Read RFI%20Rev1%20JLTV%20EMD-22%20MAR%202011.pdf text version

22 March 2011

Request for Information Revision 1 Potential EMD Proposal Requirements. The JLTV Program office is currently considering requiring one ballistic structure and detailed CAD models as part of an EMD proposal submission requirement. Please indicate the amount of time that would enable you to produce a ballistic structure and detailed CAD models at time of RFP proposal due date given the following information, assumptions, and clarifications provided in this document. Please note that questions/answers have been added in this RFI document. It is currently estimated the RFP will be on the street for 60 calendar days. The JLTV Program office requests that all responses to this RFI be submitted no later than 11 April 2011. Ballistic Structure. Industry should assume the underbody and underwheel requirements to be twice the threshold requirements detailed in Annex E v. 2.3 June 2010. The JLTV Program office plans to release a revised Annex E available for request sometime in April 2011. Responders are reminded that any response to this revised RFI may be FOUO or classified, and are to ensure that all responses shall be marked and handled in accordance with JLTV Security Classification Guide, 19 Sep 2008. . Assume the ballistic structure includes the entire chassis/frame/crew capsule, seats, passenger restraints, wheels, tires, representative spring rate and travel suspension, and drive train components that would enable the chassis to roll, but the structure does not need to be self propelled. Components located below the ballistic cab, such as the driveshaft, transfer case, and transmission need to be present but are not required to be fully functional. Drive train components encapsulated within the ballistic structure are not required. The ballistic structure would not need to include any interior components, beyond seats and passenger restraints, such as the dash board, unless those components provide ballistic protection. The ballistic structure will be weighted by the contractor to the designed GVW, axel weight distribution, and center of gravity location. Please respond with the timeline you require to produce a ballistic structure for your RFP response to include design, M&S, material order dates, lead times, and fabrication. CAD Models. Please respond with your ability to provide by the proposal due date a detailed CAD models of your JLTV EMD designs that would allow Government engineers the ability to evaluate sub-system and component design approaches, verify dimensions, material selection, and make estimates on weight. These CAD models may be used for various modeling and simulation assessments during the EMD source selection. The delivered CAD should be of sufficient quality, completeness, and organization to allow for easy identification of major vehicle systems and sub-systems. Finite Element Models. Please respond with your ability to provide by the proposal due date a meshed Finite Element (FE) models of your JLTV EMD design's major subassemblies. The major sub-systems of interest may include; hull, chassis, suspension, engine, power train and all underbody armor kits. FE models should be provided in either LS-DYNA or NASTRAN formats that would allow Government engineers the ability to evaluate structural and survivability performance. The FE models should be of sufficient detail to represent the geometry and thickness of your design approach in these areas; highly detailed representation of the FE sub-assemblies would not be required with proposal submission.

