MODERNIZED EXPANDED CAPACITY VEHICLE UP-ARMORED HIGH MOBILITY MULTIPURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLE MARKET SURVEY PREFACE: This is the US Army s Market Survey for a competitive recapitalization and modernization effort. This program is intended to provide coverage for all potential HMMWV customers to include the US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, Special Operations Command (SOCOM), Non-DOD Components and FMS customers. OBJECTIVES: The Product Manager, Light Tactical Vehicles (PM LTV) are conducting a market survey for the Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH) Modernized Expanded Capacity Vehicle (MECV). A copy of the draft Performance Specification is attached as the technical description for market survey purposes. INTENT: It is the intent of the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) to competitively recapitalize and modernize UAHs to improve protection and maintain automotive performance through the MECV program. This offers an opportunity to insert technology and improve survivability while in the process of performing vehicle overhaul tasks. BACKGROUND: The UAH fleet has evolved. Primary changes have occurred in additional protection kits, crew survivability, safety enhancements, and platform mission requirements. As a result of additional weight and increased capabilities, the deployed UAH fleet is experiencing reduced automotive performance and significant increases in Operation and Sustainment costs. Based on the Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy and future force structure plans, the UAHs will be required to play a significant part in combat, combat support, and combat service support roles beyond FY25. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: The PM LTV is considering a UAH Competitive Recapitalization and Modernization Program which will recapitalize the Expanded Capacity Vehicle chassis into a MECV with enhanced capabilities. The intent of the program is to use a systems approach to improve crew survivability, restore payload capacity and automotive/mobility performance, and incorporate lessons learned from recent Operational Need Statements. In support of this effort, vehicle capabilities and requirement adjustments are being refocused to improve crew protection while restoring automotive mobility, payload and performance. Dependent upon availability of funds, there is a potential requirement to competitively recapitalize and modernize the Army s current fleet of
60,000 UAHs. With other customers, the total potential quantity over the next 20 years is approximately 100,000 vehicles. PROCESS: The Government plans a phased, best value trade-off source selection acquisition and currently intends to evaluate proposals and fully functional vehicles in a competitive selection and down-select process. As a part of the phased source selection process, vehicles will be subjected to inspection and to survivability and automotive test events. Once a single MECV producer is selected for a long term production contract, a full test and evaluation process for Type Classification and Materiel Release will begin. RESPONSES: Response to this market research survey questionnaire should be sent via e-mail to the Contracting Officer, Ms. Marla Dalzell, marla.k.dalzell@us.army.mil with a copy furnished to Contract Specialist, Ms. Trish Pierce at trish.pierce@us.army.mil. Any product literature that cannot be e-mailed may be sent to Ms. Dalzell at: Commander US Army TACOM LCMC Attn: CCTA-ATA-A (Ms. Dalzell) MS: 416 6501 East Eleven Mile Road Warren, MI 48397-5000 Replies to this questionnaire must be received 30 days after posting to the Procurement PROCNET website. Please mark your information Proprietary, as you feel appropriate. Your input is voluntary and no compensation will be made for your participation in this survey. GENERAL INFORMATION: The Government appreciates the time and effort taken to respond to this survey. TACOM LCMC invites your response to the below market survey questionnaire for the UAH MECV. A copy of the draft Performance Specification is attached as the technical description for market survey purposes. The Government acknowledges its obligations under Title 18 U.S.C. 1905 to protect information. Pursuant to this statute, the Government is willing to take into account any PROPRIETARY restrictions placed on qualifying data forwarded in response to the survey questions and to protect it from unauthorized disclosure subject to the following: Clearly and conspicuously mark qualifying data with the restrictive legend (all caps) PROPRIETARY with any explanatory text, so that the Government is clearly notified of what data needs to be appropriately protected. Marked data already in the public domain, in the possession of the Government or third parties, or that is afterward
placed into the public domain by the owner or another party through no fault of the Government, will not be protected once in the public domain. Data in the possession of the Government will be protected in accordance with the Government's rights in the data. If protection of specific areas is required within electronic files, use the restrictive legends PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS and PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS to clearly mark proprietary data. In any reproductions of technical data or any portions thereof subject to asserted restrictions, the Government will also reproduce the asserted restriction legend and any explanatory text. The Government uses support contractors and consultants at times in evaluating information including Market Research responses. Responses that contain proprietary information will only be analyzed by contracted support personnel after binding non-disclosure agreements have been signed and returned to the Government. Data analyzed by contracted personnel will be maintained in the same manner as received by Government personnel in accordance with Title 18 U.S.C. 1905. MISCELLANEOUS: No contract will be awarded from this announcement. This is not a RFP or an announcement of a forthcoming solicitation, nor is it a request seeking participants to be placed on a solicitation mailing list. Response to this survey is voluntary and no reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this market survey and any follow-on information requests. Data submitted in response to this market survey will not be returned and will be used for program planning purposes. A separate response for each system or technology is desired.
