Inactive

14 May 2024 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) This update is to notify the industry about the Government intends to release a draft Request For Proposal (DRFP) i... 14 May 2024 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) This update is to notify the industry about the Government intends to release a draft Request For Proposal (DRFP) in the next 30 days. ***************************************************************************************************************************************************** 18 September 2023 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) This update is to notify industry about the current status of the BEST MAC procurement and to announce Government’s intent to make changes to the BEST MAC Requirement. The estimated date for the release of the solicitation is TBD until the Government decides on whether to make changes to the BEST MAC Requirement affecting MAC Lot 2. The Government intend to change the description of the requirement under MAC Lot 2 as follows: From: “Lot 2 - Procure new TESS, similar to existing TESS in the field today. Lot 2 will focus on Army Force Structure changes and modernization of the current TESS.” To: “Lot 2 - Procurement and modernization of existing TESS product lines and STE based TESS. The scope of this Lot may include systems driven by Army Force Structure changes and new tactical platform requirements.” This change expands the scope of the original BEST MAC requirement to allow production and fielding of new STE based TESS products. STE LTS is currently under the design phase, but full rate production is expected within the next 10 years. The Government is interested in receiving your insight on the aforementioned proposed change. Responses should include the following information: 1. Company name, address, POC, email addresses, phone and fax numbers, and company's web page (if applicable) 2. Identification of business size as it relates to NAICS code 333310, i.e. US large or small business (SB), service disabled veteran business, HUB Zone, 8(a) certified business, Woman Owned SB, etc; 3. Identify risks that may prevent the Government from obtaining adequate competition. 4. Identify risks with the adding to the scope of the BEST MAC the full rate production of STE TESS products. Responses are requested by no later than 3:00pm/15:00 EST on October 5, 2023 and may be sent by email to Contract Specialist, Rafael Manzano at rafael.a.manzano2.civ@army.mil and the Contracting Officer, Roberto Gotay, at Roberto.j.gotaygarcia.civ@amy.mil. Responses received after DATE may not be considered as determined by the Contracting Officer. ************************************************************************************************************************ 8 August 2023 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) BEST MAC DRAFT RFP Questions (Q) and Answers (A) (Cont.) Q27: SOW Section 3.3.5, page 12 There are 28 potential new technologies listed in the SOW para 3.3.5. Items a through h, q, and bb are improvements or modifications to existing TESS or TESS capabilities. Can the government please provide technical data on the current TESS and TESS components in a bidders’ library in order to enable industry to meet the potential requirements intent that may be considered? Releasing these data with a task order or delivery order will limit the ability of industry to proactively invest in new technologies and capabilities. A27. The Government intends to release available TDPs for which it has appropriate data rights to qualified base contract awardees in conjunction with future delivery orders. The Government may address this question when procuring at the MAC ordering level. High level description of the I-MILES systems can be found at PEO STRI website. Q28 Attachment #2 Please provide specific conditions that will be used to determine what will be used to assess sufficient competition and as such that would initiate the on-ramp process. What is the relationship between on-ramp in attachment 2 para 5 and Draft RFP Section C.2 Rolling Admissions? A28 The Government reserves the right to include additional contractors in order to sustain the competitive environment for awarding orders. Attachment 2 has been revised to tie on-ramp with Section C.2 Rolling Admissions Q29. C2.2 The stated intent of rolling admissions is to ensure an adequate number of Contractors eligible to compete for Deliver Orders. The only condition stated to exercise this provision is the loss of an awarded contractor. Is this the only condition for rolling admissions? Would a predominance of awards to a single contractor in a lot also demonstrate a lack of competition and initiate rolling admissions? Are there any other conditions that may initiate rolling admissions? If so, recommend providing these as they will ensure the industry base is able to be responsive to the competitive state desired by the Government. A29 As per C.2.3, the loss of an awarded contractor is not the only condition for the Government to consider initiating an open season to add additional Contractors. Q30. L.3 There is significant overlap between the Factor 1 -Technical, and Factor 3 -Past performance as past performance is being used to assess not just confidence in execution, but also the technical capabilities demonstrated in execution. There