. 7. Reliability and Maintainability a) Do you have an assessment of reliability and maintainability (R&M) for subsystems in the lethality suite? � ���� a. If so, include metrics such as Mean Rounds Between System Abort (MRBSA), Mean Rounds Between Essential Function Failure (MRBEFF), Field Level Maintenance Ratio (MR), Sustainment Level MR, Field Level Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), Crew Max Time to Repair (MaxTTR), etc. of each subsystem in the lethality suite, if available. � ���� b. If available, provide supporting data (test data, Modeling and Simulation, R&M block diagrams, Failure Mode Effects Analysis, Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (corrective actions implemented and impact on R&M metrics), etc.) and describe the environmental/usage conditions, mission profile(s), and failure definitions these R&M characteristics are based on. 8. Point of Contact Information a) Provide: Company name, address, phone number, and email address 9. Proprietary Information The USG acknowledges its obligations under the Federal Acquisition Regulation 3.104-4 to protect confidential information provided to the Government (18 U.S.C. �1905). Pursuant to this statute, the USG is willing to accept any trade secrets or proprietary restrictions placed upon qualifying data forwarded in response to this survey and to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure, subject to the following: a. Qualifying data must be clearly marked PROPRIETARY and be accompanied by an explanatory text so that the Government is clearly notified as to exactly what data so qualifies. b. Mark only data that is truly proprietary. Excessive marking of non-qualifying data may result in your response not being considered. c. Do not mark data as proprietary that is already in the public domain or is already in possession of the USG or third parties on an unclassified basis. d. Proprietary data transmitted electronically must have the PROPRIETARY legend on both the cover of the transmittal e-mail as well as at the beginning of the file. Proprietary information contained within the correspondence shall use the legends: �PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS� and �PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS.� e. Proprietary Information Disclaimer. The USG is not obligated to protect unmarked data. Nor is the Government obligated for like data in possession of third parties or for data which is afterwards placed in the public domain by the contractor or by third parties through no fault of the USG. Should the USG need to reproduce the protected data for distribution purposes between Government offices, all such data will be reproduced with restrictive legends in place. f. Support Contractors. The Government sometimes uses support contractors in evaluating responses. Consequently, responses that contain proprietary information may receive only limited or no consideration since the Respondent�s marking of data as �PROPRIETARY� will preclude disclosure of same outside the Government and therefore will preclude disclosure to these support contractors assisting the evaluation effort. The Government will use its best efforts to evaluate those responses that contain proprietary information without using support contractors consistent with the resources available. 10. Deliverables a) Report artifacts shall be submitted in MS-Office 2013 applications; readable, editable and text searchable formats. The architecture(s), CAD drawings/data, Interface Control Documents, and the analysis supporting design approaches may be delivered in their native formats.
- Web Link
-
SAM.gov Permalink
(https://beta.sam.gov/opp/7547f0e9ae7f4f28b414f367c4237492/view)
- Record
- SN05935607-F 20210310/210308230116 (samdaily.us)
- Source
-
SAM.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's SAM Daily Index Page |