MARKET SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE MODERNIZED EXPANDED CAPACITY VEHICLE (MECV) UP-ARMORED HIGH MOBILITY MULTIPURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLE (UAH) 1. Administrative Information: a. Company Name. b. Mailing address and website. c. Commercial and Government Entity Code. d. North America Industry Classification System number. e. Data Universal Numbering System number. f. Location of facility(s). g. Business size and eligibility under US Government socio-economic programs and preference (i.e., type of business large, small, small-disadvantaged, Woman-owned, veteran-owned, or 8(a)). h. Is your company located in a labor surplus area or a HUB Zone? i. Does your company use a cost system that has been certified by the Defense Contract Audit Agency? 2. Person Responding to Questionnaire: a. Name. b. Title. c. Company Responsibility/Position. d. Telephone Number/Fax Number. e. E-mail Address. 3. Security: a. Do you have a Facility Security Officer? b. Does your company deal with International Trade Agreement Regulation issues? 4
c. If so, do you have current experience with technical assistance agreements? d. Is your company foreign owned? If so, fully or partially owned? If so, what country? e. Will the workforce on the contract be United States citizens? f. Does your company have experience with Army security regulations? g. Has your company implemented an Operations Security plan? h. Does your company have experience with a Program Protection plan? i. Is your company currently able to transmit unclassified data in accordance with US Government data encryption requirements? j. Does your company currently meet Army Network Control Information Technology security standards for data? k. Does your company have experience with DD-254 Contract Security Classification Specification? l. Does your company have the ability to operate and maintain a secure Army data collection site (manpower, estimated labor hours, and total payments)? m. Based on any plans to build the MECV, what potential issues might you have with arms controls and security requirements? 4. Production: a. How many months after contract production award can you begin delivery of vehicles and at what rate per month? b. Assuming a production ramp-up process, how many months after test approval would it take to achieve a rate of production ranging from a sustained rate as low as 800 to as high as 2,800 vehicles per year? c. Assuming one full time shift, what is the monthly rate of vehicle production that can be supported by your facility? d. What is the maximum monthly production capacity of your facility? e. What is the minimum sustaining rate of UAH production that you can accept? f. Has your firm previously achieved your stated UAH maximum production rate? 5
5. Test: a. How long will it take to provide a new MECV Test Vehicle if complete destruction occurs during testing (ex: failed Air Drop test)? b. What Long Lead Material (LLM) would you require as part of a test system support package to ensure availability/replacement if a vehicle is damaged beyond use during testing? c. Will long lead items for a destroyed vehicle be available during testing if needed to support its replacement? 6. Technical Data: The current UAH Technical Data Package is not fully competitive (e.g. some items are source controlled or proprietary). a. In order to submit an offer on this effort, what would you need in order to fully understand the base UAH technical requirements and determine how to integrate your hardware and technologies into an MECV? b. Based on your possible approach, how much time would you need with this information/hardware in order to develop a proposal? c. Based on your possible approach, how much time would you need with this information/hardware in order to deliver a vehicle? 7. Vehicle Costs: a. Based on the draft Performance Specification (revision 2.1) and an estimated quantity of 800 to 2,800 vehicles per year for 5 years, what is the estimated Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) unit cost for your proposed vehicle? b. List the Performance Specification cost drivers that have the greatest effect on your proposed approach and the ROM costs that your company estimates would be incurred by each. c. What do you view as being the greatest cost drivers in terms of material costs and integration effort? 8. Technology Readiness for Production: The Government has evaluated technologies and hardware that are believed necessary for the MECV program and that are currently at a Technical Readiness 6