is however 67% difference in the page limitations between the respective volumes. As the technical volume will require the inclusion of multiple attachments 3, narratives describing work under those distinct attachments 3, and the SOO /SOW /PWS that correspond to the attachments 3, please confirm the intent to use the 67% larger page limit in the technical volume for inclusion of SOO / SOW /PWS. A30 See A.12. Q31. L.3 While there is an exception to page count in volumes II and IV for letters of consent and commitment, cure notices, and show cause letters, there is no similar exception for SOO / SOW /PWS that must be included for each technical experience assertion. Since some of the SOO /SOW /PWS can exceed the 60 page limit themselves, would the government consider excluding the required SOO /SOW /PWS from the page count and making the two volumes more equal in total page count? If these required documents are not excluded, it may disadvantage a bidder that has experience through large complex efforts with a PWS that is in excess of 60 pages. Such a PWS cannot be included under the page count, and as such would make the bidder non-compliant, and it may limit the Government’s ability to achieve the intent of maximum competition from qualified and experienced contractors. A31 See Answer A.12 Q32. L.3.5. This paragraph is titled Volume VI: Contracting Information. As there is not volume VI in the table L.1, please confirm this is Volume V. A32 It is a typo. Confirm it is “Volume V: Contracting Information”. L.3.5. Volume V: CONTRACTING INFORMATION Q33 M.3.3.f This paragraph states that the Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available. As the draft states an intent to award without discussions, please clarify the conditions and constraints of this paragraph with respect to the proposal as submitted, and verification of performance as indicated in attachment 4. This paragraph appears to provide notice that subjective information outside the limits of the solicitation may be used without the offeror’s knowledge. This paragraph also appears to provide notice that the information provided in the proposal may be summarily dismissed without the offeror’s knowledge. A33 Your question appears to relate to paragraph M.3.4.f of the RFP and not M.3.3.f. Paragraph M.3.4.f of the RFP only applies to the evaluation of Past Performance and is consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), “The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance. ************************************************************************************************************************ 2 August 2023 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) BEST MAC Draft RFP Questions (Q) and Answers (A): Q1: Sections C.2.2 AND L L.3.2.2 LOT 2 – TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS c. SUBFACTOR 2.3: PRODUCTION EXPERIENCE. Would the Government please consider revising or expanding the Subfactor 2.3 criteria related to production capability for other than TESS product, such as simulator production capability, if a vendor has processes, production facilities and experience to deliver manufacturing capacity at scale? A1: The Government is looking for the “Production Experiences”. The Government has revised the Subfactor 2.3 – Production Experience and Attachment 3b, block 13c in the final RFP. Section L. 3.2.2 (c) Subfactor 2.3 – Production Experiences The Offeror shall provide evidence of experience on the production of the TESS product identified by the Offeror in Block 13c. Section M and Attachment 3b, block 13c. is revised to indicate Offeror shall demonstrate experience, within 10 years before solicitation release date, on large scale production of a TESS product. Large scale production is defined as the production of any of the TESS product with the quantity annual production as below: TESS Product Name Annual Production QTY BDM 110 AT4 385 RPG 105 IWS 4,795 TVS 600 UCD 560 SAT 4,795 VTESS 875 Q2: Sections C.2.2 AND L L.3.2.2 LOT 2 – TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS c. SUBFACTOR 2.3: PRODUCTION EXPERIENCET. To allow for adequate competition for the current RFP, and to allow for continued competition for any future open season rolling admission, would the Government please consider reducing/revising the requirement of at least 4,000 units per year of the TESS product, to a separate discriminator that still provides team capability to deliver robust TESS delivery? Future company mergers and acquisitions, company sales, or bankruptcies are common in our industry and the need to meet this very precise number could significantly reduce competition in the out years of the BEST MAC program. A2: See answer to Q1. Q3: Sections C.2.2 AND L L.3.2.2 LOT 2 – TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS c. SUBFACTOR 2.3: PRODUCTION EXPERIENCE. Will the Government release PEO STRI’s historical orders of TESS quantities for each item listed in Lot 2, Subfactor 2.3 (BDM, AT4, RPG, IWS, TVS, VTESS, UCD, SAT) over the previous 10 years? A3: The Government will not release any historical orders of TESS quantities. However, the Government has revised the Subfactor 2.3 – Production Experience and Attachment 3b, block 13c in the final RFP. Q4: Page 8 of 70, Sect C.2. Is it correct to assume that vendors admitted during the Rolling Admissions will need to