Inactive

Market Survey Questionnaire Assault Breacher Vehicle Remote Control System DESCRIPTION OF INTENT: THIS IS A MARKET INVESTIGATION REQUESTING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE REQUIREM... Market Survey Questionnaire Assault Breacher Vehicle Remote Control System DESCRIPTION OF INTENT: THIS IS A MARKET INVESTIGATION REQUESTING INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS: No contract will be awarded from this announcement. This is not a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an announcement of a forthcoming solicitation. Also, it is not a request seeking contractors interested in being placed on a solicitation mailing list. Response to this questionnaire is voluntary and no reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to the market survey and any follow-on information requests. Data submitted in response to this market investigation will not be returned. Although no solicitation document exists at this time, information derived from this market investigation will help the Government determine the suitability of the marketplace for satisfying this performance requirement. This requirement is a candidate for a CMMC pilot program. Any resulting contract may exercise the CMMC process as a non-attribution, not-for-credit assessment of the prime contractor and select subcontractors as part of the scope of work. GENERAL INFORMATION: The U.S. Government appreciates the time and effort taken to respond to this survey. The U.S. Government acknowledges its obligations under 18 U.S.C. §1905 to protect information qualifying as “confidential” under this statute. [To avoid possible confusion with the meaning of the term “confidential” in the context of Classified Information,” we will use the term “PROPRIETARY.”] Pursuant to this statute, the U.S. Government is willing to accept any trade secret or PROPRIETARY restrictions placed on qualifying data forwarded in response to the survey questions and to protect it from unauthorized disclosure subject to the following: 1. Clearly and conspicuously mark qualifying data with the restrictive legend (all caps) “PROPRIETARY” with any explanatory text, so that the U.S. Government is clearly notified of what data needs to be appropriately protected. 2. In marking such data, please take care to mark only those portions of the data or materials that are truly confidential (over breadth in marking inappropriate data as “PROPRIETARY” may diminish or eliminate the usefulness of your response - see item 6 below). Use circling, underscoring, highlighting or any other appropriate means to indicate those portions of a single page which are to be protected. 3. The U.S. Government is not obligated to protect unmarked data. Additionally, marked data that is already in the public domain or in the possession of the U.S. Government or third parties, or is afterward placed into the public domain by the owner or another party through no fault of the U.S. Government will not be protected once in the public domain. Data already in the possession of the U.S. Government will be protected in accordance with the U.S. Government's rights in the data. 4. Confidential data transmitted electronically, whether by physical media or not, whether by the respondent or by the U.S. Government, shall contain the “PROPRIETARY” legend, with any explanatory text, on both the cover of the transmittal e-mail and at the beginning of the file itself. Where appropriate for only portions of an electronic file, use the restrictive legends ‘PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS:” and “PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS.” 5. In any reproductions of technical data or any portions thereof subject to asserted restrictions, the U.S. Government shall also reproduce the asserted restriction legend and any explanatory text. 6. The U.S. Government sometimes uses support contractors in evaluating responses. Consequently, responses that contain confidential information may receive only limited or no consideration since the Respondent’s marking of data as “PROPRIETARY” will preclude disclosure of same outside the U.S. Government and therefore will preclude disclosure to these support contractors assisting the evaluation effort. The U.S. Government will use its best efforts to evaluate those responses that contain confidential information without using support contractors consistent with the resources available. SECTION I: Program Information Purpose: The purpose of this survey is to solicit feedback from industry and potential offerors in regards to the Assault Breacher Vehicle Remote Control System (ABV RCS) program. The Government is drafting cost, schedule and performance requirements for a future formal Request for Proposal; this market survey is part of the requirements development and program planning effort. From this market survey, the Government intends to 1) Gauge industry interest in both attending a future industry day event and offering future proposals for this program; 2) Understand whether there are any potential commercial products that may meet this requirement and 3) Gain voluntary feedback and analysis from industry to advise the government on technical feasibility, program risk levels, and cost and schedule realism, as well as any other