SPECIAL NOTICE
99 -- OMFV Request for Information for Lethality Subsystem Trade Study
- Notice Date
- 4/1/2021 7:47:52 AM
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- Contracting Office
- ACC WRN
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Response Due
- 4/9/2021 2:00:00 PM
- Archive Date
- 04/24/2021
- 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
- 1 April 2021: Please note that the U.S. Government may use support contractors from the�following firm(s) to�serve as non-government advisors during the review of RFI submittals: DCS Corporation, Monte Sano Research Corporation, Practical Energetics Inc., Sandia, and System Strategy Inc. Per the original post it is the responsibility of Industry, when providing any comments/responses, to properly mark such information that is considered proprietary or is otherwise restricted.�Please review Section 9. Proprietary Information for a detailed description. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 March 2021: Please note the RFI has been revised to change the submission date from 2 April 2021 to 9 April 2021 and remove the DD2345 requirement for RFI submission. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction and Study Executive Summary THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes. No contract will be awarded from this announcement. This is not a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an announcement of a forthcoming solicitation, nor is it a request seeking contractors to be placed on a solicitation mailing list. There is no risk to you for participating in this survey. Response to this market survey is voluntary and no reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this market survey and any follow-on information requests. The U.S. government will in no way be bound to this information if any solicitation is issued.� However, this is an important opportunity for Industry to influence the application of requirements and the full range of other elements supporting the acquisition strategy for this program. There is no formal solicitation available at this time, no solicitation will be issued against this notice, and this request for information does not obligate the Government to issue a solicitation. Data submitted in response to this market survey will not be returned. No solicitation document exists at this time, and calls requesting a solicitation will not be answered. It is the responsibility of Industry, when providing any comments/responses, to properly mark such information that is considered proprietary or is otherwise restricted. The United States Government (USG) is soliciting Industry assistance in conducting a Lethality subsystem trade study for a future Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) tasked to maneuver through the enemy�s disruption zone as part of a combined arms team for the purpose of creating an advantageous position, relative to the enemy, and providing protection and direct fire lethality while manned or remotely operated (this description represents the breadth and depth of potential current and future scenarios ranging from limited contingency operations to large scale combat operations, or multi-domain operations simultaneously).� The USG seeks to understand the lethality capabilities that are currently available throughout Industry, as well as concept designs that Industry is exploring.� 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 enables Industry to help inform the USG Lethality requirements and Lethality solution sets for the development of a future IFV. By conducting a Lethality subsystem trade study, the USG aims to identify capabilities which will ensure that in the close fight, future IFVs enable the ability of dismounted elements to maneuver by detecting and destroying threat targets at a range beyond the enemy�s capabilities.� Industry�s feedback should focus on potential Lethality subsystems ability to detect, engage, and destroy enemy IFVs beyond the range of the enemy�s primary weapon system.� Lethality subsystems ability to collect and provide target acquisition data or aid target recognition while manned or unmanned, share data with adjacent IFVs, and provide the appropriate lethal effects required to protect and orient dismounted elements will further help inform USG Lethality requirements and Lethality solutions sets.� Completion of the Lethality subsystem trade study serves as a risk reduction and market research activity for the USG, and will inform future USG Lethality requirements to develop a future 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.� Industry reviewed and provided feedback on the DRFI template to further inform the development of this Lethality subsystem trade study.� All questions, comments, and responses to the DRFI, recorded and submitted, were considered during review of the Comment Resolution Matrix (CRM) and workbook. Step Two will commence with the final (Request for Information) RFI posting to betasam.gov, allowing industry to have four (4) calendar weeks to complete the RFI and provide a formal response.