industry day narrative for optionally manned fighting vehicle …€¦ · product assurance, test...

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited. 09 APR 2020

Industry Day Narrative

For

Optionally Manned

Fighting Vehicle (OMFV)

9 April 2020

Industry Day Narrative for OMFV


2

Table of Contents 1. OMFV in Future Warfare ....................................................................................................................................3

2. Revised OMFV Approach (Proposed) .................................................................................................................3

3. OMFV Characteristics .........................................................................................................................................6

4. Feedback from OMFV Industry One on Ones and Market Survey Results.........................................................6

5. Reducing Barriers to Foreign Competition ...................................................................................................... 11

6. Modeling and Simulation Approach ................................................................................................................ 12

7. Logistics in Digital Design ................................................................................................................................ 13

8. Product Assurance, Test & Evaluation............................................................................................................. 14

NOTE: The purpose of this industry day narrative is for the Army to provide initial planning information for industry comment. It is presented in lieu of the planned face-to-face industry day event previously scheduled on 26 March 2020. Please send comments and questions to the OMFV contracting mailbox at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]




3

1. OMFV in Future Warfare (The following does not constitute a requirement; rather it is a statement of characteristics of future warfare.)

1.1. OMFV Role. The OMFV will serve as the Army’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) tasked to maneuver through the enemy’s disruption zone and deliver Soldiers to their dismount point unharmed. The OMFV will provide direct fire support to Soldiers by detecting and destroying targets at a range beyond the enemy’s capability.

1.2. Survivability. The Army’s pacing threat is equipped with IFVs that can defeat vehicles at ranges between 1.5 and 2.0 kilometers. The OMFV must protect its crew and infantry from enemy IFVs while maintaining the ability to fight.

1.3. Lethality. Enemy IFVs fight alongside main battle tanks (MBTs), helicopters, and artillery. To win our future battles, the OMFV must be able to fight as part of a combined arms team, defeat enemy IFVs and helicopters by itself, and, as part of a team, defeat enemy MBTs when the M1 Abrams is not in support. These enemy defeating capabilities do not have to exist on every platform, but must reside within the formation.

1.4. Transformational.

1.4.1. Transformational must be defined versus the pacing threat, not simply with regard to the M2 Bradley. The OMFV will transform combat by allowing commanders to make decisions and engage targets faster than the enemy. The OMFV must provide decisive overmatch against threat capabilities at the time of fielding, and contain growth margins to maintain overmatch into the next several decades. This could be approached as an IFV with 21st century technology; a new concept of vehicle design; distributed and networked capabilities at the platoon or company level; innovative approaches to growth; or any other approach. The OMFV should provide advanced situational awareness to the occupants of the vehicle, between vehicles, and with the dismounted Soldiers it is supporting. It is paramount that the OMFV achieves decisive and sustained overmatch against our nation’s threats.

1.4.2. The OMFV formations will operate semi-independently and require forward sustainment capabilities to fight at extended distances while minimizing the logistical support through prognostics and diagnostics.

2. Revised OMFV Approach (Proposed)

2.1. In order to deliver the U.S. Army’s next IFV, the Army will pursue a five (5) phased acquisition approach. This approach will allow the Army to (1) develop and refine OMFV acquisition and contracting strategies, (2) award up to five vendors to conduct preliminary digital designs, (3) award up to three vendors to continue to detailed design, (4) build and test prototypes, and (5) down select and award to one of the three vendors to proceed into Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) followed by Full Rate Production (FRP).

2.2. The Army will execute the five specific phases with the associated planned program timeline (Figure 1).

Phase 1: Develop and refine OMFV acquisition and contracting strategies Phase 2: Preliminary design Phase 3: Detailed design Phase 4: Prototype build and test Phase 5: Production and fielding



4

2.3. This five-phased approach is focused on encouraging innovation, maximizing competition, and

producing a vehicle that will dominate cross-domain maneuver in Multi-Domain Operations (MDO). These phases are further defined as follows:

2.4. Phase 1 - Develop and refine OMFV acquisition and contracting strategies

2.4.1. The purpose of this phase is to have Army and Industry engagements to further develop and refine OMFV acquisition and contracting strategies. The Army recognizes the importance of accurately defining the capabilities without over constraining the design. These engagements are intended to include market research, industry days, and one on one meetings focused on one or more draft Requests for Proposals (RFP) prior to the preliminary design contract solicitation. These efforts, detailed below, along with additional system analysis and trade study contracts, will help ensure the Army gets the right characteristics up front and for future increments of the OMFV.

