Search Contract Opportunities

Bridge to Evolution STE TESS (BEST) Multi Award Contract (MAC)

Type: Sources Sought • ID: W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC

Description

Posted: Sept. 18, 2023, 9:45 a.m. EDT

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 TO MONITOR THIS SITE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

COVERED SYSTEMS:

The Live Training Bridge to Evolutionary STE TESS (BEST) contract is planned to encompass procurement and modification of the following types of systems.

  1. Individual Weapons Systems
  2. Tactical Vehicle Systems
  3. Combat Vehicle Systems
  4. Shoulder Launched Munitions
  5. Controller Devices
  6. Ancillary equipment associated with each of the product lines

ACQUISITION STRATEGY - PLANNING INFORMATION:

  1. Contract Vehicle: The BEST contract vehicle is anticipated to be a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) with multiple Full and Open Competitive lots for the overall contract. The MAC is planned to be an Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity contract vehicle with a 10 year ordering period.
  2. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code being considered for this effort is 333318 (Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing). Small Business size standard for NAICS 333318 is 1,000 Employees. NAICS code 333318 is not included in the 2022 NAICS Manual Revision; the applicable NAICS will change to 333310 (Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing) effective 01 OCT 2022, when the 2022 NAICS Manual Revision is incorporated into the SBA Table of Small Business Size Standards. PSC Code for this effort being considered is 6910.
  3. Contracting Goals to reduce lead times, and costs while speeding fielding:
  4. Focus evaluation criteria for the MAC on Past Performance and Experience.
  5. Reduce requirements package generation time for orders under the MAC.
  6. Reduce contractor time / efforts submitting proposals / bids under the MAC.
  7. Lower contract costs through competition for orders under the MAC.
  8. Provide MAC awardees repeated opportunities for competitive awards.
  9. Leverage product enhancements and innovation where appropriate.

The contract is anticipated to consist of the following lots:

Lot 1 Full and Open. Modify existing TESS to extend product life and meet the Army's evolving requirements

Provide Service Life Extension Plan (SLEP) to existing TESS. The scope of this Lot may include 210,000 systems over the 10 year period. Depending on the types of domestic/US Army TESS planned for work in any given year, the number of domestic/US Army TESS will be in the thousands. It is estimated that SLEP funding will exceed $300M spread over 10 years in this Lot. The Army will SLEP a specific quantity of its existing fleet every year through FY34. The intent is SLEP TVS, IWS, SLM initially to ensure compatibility, commonality, and interoperability with current TESS and the platforms each system are required to support, throughout the acquisition life cycle.

The weapon platforms continue to modify existing systems and field new variants. This requires TESS to make modifications to maintain weapon platform relevancy. The projected modification effort within this lot is estimated to be four updates to LTEC and 5 vehicle kit modifications. In addition modifications are required to interoperate with STE LTS products. This work will be defined as the STE Live product lines evolve.

The intent is to modify the existing fleet to extend the product life, adapt to evolving weapon platforms and to interoperate with STE LTS products for a minimum of 10 years. The TESS will be required to be compliant with the existing and new Government provided requirements / performance specifications. Partner nation requirements cannot be projected, but may be additive to this requirement.

Lot 2 Full and Open. Procure new TESS similar to existing TESS in the field today. Army Force Structure continues to change. This Lot will be used to procure new systems similar to the current TESS systems in the field today. Based on historical data, it is estimated that there will be 3 changes to Force Structure requiring additional TESS. These new system projections include all five TESS product lines.

In addition, it is estimated that there will be at least 3 new weapon platforms requiring new TESS. These new weapon systems will all have fire control systems that require an interface with TESS. They will also have new weapon systems that must be replicated. This lot may also be used to fulfill selected requirements for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). These procurements could be variants of existing TESS or new systems to interoperate with new weapon platforms and STE LTS products. These procurements may incorporate Interim Contract Support (ICS) until transition to Training Support Operations (TSO).

RESPONSES REQUESTED: The Government is seeking to determine which vendors are interested in each Lot and the capabilities of that vendor within that Lot. Additionally, the Government would like vendors feedback on the proposed MAC approach. Interested contractors shall submit responses to this Notice to the Points of Contact (POCs) indicated below no later than 4:00PM EST 14 days from publication of this Notice, indicating their background and capabilities in fulfilling the requirements described herein. The Contractor response should be 10 pages maximum.

  1. Describe your management approach and processes that will be utilized throughout the execution of tasks under the lots your company has interest in.
  2. Describe your company's experience in providing production of new Tactical Engagement Simulation System (TESS) and modifications to existing TESS.
  3. Is your company classified as a large or small business under the NAICS code proposed for this contract? If small business, please indicate any applicable socio-economic status [i.e., SBA 8(a) Certified, SBA HUBZone Certified, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), or SBA Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Certified].
  4. If you plan on subcontracting to other companies in order to deliver technical capability, please provide details on exactly which tasks will be assigned to those subcontractors; in addition, provide the names of those anticipated subcontractors, and list the anticipated percentage of small business subcontracting.