� Step two will begin on 8 March 2021 and will conclude on�9 April 2021. �Submit all formal responses for the RFI, in accordance with the instructions listed below, no later than 1700 EST on�9 April 2021. Step Three begins upon the conclusion of submissions to the RFI from Industry on�9 April 2021, in which the data received from Industry will inform and aid the USG to complete a Lethality subsystem trade study, to include existing and potential future capabilities and solution analysis. �Information collected for this trade study will enable Industry to help inform the USG Lethality requirements and Lethality solution sets for the development of a future IFV. Instructions: Review questions focused herein to aid the USG in conducting a Lethality subsystem trade study and provide formal responses in the form of a Memorandum, White Paper, Presentation, or another medium commonly used within your organization (formal responses are not limited by length, format, or supporting documentation). �Formal responses are not required to address every aspect of this RFI, whereas respondents may focus submissions on or within their area of expertise and internal production capabilities and interests.� The USG recommends all formal responses remain within the scope of a respondent�s area of subject matter expertise, and represent the lethality capabilities that are currently available from Industry, as well as concept designs that Industry is exploring.� Please review section 9. Proprietary Information for a detailed description. Data submitted in response to this will not be returned.� This is NOT a request to seek contractor interest in being placed on a solicitation mailing list.� Respondents shall not be notified of the results of the RFI or results of information submitted. This request for information does not require any classified responses; however, if an respondent chooses to provide classified information, that information shall follow the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) Chapter 5 instructions.� All responses must be hardcopy (2) with compact disc (2) (DVD/CD) to the following classified mailing address: Outer wrapping addressed to: U.S. ARMY TACOM 6501 E. Eleven Mile Road MS 105 Detroit Arsenal, MI 48397-5000 Inner wrapping addressed to: U.S. ARMY TACOM / G2 6501 E. Eleven Mile Road MS 105 Detroit Arsenal, MI 48397-5000 Attn: Lethality Trade Study Responses are due no later than no later than 1700 EST on�9 April 2021. Lethality Solution Request for Information The USG seeks to understand the lethality capabilities that are currently available throughout Industry, as well as concept designs Industry is exploring for target engagements. �This includes, but not limited to: future near-peer soldiers, IFVs, helicopters, small unmanned aerial systems, and tanks; in both rural and urban terrain. Provide the following information as applicable and available for the lethality capability: 1. Composition and Interoperability � a) What is the lethality system 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, missile system, and type, etc.) b) Is the lethality system an integrated solution, or individual system solution(s)? c) If the solution is an integrated system, is the solution manned, unmanned, or man accessible, or a combination thereof?� Additionally, are any components of the lethality system operable in both platform-mounted and man-portable configurations (to include: weapon types, ammunition handling systems, target acquisition sensors, fire control systems, missile system, and type, etc.)? d) What is the size, weight, and power draw of the each recommended weapon system in the system? � 1) Provide any SWAP-C considerations, or challenges. �������(a) For example, what is the power required for full operational functionality, or will any functions allow manual operations in the event of power loss? �������(b) For example, considering size or weight, what is the recoil force, etc.? �������(c) For example, what is the sub-systems or systems weight (include component breakdown and also consider items such as ammunition, missiles, etc.)? ��2) What is the size and weight of the associated weapon system(s) and 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 lethality solution is capable of addressing? �Be sure to include subsystem performance and ranges achieved against the specific targets, to include future near-peer: soldiers, IFVs, helicopters, small unmanned aerial systems, and tanks.� For example, an anti-tank guided munition (ATGM) destroys a IFV at �x� meters, or the main gun damages a IFV at �x� meters, etc. (a chart or a matrix depicting the caliber/munition/effect vs. threat targets is recommended). b) To what effect (i.e. defeat*/incapacitate*/suppress*) does the system/subsystem(s) address the target(s)? �Provide supporting performance/lethality data and characterize the systems dispersion in both stationary and on-the move engagements (stationary/moving platform, stationary/moving target).� Also characterize the systems firing rate (for example, 100 rounds per minute) associated with the dispersion to aide in evaluating effect probability. c) What is the optimized lethality configuration for maximization in both urban vs. rural operating environments without requiring reconfiguration of systems or subsystems within the Lethality system? �Include a list of anticipated targets, recommended munitions type, and effect achieved. d) How does the lethality solution operate (i.e. include descriptions of feed systems, manual backup, etc.)