Level (TRL) of 7 or higher; on the premise that the main effort would be to package and integrate these technologies into a comprehensive family of vehicles. a. What technologies do you anticipate you would need that are not currently at TRL of at least 7 or higher? b. List the technologies that you believe are critical to meet a TRL 7 for MECV? c. What do you think will be necessary to get those up to a TRL 7 in the next year? d. What is your level or degree of confidence that these technologies being developed are rugged enough to meet a military operating environment? 9. Recapitalization & Reutilization: This program is planned to provide improved survivability capability as part of a competitive recapitalization effort. In order to accomplish this, existing UAHs will be provided to the contractor with the intent that they would rework and use some portion of those HMMWVs in their efforts. 10. Engine & Transmission Data: The current UAH engine is the 6.5L Turbo General Engine Products Optimizer 6500 engine coupled to a 4L80E Turbo Hydra-matic four-speed automatic transmission. a. Would your MECV concept reuse either of these components? b. Are you considering other possible engines for an MECV application? c. If so, what engine is being considered, what is its rated horsepower and torque output, and what is the weight impact? d. What transmission is being considered, its rated foot pounds torque output, gear ratios, and its weight impact? 11. Specifications and Revisions: a. A planned revision to the draft MECV specification is a slight increase in the ballistic threat range. b. Vehicle Weight; 1. What is the estimated Curb Weight of your proposed vehicle? 2. What is the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of your proposed vehicle with an installed B-Kit? 7
12. Modernization and Recapitalization: This is envisioned to be a Competitive Recapitalization and Modernization Program that will improve crew survivability, restore payload capacity and automotive/mobility performance, and incorporate lessons learned from recent Operational Need Statements. Based on your understanding of the current UAH and the latest MECV draft specification, roughly what percentage of the currently installed vehicle major assemblies and components do you expect could be salvaged and reused at the following GVW limitations? a. Which major assemblies do you think you will be able to retain and reuse at a GVW of 15,500 pounds? b. Which major assemblies do you think you will be able to retain and reuse at a GVW of 16,500 pounds? c. Which major assemblies do you think you will be able to retain and reuse at a GVW of 18,000 pounds? Major assemblies refers to engine, transmission, transfer case, axles, chassis structure, and cab body. 13. Government Entity Utilization: Teaming with a Government Entity is encouraged, but no additional credit will be given for such arrangements. Do you anticipate teaming with a Government entity? 14. Technical Challenges: Given the current released draft MECV specification, what do you consider to be the greatest technical challenges? 15. Production Facilities and Tooling: a. Are you considering using current manufacturing facilities, or will you add floor space (facilities) and shop tooling to manufacture and assemble the MECV? b. How much floor space are you anticipating to require and how much would be new? (Additional square feet.) c. What special shop tools such as jigs and fixtures would be required and what are their estimated costs? 8
d. What is the estimated administrative lead and installation time required after receipt of a production contract award to bring added facilities and special tools on line and operational? 16. Protection: The PEO CS&CSS Security Classification Guide (SCG) will be followed in the transmission and control of all classified data. Participants with questions regarding the handling of classified data should send an e-mail with contact information to Mr. TJ Kowalski at tj.kowalski@us.army.mil. A copy of the PEO-CS&CSS SCG will be transmitted electronically with classified specifications required to answer questions pertaining to armor and crew protection requirements. Participation in this market survey is completely voluntary. If the Government seeks additional information that is not included in a submittal, a PM LTV representative may contact the participant for further information exchange. Note: RESPONSES MAY BE CLASSIFIED Protection and Armor Potential: 1. Provide a brief description of crew protection technologies planned for the MECV to include integration requirements needed to support the technology. If proposing an armor technology, please include composition (e.g. metallic, hybrid, composite, ceramic) with specific construction lay-ups, thickness and area density. a. What are the specific threats that the technology addresses? b. Has the technology been tested previously for these threats? If yes, please provide organization and contact information. Data as a result of that testing is requested as well (e.g. Fragment Simulating Projectile at x ft/s). c. Please include integration size (length x width x height in inches) and weight (pounds) including installation kits. hits? d. How robust is the technology for handling multiple engagements and multiple e. What is the maximum number of threats it can defeat? 