2.4.2. The Army plans to provide a draft Performance Specification (P-Spec) to industry as a means to solicit feedback on the feasibility, achievability, and structure of the RFP / contract. The government will use this feedback to conduct operational effectiveness modeling, simulation, and analysis.

2.4.3. Additionally, during phase 1, the Army will work to:

2.4.3.1. Reduce foreign barriers to competition by minimizing restrictive markings of relevant program documents and providing assistance in accordance with section 5, facility clearance information.

2.4.3.2. Identify a pathway to integrate relevant but immature technologies / emerging capabilities onto the OMFV platform over the lifecycle of the platform.

2.4.3.3. Leverage the phase 1 efforts to establish the overall OMFV analytical framework to verify vendor design compliance for use during phase 2.

2.4.4. Phase 1 activities lay the groundwork for the phase 2 preliminary design solicitation. Phase 2 preliminary design will be a full and open competition. Competitors will submit proposals for evaluation by a United States Government (USG) Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The government anticipates evaluating offers based upon proposed performance and price / cost.

Figure 1

FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Major Milestone Milestone Decision Point Soldier Touchpoint Design ReviewContract Design Build Test

Level 1 Program Overview - Revision Level 8.2

MDD at CDR (MTA-RP through First 2 Awards)

PM MCS OMFV

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

MDA Decisions MTA-RP ADM MDD MS C FUE

DP #1 Competive Award 5 KTRs

DP #2 Competitive Award3 KTRs + LL Material

DP #3 Proceed to Prototype DP #4 Down Select - 1 KTR DP #5 FRP Decision

Market Research

RFP Develop

RFPRelease

KTR Proposals

SSEB M&S / Sub System Testing

Long Lead Material Items

Digital Design

PDR

Detailed Design

CDR

Build / Integrate Vehicle Test LRIP Mat'l Lead LRIP Build Full Rate Production

NET/ LUT

Prod Qual Testing(PQT)

RFP Dev

RFPRel

KTR Proposals

SSEB SSEB NET/IOTE

09 Apr 2020Rev 8.2

Major Milestone Milestone Decision Point Soldier Touchpoint Design ReviewContract Design Build Test

Field a BN

Test a Company



5

2.4.5. Phase 1 ends with an award of up to five contracts for vendors to execute during phase 2 preliminary design.

2.5. Phase 2 – Preliminary design

2.5.1. The purpose of phase 2 is to allow up to five selected vendors to develop preliminary designs. During this phase, the Army intends to utilize virtual reality and modeling & simulation (M&S) to verify that preliminary digital designs are operationally suitable and technically achievable. The Army plans on providing Soldier touch points during this phase to provide feedback to vendors. Further details of the exact tools, number, and scope of the Soldier touch points will be provided at future industry engagements. The milestone event for phase 2 will be a Preliminary Design Review (PDR). During this phase, the PDR will be conducted: (1) to ensure the OMFV program has sufficient maturity to enter the next phase; and (2) to ensure OMFV contract specifications are technically achievable on a cost, performance, and schedule basis. As part of the PDR, the Army will assess compliance of vendor preliminary designs against a common set of technical performance measures and program metrics.

2.5.2. Phase 2 culminates in a selection of up to three vendors based upon a full and open competition. New competitors that did not execute the OMFV phase 2 contract are permitted to compete for phases 3 and 4. As part of their proposal, all competitors will be required to submit specific PDR artifacts and other data specified in the preliminary design contract. The government anticipates evaluating offers based upon proposed performance, design maturity, past performance, technical data rights, and price/cost (the specific details and relative order of which will be provided in the draft Phase 3 RFP).