NEXT STEPS: The Government plans to conduct an Industry Day event on 19 Sept 2022 to further articulate its requirements for the MAC. One-on-One sessions with vendors and the Government team will be conducted in conjunction with the Industry Day event. Location for these events is 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, Florida 32826; Bldg: Partnership III, Rooms 321 A&B for Industry Day and Room 320 for one-on-one sessions. Industry Day will take place in morning at 9:00 AM and one-on-one sessions in the afternoon at 11:00 AM till complete. Industry Day will be conducted in hybrid mode, in person and via MS Teams. For one-on-one, all interested vendors who submitted information under this Sources Sought Notice, should have been contacted to establish session via either format (in person, MS Teams). Below is MS Teams link and call in phone number for Industry Day 0900 event.

Microsoft Teams meeting

Join on your computer, mobile app or room device

https://dod.teams.microsoft.us/l/meetup-join/19%3adod%3ameeting_709776c0325b490abdb1522afdc79475%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22fae6d70f-954b-4811-92b6-0530d6f84c43%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22e51eeeb2-e1e8-478b-af6b-0966f536177b%22%7d

Or call in (audio only)

+1 571-616-7941,,437791966# United States, Arlington

Phone Conference ID: 437 791 966#

INFORMATION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: All capability statements sent in response to this RFI must be submitted electronically (via email) to the POCs identified below. Responses shall include documentation of technical expertise and capability in sufficient detail for the Government to determine that your company possesses the necessary functional area expertise and experience to compete for this acquisition. It is imperative that business concerns responding to this RFI articulate their capabilities clearly and adequately. Instructions for submission are as follows:

  1. Only email submission will be accepted.
  2. Use Microsoft Office 2013 compatible (.xlsx, .docx or .pptx) or Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro (.pdf) formats.
  3. Classified material will not be accepted.
  4. Material samples will not be accepted.
  5. Information papers may be submitted in a White Paper Format and will count towards the total number of pages allowed.
  6. The cover sheet shall include the following company information: name, address, URL, POC name and email address, Commercial Government Entity (CAGE) code number, Unique Entity ID, business type and size, and a statement if your firm is or is not foreign owned, foreign controlled, or has foreign influence.
  7. All responses shall be sent via email to the points of contact below.
  8. The deadline for submitting capability statements is 14 days from publication of this notice.

*NOTE (LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING): If you are a small business interested in being the prime contractor for this effort, please be advised that FAR clause 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting) was updated in September 2021. The current clause adds the definition of Similarly Situated Entity and the 50% calculation for compliance with the clause. Small business prime contractors may now count first tier subcontractor work performed by a Similarly Situated Entity as if it were performed by the prime contractor itself.

To assist in our market research and set-aside determination for this effort, if you are a small business interested in priming this effort and plan to utilize a Similarly Situated Entity to meet the Limitations on Subcontracting requirements, please identify the name & Unique Entity ID/CAGE Code of the specific firm(s) you intend to partner/subcontract with to meet the requirements as well as their SB size status under the NAICS that you as the prime would assign for their workshare. Information regarding any planned Similarly Situated Entity should be included in answering any questions outlined in the RFI in order to assist the Government's capability determination.

Posted: Aug. 8, 2023, 5:53 p.m. EDT
Posted: Aug. 2, 2023, 12:38 p.m. EDT
Posted: June 22, 2023, 3:16 p.m. EDT
Posted: April 5, 2023, 10:29 a.m. EDT
Posted: Oct. 17, 2022, 1:33 p.m. EDT
Posted: Oct. 5, 2022, 3:40 p.m. EDT
Posted: Sept. 20, 2022, 4:45 p.m. EDT
Posted: Sept. 14, 2022, 3:40 p.m. EDT
Posted: Sept. 14, 2022, 8:50 a.m. EDT
Posted: Aug. 17, 2022, 2:04 p.m. EDT
Posted: Aug. 15, 2022, 10:48 a.m. EDT

Overview

Response Deadline
Oct. 5, 2023, 3:00 p.m. EDT (original: Aug. 29, 2022, 4:00 p.m. EDT) Past Due
Posted
Aug. 15, 2022, 10:48 a.m. EDT (updated: Sept. 18, 2023, 9:45 a.m. EDT)
Set Aside
None
Place of Performance
Orlando, FL 32826 United States
Source
SAM

Current SBA Size Standard
1000 Employees
Pricing
Likely Fixed Price
Evaluation Criteria
Best Value
Est. Level of Competition
High
Odds of Award
19%
Vehicle Type
Indefinite Delivery Contract
On 8/15/22 ACC Orlando issued Sources Sought W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC for Bridge to Evolution STE TESS (BEST) Multi Award Contract (MAC) due 10/5/23. The opportunity was issued full & open with NAICS 333310 and PSC 6910.
Primary Contact
Name
Rafael A. Manzano   Profile
Phone
(407) 208-5644

Secondary Contact

Name
Roberto J. Gotay   Profile
Phone
(407) 208-5617

Documents

Posted documents for Sources Sought W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC

Incumbent or Similar Awards

Contracts Similar to Sources Sought W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC

Potential Bidders and Partners

Awardees that have won contracts similar to Sources Sought W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC

Similar Active Opportunities

Open contract opportunities similar to Sources Sought W900KK-23-R-BEST-MAC

Additional Details

Source Agency Hierarchy
DEPT OF DEFENSE > DEPT OF THE ARMY > AMC > ACC > ACC-CTRS > ACC-ORL
FPDS Organization Code
2100-W900KK
Source Organization Code
500036903
Last Updated
Sept. 18, 2023
Last Updated By
rafael.a.manzano2.civ@army.mil
Archive Date
Dec. 1, 2024