meet the same qualifying criteria required in the RFP? A4: Yes, vendors/new offerors will be required to meet the same qualifying criteria established in the BEST MAC RFP assuming that the Government decides to execute an open season rolling admission as per RFP Section C.2. Q5: Sect 1.2.1. Existing requirement states: The intent is to SLEP IWS and SLM initially to ensure compatibility, commonality, and interoperability with current TESS and the platforms each system is required to support, throughout the acquisition life cycle. Question: For the SLEP of MILES IWS in Lot 1, is the Government's intent to replace the entire kit or only portions of the kit? Are there obsolete parts to be addressed? A5: The Government intends to define service life extension requirements for specific devices within their respective Delivery Orders. The Government may address this question when procuring at the MAC ordering level. Q6: Sect 1.2.1. Existing requirement states: The intent is to SLEP IWS and SLM initially to ensure compatibility, commonality, and interoperability with current TESS and the platforms each system is required to support, throughout the acquisition life cycle. Question: Does the Government intend to release the TDPs to support the SLEP to IWS and SLM? A6: The Government intends to release available TDPs for which it has appropriate data rights to qualified base contract awardees in conjunction with future Delivery Orders. The Government may address this question when procuring at the MAC ordering level. Q7: Existing requirement in Excel Attachment 3b states: Subfactor 2.3 - Production a) To receive an Acceptable rating Offeror proposal shall demonstrate Offeror's capability for large scale production of a TESS product. b) Offeror shall demonstrate experience, within 10 years before solicitation release date, on large scale production of a TESS product. Large scale production is defined as the production of at least 4,000 units per year of any TESS product. Question: We interpret the language to be restrictive and may limit competition to one or two legacy contractors. Since Lot 2 will be producing entirely new products, the requirement to have built existing TESS as opposed to a generic training device is overly restrictive. As an example, a contractor could have built the RP-G, but not qualify due to the fact that the total basis of issue plan is 990. Would the Government consider rewording attachment 3b to say the following? b) Offeror shall demonstrate experience, within 10 years before solicitation release date, on large scale production of a TESS or electronics product. Large scale production is defined as the production of at least 1,000 units per year of any TESS or electronic product. A7: See answer to Q1. Q8: DRFP: L.3.2.2(c) SUBFACTOR 2.3: Production Experience Existing requirement states: The Offeror shall provide evidence of experience on the production of at least 4,000 units per year of the TESS product identified by the Offeror in Block 13c. Question: We interpret the language to be restrictive and may limit competition to one or two legacy contractors. Since Lot 2 will be producing entirely new products, the requirement to have built existing TESS as opposed to a generic training device is overly restrictive. As an example, a contractor could have built the RP-G, but not qualify due to the fact that the total basis of issue plan is 990. Would the Government consider rewording Section L to say the following? The Offeror shall provide evidence of experience on the production of at least 1,000 units per year of the TESS product or similar electronic assembly, identified by the Offeror in Block 13c. A8: See answer to Q1. Q9: DRFP: L.3.1.1 OFFEROR SUMMARY TABLE Existing requirement states: Subcontractors will not be evaluated. Question: There is a significant emphasis on small business participation and past performance, however, the Government does not allow evaluation of relevant past performance by tier 1 subcontractors. Can we include first tier subcontractors? A9: Section L.3.1.1 will be revised to remove requirement to identify subcontractors in the table. The table is only required for Joint Venture (JV) Team Members’ roles and responsibility. Q10: DRFP: F.1. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Existing requirement states: The period of performance/ordering period below may be adjusted depending on actual date of contract award; contract award is expected for fourth quarter, Government Fiscal Year 2024. Question: Per the DRFP, the contract award date is planned for Q4 FY24. This conflicts with dates published at TSIS. Can you confirm the timeline for award? A10: Contract Award date is currently planned for Q2 FY24. Q11: Both DRFP and SOW – General What is the anticipated timing and/or schedule for issuing the first Delivery Orders? A11: The procurement for the first Delivery Order will start immediately after award of the MAC contracts and the Government intends to award the Delivery Order 120 days after MAC awards. Q12: DRFP: L.3.2(b) VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL Existing requirement states: b. Offeror shall submit along with Attachment 3a, or Attachment 3b, the corresponding SOO/SOW/PWSs for each contract reference indicated in Table L.2, Relevant Contract Summary Offeror. Additionally, Offeror shall identify in the