2.5.3. LRIP option(s) will be included in the RFP for the phase 3/4 competition for evaluation at the end of phase 4. The intent is to provide the USG the ability to down select to a single vendor at the end of phase 4. Although phase 3/4 prototypes are not required to be built in the U.S., during performance of phases 3/4, vendors will submit a plan to manufacture future LRIP and FRP vehicles within the U.S in order to qualify for the LRIP award.

2.5.4. Phase 2 ends with contract award of up to three vendors that will execute phase 3 detailed design and phase 4 prototype build and test.

2.6. Phase 3 – Detailed design

2.6.1. The purpose of phase 3 is to allow the selected vendors to develop detailed designs in preparation for phase 4 prototype build and test. During Phase 3, vendors’ designs will be further refined to Critical Design Review (CDR) level. During the refinement of designs, the vendors will use M&S, sub-system System Integration Labs (SILs), and/or surrogates to iteratively substantiate the following: reduce technical risk, validate designs and feasibility of design concepts, investigate integration challenges, and identify potential reliability and sustainability issues.

2.6.2. The purpose of the CDR is to ensure that the vendors’ proposed detailed designs are adequate to proceed into fabrication, system integration, demonstration and test and can meet stated performance requirements within budget, schedule, and risk parameters. Long lead items are planned to be accommodated.

2.6.3. Phase 3 ends when the vendor completes CDR. The Army intends to carry each of the vendors into phase 4: Prototype build and test.

2.7. Phase 4 – Prototype build and test

2.7.1. The purpose of phase 4 is for the vendors to build and deliver prototypes based on their CDR level designs. Through test and evaluation, the Army will ensure the system performs against the technical and



6

operational characteristics. Soldier assessments will include a system-level limited user test. For each test event, the vendors will be responsible for the test product support package, to include: operator training, maintenance, spare parts / components, and draft operator manuals. The vendors will be responsible for meeting all the system safety specifications mandated by the test agency.

2.7.2. The phase 3/4 contract will include an option for LRIP. The Army will conduct a SSEB for down select to a single vendor and award an LRIP option.

2.7.3. Phase 4 ends upon completion of vehicle prototype testing activities and award of the LRIP option. Only one of the three vendors will proceed into phase 5 production and fielding.

2.8. Phase 5 – Production and fielding

2.8.1. The purpose of Phase 5 is for the selected vendor to begin LRIP to validate manufacturing processes through production qualification testing, and conduct initial operational test and evaluation. Additionally, the vendor will finalize logistic products including operator and field level maintenance technical manuals and new equipment training to support First Unit Equipped (FUE).

2.8.2. This phase will include the award of a FRP contract, activities to support fielding to a battalion at FUE, initial operational capability, and procession toward full operational capability.

3. OMFV Characteristics

3.1. The Army is approaching requirements development by broadly defining the desired characteristics for OMFV. The Army plans to have an iterative, ongoing dialogue with industry to understand how Industry intends to approach designing and developing the OMFV, as well as what is in the realm of the possible. The Army will refine the characteristics over time, which will eventually become detailed requirements prior to production.

3.2. The OMFV Characteristics are prioritized in the following order:

1. Survivability 2. Mobility 3. Growth 4. Lethality 5. Weight 6. Logistics 7. Transportability 8. Manning 9. Training

4. Feedback from OMFV Industry One on Ones and Market Survey Results

4.1. The Army is very grateful to all of our industry partners that took the time and effort to provide feedback through either the market survey, the industry one-on-one sessions, or both. The Army has heard your feedback and is considering it for incorporation into the OMFV acquisition approach.

4.2. The following feedback received is broken down into two categories. Category 1 deals with questions that will be addressed/answered in other sections of this paper along with where that answer can be found. More detail will be given to answers that are only partially answered in other sections. Category 2 answers questions in a question/answer format.



7

4.3. Category 1 - Answers are addressed in other sections of this paper

4.3.1. Question 1: Is the Army Acquisition Strategy a 5-3-2-1 or a 5-3-1 strategy?

Answer 1: The first part of this question is addressed in section 2, the OMFV revised program concept. This will be a 5-3-1 program.

4.3.2. Question 2: What is the government doing to reduce barriers to foreign entry?

Answer 2: This is addressed in section 5, Reducing Barriers to Foreign Competition. The Army is working to review the classification and markings on all documents to ensure that they are shareable as much as practicable. However, industry is responsible to make itself eligible for access to classified information. The government may assist, but responsibility remains with industry.