feedback desired by industry, of the draft requirements contained herein. System description summary: The ABV RCS will add tele-operational control of the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle, a fielded US Army system. The M1150 ABV is heavy, tracked engineering asset capable of breaching minefields and complex obstacles to enable passage of the Army’s maneuver element through the breach. The ABV Remote Control System (RCS) will be a multivehicle system composed of an Operator Control Unit (OCU) man-portable kit, that can be installed in the command and control M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle with OCU A-kit (brackets, cables, other integration equipment), and the M1150 ABV itself. The M1150 ABV operates in pairs: one equipped with a Full Width Mine Plow and one equipped with a Combat Dozer Blade. The purpose of the RCS is to offset soldiers from the dangerous breach activity completed by the ABV. The RCS provides the option for either manned or unmanned operations. When in operation, the RCS will have the capability to tele-operate the ABV in day and night, including all automotive functions, the Full Width Mine Plow and Combat Dozer Blade front end attachments, the Lane Marking System, the Linear Demolition Charge System, and self-obscuration system. To enable the RCS, the ABV operators move from the ABV to a Bradley Fighting Vehicle - the command and control vehicle – by dismounting, installing, and operating the man-portable kit inside the Bradley. The control interfaces to the aforementioned functions and various subsystems will not be provided to the contractor as Government Furnished Information. The contractor will be responsible for reverse engineering the interfaces and develop a Remote Control System. Feedback is welcomed on the viability of developing the RCS without interface data. This Market Survey will inform the capabilities needed; the Army does not want to bound the solution, rather, requesting industry to propose solutions, along product development timelines, which the Army can leverage for and gain mutual benefit. Draft Schedule: A tentative, draft schedule is laid out in Figure 1 of the attached document. Technical Requirements: TABLE 1 The RCS shall have the capability to operate all automotive functions (including service and parking brake), the FWMP and Combat Dozer Blade (CDB) attachments, the Lane Marking System (LMS), the LDCS, and the Self-obscuration System (T=O). The RCS must provide vehicle system feedback to the remote/operator station that includes auditory, visual, and haptic feedback (T). The RCS will be capable of augmented/mixed reality (O). The RCS must have self-diagnostics that report faults to the operator station. Diagnostics shall provide information to the RCS Operator via plain text and afford the user access to operator level troubleshooting procedures to assist with the application of immediate action at the RCS system level (T). RCS will include self-repair functions for system faults, errors (O). The RCS command station shall be operated by two operators (T); a single operator (O). The RCS command station shall be able to be installed by the ABV Soldier Crew using no special tools and operated from the BRADLEY, in order to provide commanders flexibility during mission execution (T). The RCS command station shall be able to be installed and operated from the STRYKER. The RCS must be able to be man portable in order for an operator to control the ABV from a dismounted position or for purposes of executing hot swaps between host command vehicles (O). RCS latency shall meet MIL STD 1472-G for vehicle motion control (T=O). ABV RCS shall employ a closed loop system, point-to-point, communication link capable of transmitting data/video to/from the OCU and ABV. Three ABV RCS systems shall operate in proximity without interfering with each other to accomplish the breach mission (T=O). RCS must provide the operator situational awareness in an operational environment/setting in day/night conditions. At least one camera device will be capable of providing 360 degree field of view to the RCS. Situational awareness enabler video feed shall not induce added latency to other RCS system critical functions (T). Must be integrated into current system to include a field of view of 360 degrees during any condition (O). SECTION II: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION The Government is seeking specific responses to the items below. The responses can be given in any format desired. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE: 1. Number each response with the appropriate question number. 2. You do not have to repeat the question in your response. 3. If you cannot answer a question, please indicate “No Response.” 4. If a response will satisfy another question, state: “See response to question XXX.” 5. Include relevant sales media and product manuals. If providing an ACROBAT formatted manual, annotate the manual to indicate which material is applicable to the questions. If preferred, include Internet Web links to locations where animations/videos may be viewed. 