corresponding SOO/SOW/PWS the section or paragraph that addresses the experience identified by the Offeror in Block 13. Question: Does the Government want the contractor to include a SOW reference (Table of Contents or list of specific paragraphs) inside the Technical Volume as opposed to including an entire copy of the SOW? If a full SOW is required, would the Government consider excluding the PWS / SOO / SOWs from the page count? A12: The SOO/SOW/PWSs submitted by the offeror that correspond with Attachment 3a, or Attachment 3b, are excluded from the page count. Offeror is required to reference inside the Technical Volume the SOO/SOW/PWSs sections or paragraphs that the Offeror want the Government to evaluate in determining whether the Offeror meets the acceptability criteria in Section M. Section L will be revised to coincide with the answer to this question. Q13: DRFP: L.3.1.1(a) OFFEROR SUMMARY TABLE Existing requirement states: The Offeror shall complete a table similar to the one below (DRFP Section L, Table L.2 - Offeror Summary) and submit it within this volume. This table (DRFP Section L, Table L.2 - Offeror Summary) summarizes the Offeror, its subcontractors’, and Joint Venture (JV) Team Members’ roles and responsibility as well as their work commitment. Subcontractors will not be evaluated. “Subcontractors” includes any entity other than a Prime Offeror or JV Team Member. Question: Is it acceptable to list TBD in the column titled, "Estimated % of Work to be Performed"? The reasoning being that the % of Work will vary by Delivery Order based on requirements. A13: Section L.3.1.1 will be revised to remove requirement to identify subcontractors in the table. The table is only required if the offeror is a Joint Venture (JV) Team. Column for "Estimated % of Work to be Performed" will be removed from the table. Q14: Can the Government identify which legacy systems they have the rights to, so they are able to compete for follow on production? A14: The Government has sufficient technical documentation to define the performance characteristics of systems that it is likely to SLEP or procure additional quantities and has varying levels of technical data for its current fielded systems that can be provided to support such efforts at the specific DOs. It is unlikely that the Government will pursue build to print production efforts. In addition, under SLEP, if insufficient data available, reverse engineering will be identified in specific Delivery Orders. Q15: Would the Government please provide clarification on how the Cost Benefit Analysis will be done regarding upgrading of older systems and buying new systems? A15: The approaches to analyze cost / benefits of future requirements will likely vary dependent upon the circumstances and have not been determined at this time. Q16: Attachment 1- BEST MAC Base SOW SECTION – Section 1.2.1 / Page 2 Attachment 1- BEST MAC Base SOW, Section 1.2.1 states requirements to interoperate with STE LTS products. How does the Government see integration of STE LTS capabilities occurring in BEST MAC? A16: Integration requirements will be addressed within their respective future Delivery Orders. Q17: Attachment 1- BEST MAC Base SOW, SECTION – Section 1.2.1 / Page 2 Which Lot does the Government anticipate STE LTS integration activities to occur? A17: The Anticipated STE Integration activities will occur in both lots and will be specified in specific DOs. Q18: SECTION - L.3.1.1 / Page 52 Is the Offeror Summary table included in the page limits for the Executive Summary Volume? If so, would the Government consider excluding the table from page count limits or increasing page limit to accommodate table? A18: Section L.3 will be revised to indicate “Table of contents and summary sections are excluded from the page count. Summary sections are restricted to two (2) pages only.” Q19: SECTION – M.3.3.e / Page 70 Section M.3.3.e states that an offeror with unknown past performance is rated “Acceptable”. Can the Government provide clarification and verify that this is accurate? A19: Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance. An unknown or neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable”. This is accurate as per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Q20: SECTION – M.3.3.c / Page 69 Section M.3.3.c states that Past Performance within five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date will be considered recent past performance for the purposes of this solicitation. Section L.3.4 states that Offerors shall submit a list of no more than five (5) contracts on which the Offeror served as either the prime, as a subcontractor, or as part of a Joint Venture, in performance and/or completed during the past ten (10) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Can the Government please clarify whether past performance is within five (5) years or ten (10) years and confirm if Past Performance within the past ten (10) years can be rated “Acceptable"? A20: The Government confirm that the Past Performance is within five (5) years. RFP Section L.3.4 will be corrected to indicate five (5) years. Q21: Section 6. Initial Order / Page 3 Can the Government provide a tentative date/ location for the “Post-Award” Conference/Kickoff Meeting? A21: Post-Award Conference will be conducted via MS TEAMS within 30 business days after base