4.3.3. Question 3: What is the exit or evaluation criteria for each contract phase, especially preliminary design phase? Has the Army defined digital design (this is a wide spectrum) and if so how is the Army evaluating this criteria?

Answer 3: This is addressed in section 2, revised OMFV approach (proposed). The Government has not yet defined the evaluation criteria for the preliminary digital design phase (phase 2), but intends to perform digital evaluation and engineering analyses requiring Computer-Aided Design (CAD)/ Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE) data. This will be addressed in more detail in the phase 2 draft RFP.

4.3.4. Question 4: When is the RFP for phase 2 expected to be released?

Answer 4: This is addressed in section 2, the OMFV revised program concept. The RFP is expected to be released in Q2FY21.

4.3.5. Question 5: What are the expected deliverables at each phase?

Answer 5: This is addressed in section 2, revised OMFV approach (proposed). The system level expected deliverable at the end of phase 2 is a design that meets PDR criteria. The system level expected deliverable at the end of phase 3 is a detailed design that meets CDR level criteria. The system level expected deliverable at the end of phase 4 are prototypes and test support.

4.3.6. Question 6: Will draft RFP’s be published?

Answer 6: Yes. This is partially addressed in section 2, revised OMFV approach (proposed). The Army plans to release a draft RFP for phase 2 and phase 3/4 to industry to receive feedback on whether it clearly communicates what the Army expects.

4.3.7. Question 7: What is the Army’s test plan and schedule? If this is not known when is it expected to be communicated to industry?

Answer 7: This question is partially addressed in section 8, product assurance, test & evaluation. The draft test plan and schedule will be provided in the phase 2 draft RFP. The draft test plan and schedule will have multiple iterations as the OMFV characteristics are further developed.

4.3.8. Question 8: Will digital design maximize trade-space or emphasize preferred technology solutions?

Answer 8: This is addressed in section 2, revised OMFV approach (proposed), phase 2.

4.3.9. Question 9: Is the Army planning on having tiered, tradable requirements?



8

Answer 9: Yes

4.3.10. Question 10: Will there be a bid sample, and if so what is the purpose?

Answer 10: This question is addressed in section 6, modeling and simulation approach, and section 8, product assurance, test & evaluation. There will be no physical system level bid sample required as part of the OMFV phased acquisition strategy. There may be a low-level mockup (e.g., digital, wood, etc.) required deliverable as part of Phase 2 to provide Soldier feedback and evaluate space claims. The Government will request more feedback in the future on if this is feasible during the phase 2 draft RFP review period. First full system prototypes will be required following CDR during phase 4, build and test.

4.3.11. Question 11: What is the contracting strategy by phase? Will there be full and open competition at each phase or will it be a down-select? If this information is not currently known when does the government expect to communicate this with industry?

Answer 11: This question is addressed in Section 2, Revised OMFV Approach (Proposed).

4.3.12. Question 12: What is the selection criteria for Preliminary Design?

Answer 12: This is addressed in Section 2, Revised OMFV Approach (Proposed).

4.3.13. Question 13: Is the government strategy to allow funding for small businesses or is the expectation for industry to continue to invest their own money?

Answer 13: This is partially addressed in Section 2, Revised OMFV Approach (Proposed). The Army does not intend to fund Phase 2 or Phase 3/4 proposals.

4.3.14. Question 14: Has the Army defined what is meant by “transformational capability”?

Answer 14: This is addressed in section 1.

4.4. Category 2 - Answered in a question/answer format

4.4.1. Question 15: What can industry give the Army that the Army would find most useful?

Answer 15: It is critical during Phase 1 of this effort that industry partners provide candid feedback back on this proposed acquisition approach and on the ability to meet the characteristics based on the schedule and funding proposed. As the Army sends out the Phase 2 draft RFP and P-Spec, feedback will be requested to address the feasibility of the phase 2 approach. This will help the Army forecast what areas of growth are available in the future and the affect they have on Size, Weight, and Power – Cooling (SWaP-C). Lastly, from a logistics perspective the Army is open to suggestions addressing sustainment in the design that including innovative technology, have the potential to reduce logistics burden, reduce the time and cost to repair the OMFV and lower the overall lifecycle cost.