22 March 2011

Questions and Answers on RFI (Page 1 of 3) Q1. Is it the Government's intent that one or two Ballistic Hulls, CAD models, Finite Element models and/or Coupons would be delivered with the JLTV EMD proposal? A1. Government's intent is that one Ballistic Hull, CAD models, and Finite Element models would be delivered with the JLTV EMD proposal. The Government's intent on coupons is TBD. Q2. Is the assumed start of design date the same as the RFP release date? A2. The Government's intent is to understand the time required to produce one Ballistic Hull structure, CAD models, and Finite Element models. Q3. The most current distribution of Annex E is in accordance with the PD 2.3 knowledge point. Does the Government plan to distribute an Annex E update, aligned with the PD 2.6 knowledge point, to be used when formulating this RFI response? A3. Please refer to revised RFI. Annex E will be updated periodically over time. The revised RFI estimates the next Draft Annex E is anticipated to be available for request April 2011. Please continue to monitor the EMD website. Q4. Will the Ballistic Hull(s) be purchased by the Government? A4. The Government has responded that we do not intend to purchase any Ballistic Hulls required with EMD proposal submission. The EMD Website posted this response on 14 March 2011, which updated the Post-Industry Day "Questions and Answers on Industry Day Charts". Q5. What will the required Ballistic Hull sub-configurations be if two Ballistic Hulls are required, (two CTV's, two CSV's or one CTV and one CSV)? A5. Government's intent is one CTV (4pax). Q6. What Modeling & Simulation verification, validation and accreditation (VVA) has been done or is being planned to support use of mine blast FE models for source selection. A6. No Response Q7. Is it the Governments intention to conduct exploitation testing along with blast testing? If not can a mass surrogate be used in place of the GPK to reduce schedule and cost? A7. The Government will not disclose exactly what testing will be done as part of Source Selection. At this time, the Government believes that a mass surrogate instead of an actual GPK would be acceptable. Q8. In order to provide a complete assessment of timing for the delivery of ballistic hulls it would be beneficial to review the United States Government (USG) test plan, even in draft form. Can this be provided? A8. No, the Government will not disclose exactly what testing will be done as part of Source Selection. Q9. Does the USG intend to perform direct fire exploitation testing on the ballistic hulls? A9. The Government will not disclose exactly what testing will be done as part of Source Selection. The hulls should be complete to the extent that any/all blast/ballistic testing could be performed.

22 March 2011

Questions and Answers on RFI (Page 2 of 3) Q10. Does the USG intend to perform side Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) testing on the ballistic hulls? A10. The Government will not disclose exactly what testing will be done as part of Source Selection. The hulls should be complete to the extent that any/all blast/ballistic testing could be performed. Q11. Does the USG intend to perform wheel shot testing on the ballistic hulls? A11. The Government will not disclose exactly what testing will be done as part of Source Selection. The hulls should be complete to the extent that any/all blast/ballistic testing could be performed. Q12. Will anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) be used in the testing of the ballistic hulls? A12. The Government will not disclose exactly what testing will be done as part of Source Selection. The hulls should be complete to the extent that any/all blast/ballistic testing could be performed. Q13. Are there any areas of the ballistic hulls where surrogate armor may be utilized rather than actual armor? A13. No, actual armor should be used everywhere. Q14. Completion of ballistic hulls is dependent upon the USG providing final threat requirements. Our intent is to provide the USG with the amount of time necessary to deliver ballistic hulls after receipt of this data. Is this acceptable? If not, please advise how the USG would like to receive this information. A14. This approach is acceptable. Q15. Is it acceptable to use surrogate and representative components on the ballistic hulls as part of an accurate ballasting to GVW (e.g. engine mass, representative transmission)? It is anticipated that this would result in lower cost, a shorter schedule, and a more accurate vehicle ballasting. A15. Yes, the Government intent is to allow offerors to weight the hulls however they would like to achieve the proper GVW and weight distribution. Q16. Please clarify the USG expectations regarding 'JLTV EMD designs'. Is this with regard to the ballistic hulls, Combat Tactical Vehicles (and/or specific mission packages), and/or Combat Support Vehicles? A16. CAD models should be complete designs for the offerors' base CTV (4pax) and CSV (2pax) solutions (to the extent that the offeror's design is complete) and directly correlate to the provided ballistic hulls and paper proposals. Q15. Please provide a definition as to what is expected with regard to a "detailed CAD model." A15. Enough detail to allow Government engineers the ability to evaluate sub-system and component design approaches, verify dimensions, material selection, and make estimates on weight. Q16. Will the parametric based models require data such as material type? A16. Yes, the CAD models should allow Government evaluators the ability to determine the material selection of your EMD designs. Q17. What level of component / subsystem representation is expected in the CAD models? For example does the USG expect C4ISR equipment (Display, GFE, etc) placement in the CAD models? A17. TBD

22 March 2011

Questions and Answers on RFI (Page 3 of 3) Q18. It is stated that the ballistic hulls will include seats and restraints. Does the USG expect these to be represented in the FE models? A18. Yes

Information

4 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

364830


You might also be interested in

BETA