2. Describe any crew protection technologies to suppress/mitigate internal or external vehicle fires involving petroleum, oil, and lubricants, electrical systems, tires/track, stowage, etc. a. Please provide the space, weight, and power requirements along with available test data in regards to the protection that you would provide against any of these fire threats. A summary will suffice. 9
b. Please describe components/sub-components of the system to a level of detail necessary to understand how the system operates. 3. Describe any proposed capability to protect occupants, the threats they are expected to be protected against, and explain how the threat protection level was determined. a. Has physical testing, modeling, or simulation been used to validate occupant protection? b. If requested, will modeling, or simulation data be provided to the Government for analysis? 4. Occupant protection includes but is not limited to: energy absorbing floor mats, energy absorbing materials for occupant protection (padding), liners for frag and spall protection, energy absorbing seats or structures, safety restraints, and airbags. a. Please describe components/sub-components of the system to a level of detail necessary to understand how the system operates. b. What are the angular limitations on field of view and/or threat protection (both azimuth and elevation)? c. Is your proposed technology currently in production? d. What is the estimated prototype and production unit cost using square feet of material as a basis? 5. Do you have any long lead items, or capacity limitations, that may impact production? If so please explain. 6. Does your proposed system protect the crew against the objective underbody threat? If so, how have you proven this? If not: a. Do you believe this level of protection can be obtained in an HMMWV platform? b. Is the reason for not obtaining this level due to technology, cost, or a combination of both? c. What would it take to get your system to that level of crew protection? 17. Logistics Supportability: 10
a. Describe your organizations experience and capability in planning, establishing and managing an Integrated Logistics Support program (such as maintenance planning, developing Logistics Management Information/Supportability Analyses, personnel and maintenance training, provisioning, and fleet management). b. Describe your organizations experience and capability in Technical Manual development to include developing an Interactive Electronic Technical Manual and utilizing the Electronic Maintenance System Next Gen software. Please explain fully. c. What are the maintainability features of your design (such as self-test features, accessibility, need for separate test equipment to verify failures, corrective maintenance actions, and so on)? d. What is your proposed maintenance concept for the MECV based on the Army s two-level maintenance system, field and sustainment level maintenance? Please explain in detail. e. Does your company, or any of its affiliates, have any Performance Based Logistics (PBL) experience? If so, please describe and indicate where you are in the PBL process. Describe any experience as a Product Support Integrator or Product Support Provider in support of a PBL contract. f. Would you be willing to provide PBL support under a long-term contract? What length of contract would you need in order to make this a viable proposition? g. What is your approach to provide a System Support Package (SSP) to support testing? How will you determine if the SSP is adequate to support testing requirements? h. Describe your experience with packaging, handling, storage, and transportation. i. Describe your plan to minimize the HMMWV logistics footprint through the commonization of special tools and test equipment and unique components. j. Describe your experience with conducting and supporting Logistics Demonstrations. k. How would you approach New Equipment Training in support of the MECV? l. What is your approach to forecasting long lead items to support the production line for the MECV based on a production quantity of approximately 800 to 2,800 vehicles per year? 11