M870A2-S Suspension Upgrade Draft P-Spec Q&A

The information contained in this posting are Government responses to industry questions regarding the draft P-Spec of the M870A2-S Suspension Upgrade provided in solicitation number M67854-19-I-0009, M870A2-S Draft Performance Specification. • 1. Overall, the Government is asking for a RESET/RECAP type strategy along with an ECP configuration change. Is there an economic/affordability cap that will be required if/when this becomes a solicitation? Government Response - No, there is no economic/affordability cap. •2. 2. (Ref 3.3.9 and 3.3.10 and 3.4.20 Interface with Prime Mover) - Why does the Government limit potential solutions by stating the "prime mover shall interface with." and/or "prime mover shall control CTIS, ABS, etc." and/or "CTIS shall adjust based on prime mover." There are other solutions besides the solution NATC has prototyped. Government Response - The intent is to reduce or eliminate the need for operators to control multiple interfaces during operation. This eliminates the potential for mis-matched configurations of the prime mover and trailer. •3. 3. (Ref 3.4.3 Width) - Assume 102" wide is with outriggers extended. Government Response - No, the maximum width requirement at 3.4.3 is with the outriggers stored. •4. 4. (Ref 3.4.6 Load Compatibility) - Paragraph references Table 5 (typo? - assume this should be Table 3 Engineering Equipment Payloads), on the list is the 621B w/out and w/armor. I recall a past USMC safety memo stating that the 621B scraper was not allowed to be loaded on the M870 trailer, except the M870A2E1. Is this still valid? Government Response - This is an error. Paragraph 3.4.6 should reference Table 3 Engineering Equipment Payloads. The 621B scraper is not authorized for use with the M870A2-S and will be removed from the table. •5. 5. (Ref 3.4.26 BII) Will the original trailer BII be current and serviceable - or will it be the contractor's responsibility to inspect and provide the original/standard issue BII? In addition, I recall BII was stored separately, apart from the trailer during RESET. Will the BII remain with the trailer during the contract? Government Response - The United States Government (USG) does not plan on having the trailer's BII inspected or replaced by the contractor. The USG plans to ship the trailers without BII for the ECP installation. •6. 6. (Ref 3.5.16 Shock) What was the original safety factor design of the trailer frame? Did it allow up to 8Gs at the CG and 2.5 Gs at KP? Government Response - The USG does not have this information. •7. 7. (Ref 3.5.39 ABS) Confirm the Government want to upgrade ABS to 6S-4M (ABS on all 3 axles). The original trailer had 4S-2M or ABS on the front and rear axles. Government Reponses - Yes. IAW 3.5.39 ABS, the USG requires ABS on all three (3) axles. •8. 8. (Ref 3.7.8 Rust and Corrosion) Upgraded trailer will withstand 22 years of corrosion and will have no more than 20% of stage 1 and no more than 5% state 2 and no area with more than stage 2 corrosion. This will require a complete inspection and possible end result may be decommissioning of several trailers from the fleet if repair is not allowed (unaffordable). Government Response - The AAO is 363 trailers. The USG intends to have up to 363 trailers in the fleet with upgraded off-road capable suspension. •9. 9. (Ref 3.8.2 EMI) Did the original trailer meet MIL-STD-464 with regards to electrostatic discharge? Government Response - The USG does not have any test data to confirm the original M870 trailer EMI performance meets MIL-STD-464. •1 10. (Ref 3.8.3 NBC) Did the original trailer meet MCWP 3-73.3 with regards to being decontaminated to the operational level? Government Response - The USG does not have any test data to confirm the original M870 trailer meets MCWP 3-73.3.