4.4.2. Question 16: How is the Army helping Industry understand the operational mission set and what the operational capabilities that are trying to be achieved (Concept of Operations (CONOPS); Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP))? Additionally, how does the Army envision this vehicle fighting within MDO?

Answer 16: The Army received Industry’s request for more operational context and characteristics that are expressed in operational terms rather than the Army requiring specific technologies. The Army plans to conduct follow-on engagements with Industry to further discuss employment of the OMFV in the MDO environment, while simultaneously updating the OMS/MP to better reflect emerging concepts.



9

4.4.3. Question 17: How often does the Army envision this vehicle being deployed by air (percentage of mission profile)? If deployed by air, is the C-17 the air transport vehicle?

Answer 17: The Army anticipates that Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT) will continue to deploy primarily via water and rail, but must maintain the ability to transport via air as an option for commanders. The C-5 and C-17 will be the primary aircraft used to transport the OMFV.

4.4.4. Question 18: Does the Army expect to see OMFV variants similar to the Bradley variants (Engineer; Fire Support Team; Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear)?

Answer 18: At present time, the Army is focused on the IFV variant.

4.4.5. Question 19: Is the Army more focused on current needs or future needs with this vehicle?

Answer 19: The Army is focused on both. The Army needs Industry to deliver a capability that provides a return to decisive overmatch against the pacing threat at the time of fielding, and with growth margins to ensure it can be upgraded over time to keep pace with enemy modernization.

4.4.6. Question 20: Will the government set up a meeting to give a presentation on MDO and the operational characteristics for OMFV to show where they Army expects MDO to go? Will the MDO functionalized concept be available to industry?

Answer 20: The Army continues to develop its MDO concepts. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1 is publicly available, and the Army can discuss how it views OMFV within the MDO context in future engagements. Development of OMFV and MDO tactical concepts are being conducted in parallel, the Army is interested in how Industry could help overcome some of the challenges described in the Characteristics of Need.

4.4.7. Question 21: Has there been any consideration for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) /counter UAS capability?

Answer 21: The Army is interested in how Industry might integrate such capability to address the Army’s needs.

4.4.8. Question 22: Which requirements from the first RFP remain valid for this next RFP?

Answer 22: No requirements from the first RFP remain valid. This is a new RFP.

4.4.9. Question 23: What are the most likely areas of growth that the Army thinks will be part of future upgrades (will help drive design)?

Answer 23: The most likely areas of growth will continue to be in weight, power management and distribution, computing power, electrical power, cooling, cybersecurity and physical space.

4.4.10. Question 24: What is the Army’s vision/concept for OMFV capability growth over time?

Answer 24: The specific manner and cycle of the OMFV upgrade strategy is to be determined. The Army intends to make judicious use of growth margins designed into the initial version of the OMFV to allow the OMFV to be the best IFV in the world for decades after first fielding.

4.4.11. Question 25: Will test dates be driven by FUE or informed by digital design process and tech maturity?

Answer 25: The Army has modified the schedule and approach to allow greater collaboration and digital design in the early phases to reduce risk during detailed design and test. The early digital designs will help inform the feasibility of the schedule.



10

4.4.12. Question 26: Will Industry be able to propose two designs?

Answer 26: The Army has not yet made a decision whether to permit multiple approaches (or alternate proposals) in response to the Phase 2 RFP. If permitted, each proposal must be complete and separate from the other(s) (i.e., standalone). Additionally, each offeror will be limited to a single award.

4.4.13. Question 27: Is there a plan for follow-on industry engagements?

Answer 27: Yes; The Army intends to do follow-on industry engagements, including an in-person industry day, once normal business operations resume (date TBD).

4.4.14. Question 28: Does the Army plan to evaluate new technology solutions at multiple points in the process?

Answer 28: In Phase 1, the Army will ask industry for information regarding technology maturity and availability to determine what is feasible in the design. Based on the SWaP-C and growth provided, the Army will ask Industry for their proposed upgrade solutions. The Army will perform Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) for any technologies proposed by Industry. Parallel to the systems level work, the Army will continue to do TRAs on new technology solutions that may provide desired capabilities. The Army plans to pursue a strategy that provides full system upgrades after Milestone C. The Army has identified the upgrade strategy as a subject for future industry engagements during Phase 1.