awards. Awardee can attend in-person if preferred but not required. Location of any in-person meeting must be at the proximity of the Program Office facilities in Orlando. Q22: ATTACHMENT I, SECTION III Does the Government have a plan to ensure interoperability with NATO live training standards? Does the Government intend to address and incorporate these aspects in BEST-MAC Lot 1 and Lot 2? A22: The Government intends to define interoperability requirements for specific devices within their respective Delivery Orders. Q23: The DRFP indicates that the Government will share program information and documents using the LT2 Portal, which requires SECRET clearance even though the information inside the portal is unclassified. For the purposes of this program, we envision that our Germany-based simulation and training business unit will support our US business in competing for and performing the work. Given what we know about LT2 Portal restrictions, can you provide clarification on whether we can receive technical assistance from our foreign teammates as part of this program? Can you provide insights on any other security parameters for this program such as export controls, CUI, etc.? A23: The Government will make every effort to provide information to Industry for the RFP effort through collaboration in the LT2 portal. The unclassified and public released documents can be sent through DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) if industry cannot get access to LT2 Portal. Security protocols for the access of Technical Data in support of individual DOs will be identified within the procurement of the DO. Q24: Will the Government accept past performance on foreign systems and programs? A24: Yes, the Government will accept any past performance as long as it is within 5 years and satisfies section L.3.4. All documentation shall be submitted in English. Q25: The stated intent of the solicitation is, "to meet the Army's evolving training strategy." Can you please provide a copy of the Army current and evolving training strategies so we can fully understand the Government intent? A25: Specific training strategies related to these requirements are not available for this MAC effort. In the event specific strategies germane to future individual Delivery Order requirements are available, the Government will consider including them at that time. Q26: ATTACHMENT: 3B, SECTION: 13C – Subfactor 2.3 - Production You have defined large scale production as the “production of at least 4,000 units per year of any TESS Product”. This threshold will severely limit the number of qualified bidders. Lot 2 is where the Government expects to add new TESS weapon platforms, but you will miss out on new offerings from industry members and potential bidders who don’t meet the stated requirements for large scale production. Further, there are companies that have the capacity to achieve this level of production but circumstances during the qualifying time period have just not required them to do so. So our question is, will you consider eliminating or relaxing this requirement? A26: See answer to Q1. **************************************************************************************** 22 June 2023 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) This update is for the issuance of the DRAFT Request for Proposal (DRFP) and attachments that are provided for Industry review and feedback. Attachments: Attachment 1 - BEST MAC Base SOW Attachment 2 - Ordering Procedures Attachment 3a - BEST MAC_Lot 1 Contract Data Attachment 3b - BEST MAC_Lot 2 Contract Data Attachment 4 - BEST MAC_PPAQ Questionnaire Attachment 5 - Industry Question_Comment Form Attachment 6 – LT2 Portal Access Information Potential offerors are encouraged to comment and provide feedback on all aspects of the DRFP, including, but not limited to the requirements, Statement of Work (SOW), CLIN structure, schedules, proposal instructions (Section L), and evaluation approaches/criteria (section M), attachments, and/or other programmatic risk issues associated with the performance of the work. Potential Offerors are requested to identify unnecessary or inefficient requirements. The Government IS NOT requesting proposals in response to this DRFP, does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this DRFP, and will not pay for any information received regarding this DRFP. Therefore, any references to the submission of a completed SF33 are not applicable to this DRFP. Feedback and comments regarding the DRFP are to be submitted utilizing attachment 4 – BEST MAC Question_comment form and should be submitted electronically in writing, to Rafael A Manzano, Contract Specialist at rafael.a.manzano2.civ@army.mil by 2:00 PM EST, July 10, 2023. If a respondent believes their comments contain confidential, proprietary, competition sensitive, or business information, those questions/comments shall be marked appropriately. However, questions that are marked as containing confidential, proprietary, competition sensitive or business information will not be provided with a Government response. The Government will consider all comments received in preparation for the Final RFP. To the extent a comment leads the Government to revise the acquisition approach or requirements, the change will be reflected in the Final RFP. Documents related to this