Request For Information: M88A2 ECP Effort under Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)

M88 ECP Prototype Effort under the Detroit Arsenal Automotive Other Transaction Agreement (DA2 OTA) The Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, in conjunction with the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS), Project Director Main Battle Tank Systems (PD MBTS), Product Director Combat Recovery Systems (PdD CRS), has the requirement to upgrade the M88A2 Heavy Equipment Recovery Combat Utility Lift & Evacuation System (HERCULES) vehicle. This Request for Information (RFI) serves as a follow-on to the M88 Information Briefing to Defense Automotive Technologies Consortium (DATC) held on 15 March 2018. The responses to the following series of questions will aid the Government in gaining further insight into the consortium's interest and capability to meet the M88 Prototyping effort anticipated to be solicited under the DA2 OTA. 1. The Government anticipates utilizing the Request for White Paper (RWP) approach prior to issuing a Request for Prototype Proposal (RFPP). The Government anticipates that the RWP will include a Statement of Objectives (SOO). a. The Government will only give consideration to a complete vehicle solution. Based on the information briefed on 15 March 2018, please describe whether you anticipate teaming with another contractor or as a Lead System Integrator (LSI) and detail your approach. i. Summarize the project team, qualifications roles (prime, sub, advisory) responsibilities, expected percentage of project work and their Non-traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) or traditional status. Please see Attachment 1 for definition of a Nontraditional Defense Contractor. b. The USG has data for the M88A2 as 2-D drawings and vehicle scan data. Which data would be useful for your WP development? Which data would be useful for your Project Proposal? c. If the Government were to grant you access to an M88 (without the ability to take photographs or vehicle scans) prior to a WP submission: i. How much time would you need with the vehicle in order to support the development of your WP? ii. What do you anticipate that this viewing will allow you to take away that will aid you in developing your WP? How many representatives would you need to send to view the vehicle? 2. The RFPP for this effort will require the Government to furnish the Team Leader (TL) or LSI with information that may be CLASSIFIED or CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI). The TL for the prototype project must have the capability to store, secure and maintain CLASSIFIED Government Furnished Information (GFI) and a Government furnished M88. To be considered for agreement award, the TL must currently possess a Facility Clearance (FCL) and comply with AR190-51, AR380-5, and AR530-1 for the GFI and M-88 that is provided. Team members must also possess a FCL in order to gain access to GFI and the vehicle. If a member of the team does not currently possess a FCL they will not be able to gain access to any key aspects of the program that are considered CLASSIFIED until the FCL is in place. a. Do you currently possess a FCL provided through the Defense Security Service (DSS) to secure the GFI and the Government furnished M88 vehicle? b. Would you need access to a vehicle for the development of your Project Proposal? If so, what kind of access? How long after issuance of the RFPP would you need access and how long would you need it for? 3. If, as a result of the competitive down select from the RFPP, you or your team is awarded a Project Agreement, you will be required to deliver a prototype. This prototype will serve as a demonstrator vehicle and will be subjected to a series of Government Run-off tests. a. In order to design the prototype inclusive of the required technology, is one M88 Government Furnished vehicle sufficient? If not, please describe the needs that cannot be met with one vehicle. Please describe how many vehicles you would need to mitigate those needs. 4. Please comment on our notional program schedule in attachment (Attach 2), which is the same schedule that was shared at the 15 March DATC meeting. Based on high level schedule with milestone events as outlined and program information provided to date, do you see the schedule as executable? Are there opportunities for delivering prototypes and production vehicles sooner?