? ��1) Does each weapon provide continuous precise and accurate engagements, while stationary and on the move? Explain. ��2) What are the elevation and depression limits of engagement? ��3) What is the system lock time between trigger pull and round firing? ��4) Does the lethality solution provide aided target recognition while manned or autonomously while unmanned? e) How does the lethality capability achieve suppression*, or what suppressive capabilities are available in the lethality system? �Explain the method used to assess achieving this effect? f) How many and which types of munitions are required to address the targets for the expected effect on target? g) 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? h) As applicable, within the lethality system configuration for an IFV, based on the target engagements identified, address the following inquiries regarding potential missile subsystem capabilities: ��1) Does the lethality system consist of multiple launchers capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously? ��2) Does the lethality system provide overmatch against potential counter active protection systems (CAPS)? ��3) Explain, qualitatively or quantitatively, the launch and missile flight path signature, to include: visible, infrared (IR), radar cross-section (RCS), etc., of the missile weapon subsystem. 3. Capabilities and Limitations � a) Does the 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 the gap is addressed. b) What is the maximum effective range capability of the system for each target type?� Is the system�s performance limited by any specific technological factors (i.e. sensors, ammunition, fire control, etc.)? �If so, what is the plan to improve any limiting factors for optimal engagement? c) Is the system performance limited by terrain (i.e. trees, mountains, etc.)? �If so, what type? Provide supporting data, if collected. d) Is the system�s performance limited by any type of environmental conditions (i.e. cold, hot, humidity, vibration, etc. in MIL STD 810G)? �If so, what is the plan to address the limitation(s)? e) Are there any major interdependencies to other subsystems within a US Army IFV that may limit lethality capability performance? �If so, identify, explain, and recommend a solution to overcome any limitations caused by system or subsystem interdependencies? � 4. Growth � a) Does the system have growth potential (i.e. growth margins and open architecture required for rapid upgrades and insertion of future technologies)? �If so, explain. b) Does the lethality solution include a fire control system? �If so, is the fire control system capable of accounting for all lethal subsystems and sensors within the lethality system? How mature is the fire control system? Is the fire control system designed with Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) in mind? Is it designed with open architecture in mind?� How does your fire control solution interface with external platforms? Provide supporting data to allow for an understanding of protocols, message sets, or physical constraints. If not MOSA compliant, is there a path to make the system MOSA complaint and estimated complation date? c) Does the Lethality system include any state-of-the-art technologies available for USG acquisition that 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, target identification, prioritization, or simultaneous engagements, etc.)? � 5. Cost � a) What is the full life cycle cost of the lethality system? �Include assumptions, unit cost information and cost details per lethality system, subsystem, associated munitions, system simulators, missiles systems, etc. �Provide both non-recurring engineering (NRE) integration and recurring costs for each, include labor hours and material if available. b) Provide unit cost information, per quantity, for any proposed munitions (include both training and �live�) and any assumptions used. �Provide cost and quantity breakpoints (for example, quantity ranges of 1 - 50,000 rounds, 50,001 - 75,000 rounds, missiles, etc., or provide a metric for economic order quantity and rationale). c) Does your current Lethality system exist? If so, provide a cost estimate for any system upgrades needed to improve performance of the current lethality solution to defeat*/incapacitate*/suppress* the target engagements listed in this RFI (if it does not already meet those performance measures).� d) What is the estimated annual cost of sustainment? �Provide breakdown by subsystem (e.g., primary weapon system, missile weapon system, etc.). e) As per the Introduction and Executive Summary, a planning assumption for development of a future IFV procured by the USG would include approximately 4,000 units initially (estimate).� Furthermore, a planning assumption for munitions procurement should consider that the USG does not currently possess within its inventory, or within existing contracts, the munitions to support proposed Lethality subsystems from Industry submitted in support of this RFI. 