4.4.15. Question 29: What is the Army’s appetite for using multi-functional capabilities that can be higher risk and higher cost up front but will consume less SWaP-C and allow for more growth in future upgrades?

Answer 29: The Army values overall system capabilities and maintaining significant room for growth and integration of future capabilities. The Army is open to discussion on multi-function capabilities, but the risk of the technology selection resides with the contractor.

4.4.16. Question 30: Is there a suggested file type for digital design?

Answer 30: File types and formats for all technical data will be provided as attachments within the draft Phase 2 RFP.

4.4.17. Question 31: Is there a guiding strategy to facilitate Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) and implementation?

Answer 31: OMFV will be following published Army guidance (Policy Guidance on Implementing MOSA in Army Acquisition Programs and Middle Tier of Acquisition Efforts – 20 March 2020). MOSA will be further addressed in the draft Phase 2 RFP.

4.4.18. Question 32: Should BIT, Software Maintenance, CBM+, Prognostics and BDAR be implemented in the Digital Design phase?

Answer 32: The Army anticipates considering Built In Test / Built In Test Equipment (BIT/BITE), Software Maintenance, CBM+ and Prognostics as critical parts of the vehicle's fundamental hardware, firmware and software. These will likely be included as key considerations during the Preliminary digital design phase. Battle Damage Assessment and Repair (BDAR) is an important consideration necessary for expeditious repair or recovery and should be included as part of the earliest digital designs.

4.4.19. Question 33: Will the Army accept “live” test data for components?



11

Answer 33: It depends on whether the “live” data is being proposed in digital design or if it is previous live data that the offeror has tested. Test plans and methods will have to be evaluated to assure that the test appropriately substantiates the design. If live data is being proposed, the plans and methods being accepted prior to running the test will help determine if the data will be accepted.

4.4.20. Question 34: Has there been any consideration to using foreign comparative testing to evaluate and test foreign vehicles?

Answer 34: No, there has not been such consideration.

4.4.21. Question 35: Would it be feasible to do a medium caliber shoot-off?

Answer 35: Feasibility of a medium caliber shoot-off depends on the cost, schedule and the calibers that are being offered. More planning would have to be done to determine if and when such an event will occur.

4.4.22. Question 36: Will industry be provided with terrain profiles of US Army proving ground?

Answer 36: Yes, the profiles will be provided.

4.4.23. Question 37: Does the Government find value in the “Early Surrogate Platform” Testing proposed?

Answer 37: The Army is not requiring any bid samples prior to contract award. The Army is still drafting the M&S test plan which may require vendors to build early surrogate platforms during phase 2. No physical surrogates will be required prior to phase 3.

4.5. The Army recognizes that other questions already received have not been answered. Those questions, as well as any other questions to be submitted, will be answered in future industry engagements or at SAM.gov in the near future as decisions are made. Please continue to send any questions to the OMFV contracting mailbox at [email protected].

5. Reducing Barriers to Foreign Competition

5.1. The Army is committed minimizing restrictions including classifications, markings, and provisos on all documents to ensure that they are as widely distributable as practicable and permissible while still safeguarding legitimate sensitive information, sources and methods. Additionally, industry is responsible to make itself eligible for access to classified information. The government may assist, but the responsibility remains with industry. Interested parties are encouraged to begin necessary work to facilitate Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA) and government to government requests for information. As a guideline, count on a minimum of 2 months for TAA approval once it is submitted to Defense Trade Controls.

5.2. Prospective contractors must have a Facility Security Clearance (FCL) and safeguarding level that is at least as high as the classification of the pre-award information. Any contractor personnel that will be physically receiving pre-award access to classified information must have proper courier authorization documents as outlined in DoD 5220.22-M. Currently the targeted classification for portions of the OMFV RFP will be Secret. Interested parties requiring FCL are encouraged to begin the process early.