6. If your sales media and/or manuals contain a restricted distribution statement, issue a release statement indicating that the restricted material may be distributed to U.S. Government personnel involved with this market investigation 7. Spell out any acronyms in their first instance 8. Clearly mark any proprietary information. If applicable, the front page of your response package should state: “Proprietary Information Contained.” Provide a release statement indicating that the proprietary information may be distributed to Army personnel involved with this market investigation. Responses to this market investigation questionnaire should be sent to Michael W. Wilson, Contract Specialist via email or, for submissions including files exceeding email limits, DoD SAFE at URL: https://safe.apps.mil/. You are requested to put “Market Survey Questionnaire for Assault Breacher Vehicle Remote Control System” in the email subject or the Description in the DoD SAFE website. Any requests for clarifications of this Survey shall be addressed to Michael W. Wilson at michael.w.wilson3.civ@mail.mil. Do NOT submit classified information in response to any questions in this questionnaire. Any product literature that cannot be e-mailed may be sent to: U.S. Army Contracting Command – Detroit Arsenal CCTA-HCP-E ATTN: Michael W. Wilson, Mail Stop 351 6501 E. Eleven Mile Rd. Warren, MI 48397-5000 Replies to this questionnaire must be received by close of business, 13 July 2020. 1. Company Information a. Name b. Mailing Address c. Website d. CAGE (commercial and government entity) Code (if any) e. Are you registered as a small business for any NAICS codes? If yes, which ones? f. Are you registered as any other small business socio-economic categories? g. Is your company a member of a Consortium? If yes, which one(s)? 2. Personnel Responding to RFI a. Name b. Title c. Company Responsibility/Position d. Telephone/Fax Numbers e. E-Mail Address 3. TECHINICAL INFORMATION: 1. Does your company currently produce and or sell robotic/tele-operated systems, particularly ground vehicle related? If your company does not presently produce robotic/tele-operated systems, what if anything have you produced that would be similar? Were these systems purpose built and/or applique? For whom did you produce this for? 2. What type of robotic/tele-operated products does your company sell to the public or governments? What are the current costs for any systems/kits you provide? Regarding the systems/kits you provide, of those systems, what is the assumed number of major components and number of sub-components? Do the systems require special tools or test equipment that the Army does not currently have? 3. Please provide a list of your major customers to include company name and a point of contact with phone number within the company. 4. Have you provided robotic/tele-operated systems or related equipment to the U.S. Government? If yes, please respond with a) the type and quantity of equipment provided, b) the receiving Government agency, and c) the applicable contract number(s). 5. Are there any terms and conditions unique to this industry which are not normally part of standard Government contracts? 6. Please make any suggestions on the structuring of a potential acquisition contracts which would enable the U.S. Government to obtain the most favorable terms, conditions, prices and delivery. 7. As described in the System Description Summary, the ABV control interfaces to the listed functions and various subsystems [Self-Obscurants, Lane Marking System, Driver’s Instrument Panel, Driver’s Master Panel, Front End Equipment, Parking Brake set and release, Service Brake, Steering, Transmission Control, Throttle Control, Electrical Power] will not be provided to the contractor as Government Furnished Information. The contractor will be responsible for reverse engineering the interfaces and develop a Remote Control System. The interface to the Linear Demolition Charge System will be provided. Does this technical barrier prevent your company from submitting a proposal for ABV RCS? Does this technical barrier require your proposal to change significantly? What are the cost and schedule deltas? Does your company have the ability to reverse engineer these interfaces to support the development of the Remote Control System? What approach would your company take to complete this task? What is the estimated cost and schedule to reverse engineer these interfaces and deliver them to the Government? 8. What would be your approach to hardware/software design/maintenance? The program is considering utilizing government furnished architecture and Interoperability Profile (IOP) for both hardware/software and radio communications to promote open design, messaging, and interfaces. What are your thoughts on this approach? 9. What is the expected radio communications solution? The anticipated data throughput rate is 4-16 Mbps with an anticipated range of 1200-1800m Line of Sight (LOS). What is the expected Line of Sight (LOS) and Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) performance of your radio communications solution (frequency, bandwidth, range, number of radio systems, etc.)? What is the expected data throughput rate of your radio communications solution? Please explain LOS and NLOS operating environment (terrain [open and rolling, urban, etc.], obstacles [clear, foliage, buildings, etc.], weather conditions, etc.) and provide test data if available. 