acquisition, including this letter, the solicitation, attachments, exhibits, any amendments will be attainable electronically from the Government-wide point of entry website at www.SAM.gov. It is the potential offerors responsibility to monitor the websites for updates. **************************************************************************************** 5 April 2023 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) The Government intends to release a draft RFP for this effort in the 4th Qtr of FY23, approximately in early July of 2023. **************************************************************************************** 17 October 2022 UPDATE to SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) RESPONSES REQUESTED: This is a follow up to the BEST MAC Industry Day questions that were presented during the brief by the Government. Contractors shall submit responses to this Notice to the Points of Contact (POCs) indicated below, indicating their responses to the questions below. Should Lots 1 be broken out onto two Lots (Modifications / Procurement)? Would you bid on both lots? Describe how Small Business would participate in Modification of existing TESS and Production of new TESS? What is your experience with I-MILES or I-MILES type systems? What is your unique capability that you would bring to this Contract? What are ideas on discriminators that could be used to narrow down contractor participation? Vehicle Platform experience (Combat/Tactical Vehicles)? What is your LTEC/LPAN experience? What do you see as barriers to competition? Are there other items the Government should consider? **************************************************************************************** Original SAM.gov Notice ID W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC (Posted 17 August 2022) INTRODUCTION: The U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), Project Manager, Soldier Training (PM ST), Product Manager, Live Training Systems (PdM LTS) and PD Future Training Systems (PD FTS) have requirements to modify existing Army Tactical Engagement Simulation System (TESS) and procure similar products until Synthetic Training Environment Live Training Devices (STE LTS) products have been fielded. Four product lines will be at end of useful life. These product lines must be modified to extend the product service life a minimum of ten years. Emphasis will be on maximum reuse of existing product components. Existing TESS must be modified as changes to weapon systems and ammunition evolve. Historically the weapon platforms periodically modify their equipment, lethality, vulnerability, and ammunition. A contract is required in order to allow the Government to modify these product lines in order to remain relevant. Many existing TESS assets are also fielded to U.S. foreign partner nations, with potential modifications to address any specific partner nation requirements. Existing TESS must be modified to interoperate with STE LTS products as they are integrated into the training environment. A new instrumentation network is anticipated and will drive hardware and software modifications to current TESS. New STE LTS products may also drive changes to the current TESS hardware and software. Army force structure changes occur and new weapon platforms are periodically introduced into the Army inventory. This contract will allow the Government to procure similar TESS to address these changes as they occur. The scope will encompass the use of Government Owned Training Systems (GOTS), Government Owned Software, Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) and Modified COTS hardware and software to meet the requirements. Provides Force-On-Force training capabilities for dismounts, tactical vehicles, combat vehicles and weapons. Implement component-based architecture Incorporate Government-owned standards and software DISCLAIMER: THIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR INFORMATION AND PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. THE GOVERNMENT WILL USE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO DETERMINE ITS ACQUISITION STRATEGY. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS NOTICE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IS NOT BINDING ON THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION, INVITATION FOR BID (IFB), REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ), OR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP), AND IS NOT A COMMITMENT BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO PROCURE SUBJECT SERVICES/SUPPLIES. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR INFORMATION REQUESTED NOR WILL IT COMPENSATE ANY RESPONDENT FOR ANY COST INCURRED IN DEVELOPING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. ADDITIONALLY, ALL SUBMISSIONS BECOME GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND WILL NOT BE RETURNED. ANY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS TO THIS TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION IS STRICTLY VOLUNTARY. NOT RESPONDING TO THIS RFI DOES NOT PRECLUDE PARTICIPATION IN ANY FUTURE RFP, IF ANY IS ISSUED. IF A SOLICITATION IS RELEASED, IT WILL BE SYNOPSIZED ON THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE POINT OF ENTRY WEBSITE (HTTPS://SAM.GOV). IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE POTENTIAL OFFERORS T...