5.3. Submit requests for assistance to the OMFV contracting mailbox: [email protected].

5.4. FCL Timelines. :






12

5.4.1. Varies based upon several factors to include personnel clearances for Key Management Personnel (KMP) and if there is significant Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI). If KMP are cleared at least at the interim level of the facility clearance request and there are no FOCI concerns, facility clearance processing can be completed on average within 30-60 days.

5.4.2. If there are significant FOCI concerns, Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DCSA) would not be able to issue an interim FCL. FOCI would need to be addressed and mitigated prior to issuance of an interim or final FCL. If a company has significant FOCI that requires mitigation, timelines are much longer dependent upon what mitigation instrument would need to be emplaced. Specific timelines are contingent upon mitigation negotiations between the company and the DCSA Mitigation Strategy Unit.

5.5. Common FCL Rejection Causes:

5.5.1. Access to classified information is not required or explicitly indicated in the uploaded documentation

5.5.2. Government Contracting Authority authorization is not provided for subcontractor access above those noted in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual.

5.5.3. Discrepancies found with sponsorship information and/or supporting documentation

5.5.4. DD254 is incomplete or discrepant with sponsorship data or not signed

5.5.5. Incorrect Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code

5.6. Details on the Facility Clearance process can be found by visiting DCSA's website at: https://www.dcsa.mil and by searching "Facility Clearance" in the search bar.

6. Modeling and Simulation Approach

6.1. The Army recognizes intends to use modeling and simulation as well as other analytical tools to support the successful execution of the OMFV Program throughout the lifecycle. Outputs from these tools will help the OMFV Program (1) gain quantifiable insight into the vendors’ technical progress and risks; (2) assess the proposed system’s performance and maturity; (3) help identify trade space that can be used to balance cost, schedule and performance; (4) inform Maintenance Assessments, Human System Integration Design, and Operational Effectiveness through Soldier touch points.

6.2. Phase 2

6.2.1. In Phase 2, the Army plans to verify each Contractor’s compliance to technical specifications. The Army will identify Technical Performance Measures (TPM) to measure anticipated or actual achievement of technical performance in quantitative terms in order to gain insight into leading indicators of future risk and issues throughout the program. Modeling, simulation and analysis will be used to inform the technical measurement process and help generate metrics from the design assessment process that provide leading indicators of program technical compliance and design quality throughout the lifecycle.

6.2.2. The Army will use Soldier touch points to obtain early feedback from operators and maintainers to inform Maintenance Assessments, Human System Integration Design, and Operational Effectiveness. For example, Soldier Innovation Workshops (SIW) with vendors will be used to facilitate interaction with the end users and technology subject matter experts to inform, improve and refine the vehicle design concepts, preliminary designs and inform trade studies. Virtual Experimentation will allow Soldiers to use gaming to virtually fight and asses the operational effectiveness of the vehicle concepts and designs. Virtual Assessment of



13

Concept Vehicles by Soldier Panels and other stakeholders using a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) will also be used.

6.2.3. The Army will use constructive modeling and simulation tools to assess vendors’ proposed designs in the areas of vehicle performance, vehicle dynamics, SWAP-C, interoperability, lethality and survivability to ensure compliance to specifications, inform development testing and trade studies.

6.2.4. Vendors will be expected to establish and maintain hardware-in-the-loop, software and SILs that will give the USG insight into the progress of the vendors’ software development and maturation of the system software. Examples include Sub-system bench testing, Integration with individual GFE, and System integration bench testing.

6.2.5. Vendors will be expected to establish and identify Standards, methods, tools, and programming languages to be used as a part of development, as defined in the Contractors’ Software Development Plans (SDP).; techniques for ensuring that all critical system specifications will be met, including safety, security, performance, etc; methods and tools used to define traceability between system specifications, system architecture, software specifications, software architecture, design, code, and test elements. Methods, tools, and standards for testing, verification, qualification, and validation will also be documented in the Contractor SDP.

6.3. Phase 3

6.3.1. Army plans to continue verifying each Contractor’s compliance to technical specifications for detailed design. The Army will continue to use TPMs to track technical performance. The Army will use modeling and simulation and analytical tools to assess operational & system effectiveness and system performance.