10. Do you believe the requirements listed in Table 1 are attainable? Please provide an explanation for any requirement you believe is not attainable. Is the schedule and funding listed in Figure 1 reasonable and attainable? Please provide an explanation for the required time and funding levels you believe is not attainable. 11. Can you identify any areas where our requirements can be exceeded with current or near-term technology? 12. What would be your approach to cyber-security? Are you prepared to meet Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 3, prior to award? Excluding those delivering COTS products only, how many (or percentage) of your potential subcontractors are prepared to meet CMMC level 1? Level 2? Level 3? If meeting CMMC level 3 is a requirement for the contractors/subcontractors that transmit, store, or process CUI in the performance of this contract, what impacts would this have on your bid? The PDF attachment CMMC Model v1.0 is attached for reference. 13. Are you familiar with MIL-STD-882E? What will be your approach to system safety and the level of rigor required for Software Criticality Index (SwCI) 1 or 2, to include high fault tolerance (no single points of failure)? Would you be able to deliver all level of rigor documentation for SwCI 1 or 2 to the Government at Critical Design Review, prior to prototype fabrication? 14. If the Government has technical data that is releasable for similar systems previously developed for demonstrations and experiments, would you find this data useful? 15. What efforts would be accomplished by subcontractors? 16. Given the capabilities listed in Table 1, as well as the mission and system descriptions, as well as the schedule in Figure 1, are the requirements as stated in Table 1 achievable in the timeframes expected? Where do you see high or unmanageable risk? Are there specific technical trade-offs that you expect would be necessary? 17. The Government requests you to provide an overall assessment as to whether you have any current system(s) available in the commercial market which could meet all or most of these requirements. If so, please provide any substantiating material to support this, what commercial market(s) the product(s) is/are marketed to, cost of the system(s), and any technical specifications available. How would this system perform with respect to each of the requirements in Table 1? 18. The Government is considering holding an Industry Day in the near future, for which details will be made available. This would be an in-person, half-day or day-long event, providing a forum for industry and government personnel to exchange information on the ABV RCS program. Information provided in response to this Market Survey will help guide the planning efforts and discussions for a future industry day. If interested, please provide your level of interest in attending such an event and contact information for the point(s) of contact who should be invited from your organization. As the requirement becomes more defined, what is the best way to communicate with you? 19. Does your company have experience in the Army Provisioning Program? If so, what is the assumed QTY of unique parts not already in the Army supply system? 20. Regarding maintenance planning, does your company have experience in developing maintenance planning data such as a Fault Tree Analysis, Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis, Level Of Repair Analysis, and Maintenance Task Analysis? If so, does the company have experience in relating these analyses to the Army Two Level Maintenance Policy AR 750-1? 21. Does your company have experience in developing Military Standard (MIL-STD) Technical Manuals(TM)? What is the assumed number of total work packages or total pages in a Technical Manual (TM)? 22. Does your company have any experience in participating/executing Logistics events such as Provisioning Conferences, Logistics Demonstrations and TM Verifications or Logistics Integrated Program Reviews related to the areas of Training Development, Publications Development, and maintenance development? 23. Have you ever been required by a Federal contract, subcontract, solicitation, or agreement to transmit, store, or process federal contract information on nonfederal information systems and comply with the FAR Clause 52.204-21? If so, which of the NIST SP 800-171 requirements have not been met, if any? Have you ever been required by a DoD contract, subcontract, solicitation, or agreement to transmit, store, or process controlled unclassified information (CUI) on nonfederal information systems and comply with the DFARS clause 252.204-7012? If so, which of the NIST SP 800-171 requirements have not been met, if any? Has your system security plan (SSP) ever been assessed by the DCMA DIBCAC? If so, what score did it receive? How many (or percentage) of your potential subcontractors have ever been required to comply with FAR clause 52.204-21? DFARS clause 252.204-7012? How many (or percentage) of subcontractors are expected to transmit, store, or process FCI or CUI in the performance of this contract, if any? How many or what percentage of your potential subcontractors have SSPs that have been assessed by the DCMA DIBCAC? 24. Please provide any information you believe we are missing or are overlooking.