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? �Is the current Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) for each lethality subsystem in the lethality system 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, provide supporting documentation. �If not, provide any additional data supporting the TRL, IRL, or MRL of the Lethality system proposed in the formal response to this RFI. b) Where along the development phase / product life cycle is the system? Is the system still in development? �Is the system in production? �Is the system a fielded system? � 1) If available, provide any associated cost for hardware and software Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) required to mature the technology. � 2) Are there any future planned upgrades to the technology? If so, what are they? And what is the cost associated? � 3) If in production, please describe the current production capabilities, including facility locations as well as monthly/yearly production capacities. c) Does the system utilize technologies developed in cooperation with the US DoD or subsystems already employed by the DoD?� Does the developed technology include the opportunity for continued development and maturation?� Explain. d) Does the system utilize technologies developed in cooperation with foreign ministries or departments of defense, or include subsystems already employed by those entities?� Does the developed technology include the opportunity for continued development and maturation?� Explain. e) Are there any known risks with the system; integration/technical, schedule, human (i.e. toxic fumes), etc. �If so, provide supporting documentation. f) Is a safety assessment report, a safety case summary, or a safety and environmental case report available? If so, provide an executive summary with references to supporting documents to enable further analysis. Include safety documentation and considersations for: �System, Sub systems, Weapon(s) and Munitions. � 7. Reliability, Maintainability, and Training � a) Is there an assessment of reliability and maintainability (R&M) for subsystems in the lethality system?� If so, please provide and 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 system, if available. �Also include a mandatory replacement and repair parts lists for components of the subsystem/system, for example: the number of sequential rounds fired prior to barrel change requirement, etc. b) If available, provide supporting data (test data, Modeling & 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. c) How often do operators require training to include: training, refresher training, etc., and what is the estimated cost of training? �Provide breakdown by subsystem (e.g., primary weapon system, missile weapon system). 8. Point of Contact Information:� Company name, address, phone number, and e-mail 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 accompanied by an explanatory text so that the Government is clearly notified as to exactly what data qualifies. b) Mark only data that is truly proprietary. �Excessive marking of non-qualifying data may result in the 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.� Industry responses may include Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) for third party concurrence in order to access to protected information. � 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 the 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. Deliveries � a) Recommend that report artifacts are submitted in MS-Office applications; readable, editable, and text searchable formats, or as Adobe .pdf; 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. b) Industry may provide a single submission for a baseline integrated weapon system with a growth path to a potentially more lethal integrated weapon system or they may provide separate submissions for each system. 11. Definitions* � a) Ready: Ammunition that is ready for the system or subsystem to fire, either in the weapon or in the ammunition handling system. b) Semi-ready: Ammunition that is easily accessible and loaded into the weapon by a Soldier starting in their normal fighting position, remaining under armor. �To meet this condition, a Soldier (or Soldiers working together) are able to: start from their normal fighting position, access the rounds, load the rounds into the ammunition handling system, and return to their normal fighting position, all while remaining under-armor. �ATGM semi-ready rounds may be reloaded from under armor or a protected position. c) Stowed:� Ammunition stowed on an IFV that is not in a ready or semi-ready position, accessible by the crew without the use of tools. d) Capability Gaps: A technology, system, or subsystem maturation level that prevents USG IFVs from detecting and destroying threat targets at a range beyond the enemy�s capabilities.� e) Suppression: An effect achieved when rounds strike or detonate within the vicinity or proximity of the threat target area and render the threat target unable to return effective fire or maneuver against friendly forces or neutral parties. f) Incapacitate: An effect achieved by causing a threat target becoming unable to perform functions at a level required for combat effectiveness, or to perform the physical or mental tasks required for a particular combat role. g) Defeat: An effect achieved when the target threat is no longer capable of continuing or completing its combat role or mission.
- Web Link
-
SAM.gov Permalink
(https://beta.sam.gov/opp/71994eedf7204dd2acbfad8fd0e3d0b9/view)
- Record
- SN05959810-F 20210403/210401230113 (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 |