6.3.2. The Army plans to continue leveraging SIW with vendors, Virtual Experimentation during soldiers touch points.

6.4. Phase 4

6.4.1. Empirical data from system testing of prototypes will be used to verify performance specifications and validate vehicle model performance data.

6.4.2. These validated models will be used for trade studies and analysis for any incremental upgrades.

7. Logistics in Digital Design

7.1. Logistics design in the OMFV should consider overall impact to the logistics footprint of the ABCT. This includes impacts to enablers such as maintainers, fueling, and munitions handling as well as special tooling needed to maintain the system and commonality with current General Mechanics Tool Sets and Standard Automotive Tool Set. Digital designs should also include capabilities that will reduce the repair cycle time of the platform by:

7.1.1. Including Humans Factors Engineering in maintenance design – can Soldiers reach all common maintenance points; can the platform self-diagnose a particular Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) to pull and replace?

7.1.2. Inclusion of advanced diagnostics/Condition Based Maintenance/prognostics/vehicle health management systems

7.1.3. Addressing obsolescence through design



14

7.2. Logistics Design should also consider reduction in key maintenance cycles times in terms of cost and hours as baselined against current IFVs in the Army inventory. Any sustainment concept that meets or is significantly improved over that of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle will allow the Army to reinvest those savings into warfighting functions.

7.3. The responses and presentations from industry in the one-on-one sessions were fairly consistent in terms of responses to the OMFV Market Survey logistics questions. While there is an appetite within the Army to bring alternative or additive manufacturing within the fold of the OMFV program, industry views this as a tool that will be used in the rapid prototyping and modeling phase of the acquisition. We would challenge industry to look at what other production and aftermarket opportunities exist to leverage these new types of manufacturing.

7.4. The initial vision for supportability of the OMFV starts with having vehicle designs in which reliability and maintainability are considerations for all design trades as they relate to overall system performance. Commercial technologies and novel design concepts exist that should allow us reduce the current logistics burdens and repair cycle times as baselined against the Bradley in the ABCT. There is no appetite for a design that would require numerous tasks to execute simple maintenance.

7.5. As the Army look to optionally manned and eventually unmanned systems, a reduced logistics burden will be an essential element in enabling a commander's ability to maneuver and win on a contested battlefield. It will limit our enabling forces exposure and deny the enemy targeting opportunities to degrade our combat effectiveness. By integrating smart maintenance and introducing efficiencies into the systems design, we can deliver improved readiness and lethality at the forward point of battle.

8. Product Assurance, Test & Evaluation

8.1. Early evaluation on vendor design leading up to PDR during digital design will focus on both M&S and early sub-system SILs. Both M&S and SIL data sets should help substantiate technical risk, validate designs and feasibility of design concepts, investigate integration challenges, identify potential reliability and sustainability issues, validate growth and trade space, and validate against the characteristics.

8.2. The OMFV test and evaluation program will be a phased (crawl, walk, run) approach to drive down risk in key areas of your design. Engineering Analysis along with M&S will be used to evaluate vehicle performance. This can be built upon by component level testing in relevant environments and accompanied by trades to be used in the digital design. These early events assist in building systems level success/reliability.

8.3. During Phase 2, early SILs for the crawl approach include software and Human System Integration (HSI). The SIL for software would be a preliminary software bench/table top to include both cyber and software. Another area of focus is using a mock up for HSI. Other SILs for qualification at sub-component level may also be included in Phase 2.

8.4. These and other SILs will support the walk approach in the Phase 2 detailed design for CDR as the configuration changes and corrective actions are integrated. As well as the run approach in the detailed design. Some key areas for example are; M&S and/or SILs in the detailed design for CDR are to evaluate mobility, lethality, survivability, transportability, software, and fire control software. The Army is also considering a fire control system SIL and a path forward to a turret stand or surrogate/mock up as well as LRU and line replaceable module component level qualification testing. The use of M&S and SILs in early phases as the design evolves will continue to reduce technical risk, validate designs and feasibility, investigate integration challenges, and identify reliability and sustainability issues to progress design maturity and optimization.

industry day narrative for optionally manned fighting vehicle …€¦ · product assurance, test...

Documents