The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and

suggestions. The paper has been thoroughly revised considering these comments. In particular, the
major changes are:

 The numerical examples have been re-written and enhanced with more informative results
and tables.
 The Abstract and Conclusions have been thoroughly revised.
 Introduction and Related work sections have been combined and revised.
 Many technical details have been relegated to appendices to enhance the readability of the
manuscript.

We have also highlighted some key sections that are responses to specific reviewer comments.
However, in order to completely address structural suggestions from the reviewers, we have
significantly re-arranged the presentation of the content for Section 3 and 4.

Below, we address each of the reviewer comments and questions.

Reviewer 1:

1. Introduction:
In the last paragraph, the author said "The remainder paper is organized in 5 sections"
However, it is mistake. The whole paper is organized in 5 sections rather than the remainder.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error. It has been corrected in the revised
manuscript.

2. Related Work:
The authors stated why jointly optimize opportunistic and time-based preventive
maintenance is studied considering opportunities with NHPP arrivals stochastic duration. This
is one of the most relevant parts of the introduction, in which what aspects does your model
differ from the existing contributions should be stated. I know, the opportunities have
stochastic durations, it is well-understood. However, what are the different features of HPP
and NHPP? What processes are they suitable? Why you use NHPP replacing the HPP in this
study? Could you give more intuition?

A non-homogenous arrival process is necessary to describe the time-varying arrival

intensities of some opportunities. For example, this study was inspired by a real situation of
sugarcane processing industry that production systems stop in rain days and those
"external" events create chances for maintenance. These opportunities cannot be well-
characterized by a single arrival rate (i.e. HPP) and instead have seasonality (probabilities of
rain are different depending on the time of the year). While we gave an example of this in
the original manuscript introduction, we agree that it wasn’t clear that NHPP was a response
to this deficiency. We have edited (highlighted) the introduction to clarify this point,
explicitly stating that these arrivals are non-homogenous in contrast to the constant arrival
rate HPP processes considered in previous studies.
 Further, in most studies jointly optimize opportunistic and condition-based preventive
maintenance have been studied, why you just studied the jointly optimize opportunistic and
time-based preventive maintenance?

The authors agree with the reviewer that condition-based maintenance (CBM) approaches
have received significant attention in literature. This study represents a first attempt to
develop more realistic models for opportunities; therefore we started from the simpler
time-based maintenance approach. However, we recognize our limited consideration of
CBM approaches in the original manuscript. Therefore, in response to this comment and a
related one from another reviewer, we have extended the introduction and included in the
literature review 11 more papers on CBM.

Furthermore, in the revised manuscript we have discussed our main reason for considering a
time-based approach: implementing CBM requires feasible technologies for monitoring the
condition of a system, which may not be available or prohibitively expensive for some
systems. Nevertheless, we expect to extend our results to CBM in future work. We have
highlighted the changes in the Introduction and Conclusion related to the aforementioned
changes.

3. Model Description:
Since some notations have been used before Section 3.3, why you just list them in Section 3.3
rather than at the beginning of the paper, like the position of Abbreviations?

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions. In response to this comment, we moved the
Notation section to the beginning of paper.

Why you choose Gamma distribution as a stochastic process of the arbitrary interval
[𝑡𝑠 , 𝑡𝑓 ] (𝑡𝑓 ≥ 𝑡𝑠 )?

The Gamma distribution is the PDF and CDF of the 𝑘th opportunity arrival time (described in
equations (9) and (10) in both the original and revised manuscript). However, we have
clarified that the Gamma distribution was not a choice, but was a consequence of the NHPP
arrival model. We have updated Eq. (9) and the preceding paragraph (highlighted in the
revised manuscript) to further clarify this point as well as the functional form of the CDF and
PDF.

4. Numerical Examples:
Some examples for two scenarios are conducted in this section to illustrate the use of both
optimization models, and the corresponding experimental results are given in the form of
figure and table. In my opinion, too much attention is paid to obvious results, and too little to
the less straightforward ones. "No obvious regularity" is not sufficient in my opinion, but I
would rather read some explanation for those results as well.

We agree with the reviewer’s comment that the original numerical results section could be
improved. We significantly revised this section to focus on the exploration of the advantages
 of considering the partial opportunities. We have streamlined the sensitivity analysis and
focused on the comparison of our model with two more “traditional” maintenance policies:
a scheduled PM (no OM) policy, and full opportunities only policy. Tables 2-5, 7, and 8
summarize the key results in the revised manuscript.

The results show that the partial opportunity consideration can yield maintenance cost
savings compared to both no-OM and full-opportunity-only baselines, especially when the
preventive maintenance cost is high due to primarily to high downtime costs.

5. Conclusion:
The conclusion is too brief to give a pointwise summary of the article. What did you find and
what can you conclude? Why you will generalize the innovative concept of partial
opportunities by combining partial savings on different cost components in your future work?
Did you get inspired from the present study that led you to want to continue studying of
partial opportunities by combining partial savings on different cost components? You should
give a simple analysis and explain in the manuscript.

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments. In response the conclusion has been
thoroughly rewritten. In particular, we now discuss the revised simulation results, when
partial opportunities are advantageous and are more specific about the avenues for future
work.

Reviewer 2:

The paper is generally too long with respect to its contribution. Section 1 and Section 2 can
be combined, so that the readers can get into the problem/model with solution procedure.

We are grateful to the reviewer for the suggestion. The revised paper was reorganized
according to this suggestion. Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 2 (Related Work) were
combined in revised paper. Due to this comment (and another comment by the reviewer),
we have also moved a number of the technical details to appendices to enhance the
readability of the main body of the paper. We hope that the reviewer will find the current
length justified by the more readable main body and clearer simulation results.

For Section 3.4, it would good if the main results are stated with the derivation put in an
appendix.

We agree with the reviewer and accept the suggestion. In response this comment, this
section was revised where the detail mathematical deviation were put in two appendices 1
and 2.

The example does not seem to be very clear. How the model is build and analysis done,
should be described a bit more, not just showing the results.
In response to this comment and a similar one by another reviewer, we have significantly
revised the numerical example section, including a description of the optimization procedure
(flowchart in Fig. 4 in the revised manuscript) and revised numerical results. We now
compare our model with two more “traditional” maintenance policies (which are special
cases of our model): a scheduled PM (no OM) policy and full opportunities only policy.
Tables 2-5, 7, and 8 summarize the key results in the revised manuscript. The results show
when our methods are advantageous: minimal CM with high PM due primarily to downtime
costs.

Most of the references are rather old. There are many more recent works on condition-based
maintenance research. The literature review should be updated and discussion with recent
works will help the paper to be more up to date and convincing.

We thank the reviewer for the suggested literature. In response to this, we enhanced the
literature review in the introduction, including 11 new references on condition-based
maintenance (CBM) studies. We have highlighted the new section in the introduction that
specifically discusses CBM with OM.