Amendment 0002.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

EAD-OMAO

JANA KOLB, CONTRACTING OFFICER

SEE CONTINUATION SHEET

EAD-OMAO

FED BLDG 200 GRANBY ST SUITE 815

NORFOLK, VA 23510

SEE BLOCK 6

1305M224RNMAN0230

01/30/2024

12/08/2023

Amendment 0002 is hereby issued to provide Questions and Responses as identified below:

Question #1: Contractor requests contract type of Cost Plus Incentive Fee for CLINs 0003, 0004, 0005, 1002, 2002, and 3002, and Cost Plus Fixed Fee for CLIN 0002. Since most contract cost risk is related to contract requirements and the uncertainty surrounding contract performance, the primary consideration becomes both:

- Stability and clarity of the contract specifications or statement of work; and

- Uncertainties impacting performance due to the maturity of technology being developed, implemented or utilized;

Due to the developmental nature of these CLINs, they represent an extremely high amount of contract performance risk that will adversely and significantly affect the degree of price realism. Contractors will seek to cover all possible risks resulting in the Government paying a significant price premium to cover the contract performance risk. This use of FFP will drive significantly higher cost estimates. Incentive type contracts are proven tools that enable the Government to achieve better, more equitable acquisition outcomes in the areas that are important to NOAA’s mission needs while both balancing risk and providing an opportunity to earn profit and fee by reducing costs and managing those risks.

Within SOW Appendix A the lack of detailed technical requirement definitions significantly hinders development of a Firm Fixed Price estimate for CLIN . In several locations within Appendix A Requirements, it is stated that Government Furnished Information (GFI) or Interface Control Document (ICD) information will not be provided until after contract award.

Response #1 (Updated Response from Amendment 0001): As stated in the RFP, this acquisition will be a FFP contract vehicle. The Government believes the work identified in the RFP to be “non-developmental.” The aircraft modifications identified within the Statement of Work (SOW) and Appendix A (Specification) have mostly been previously completed, or relatively similar weather research and scientific modifications have been previously completed on other aircraft. The specifications identified within the SOW are intentionally written to allow prospective offerors to propose an existing solution that fits the parameters of the requirement. The RFP states several times that the use of existing designs is highly desired. In the Government’s opinion the "development" of modifications to fit our build is low risk considering the history of the C-130J platform and the non-uniqueness of our specifications. NOAA is mostly asking for holes in the aircraft, supplemental electrical power, data, crew systems, and a copy of the Coast Guard Multi-Mode Radar (MMR) System; these are common aircraft modifications. The RFP is asking for "provisions for" NOAA OMAO/AOC to install our own equipment post-delivery. In addition, the RFP does contain FAR 52.216-5 Price Redetermination-Prospective (JAN 2022) which allows for, and defines, terms and standards for price redetermination periods under this requirement.

Question #2 (RFP, Pg.6, F.5) Request that the Required Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0001 be updated to reflect a 1 November 2027 date. This would be inclusive of the option for NOAA to conduct baseline aircraft testing for 1 month as mentioned in paragraph 12.4.2.1 of the SOW.

Response #2: See Amendment 0002

Question #3 (SOW, Pg.21, Ref 13.2) SOW Statement: "Drawings shall be in AutoCAD© (compatible with version 2018) or native format. If these formats are not available or not supported by the Contractor, the Contractor may request a deviation from this format requirement and propose an alternate reproducible media." Our technical publications graphics are provided in .SVG format vs AutoCAD .DGN and drawings are delivered in CATIA format. We are requesting a deviation from the format requirement.

Response #3: Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) and CATIA native formats are acceptable. Copies of all documents in PDF are also required.

Question #4 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 5, Ref A.7) Spares (repairables and consumables) and SE are specified under CLIN 0006. Are recurring sustainment elements such as Repairs, Replenishment, Pubs Updates and Technical Services to be quoted?

Response #4: No, CLIN 0006 is only requiring the Offerors to provide New Parts % Discount, Overhauled Parts % Discount, and Materials % Discount. In addition, the Offeror shall submit a separate Price Schedule List of its current spare parts list associated with the required aircraft.

Question #5 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 11, Ref A.9.6.2.3) Section A.9.6.2.3 references the NASA C-130H cargo door location for the expendable ports as a possible location for the five or ten oversized A-sized ports. Can information be provided on the NASA C-130H launchers?

Response #5: The NASA C-130H cargo door ports were originally installed by the contractor that delivered the aircraft to the Coast Guard (CG) (the original owner of the aircraft). The ports original use were “flare tubes”. There are two rows of 5 ports in the middle of the upper cargo door. The ports size and location are a reference, and there is no requirement to use them specifically.

Question #6 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 11, Ref A.9.6.2.3) Is it acceptable to install components on the cargo ramp that might have to be removed in order to freely move equipment along the ramp when it is lowered to either the zero or ground position?

Response #6: It is undesirable to install equipment on the ramp that will severely impede normal use, but may be necessary in some cases due to accessibility of desirable mounting locations. Any equipment that is installed in the cargo ramp area that encroaches on the cargo loading zone must be non-permanent, and have the ability to be removed.

Question #7 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 11, Ref A.9.6.2.2) Can the NOAA-installed Dropsonde launcher be removed and reinstalled for reconfiguration of the cargo area or is it desired to be a permanent installation.

Response #7: The port for dropsonde launcher would be a permanent modification, but the launcher installed by NOAA post delivery will be non-permanent and removable under some circumstances. Also note; the notional size of the port for the launcher was listed at 4” x 6”, but is actually 6” x 7”. This size is given as a reference to the port that is currently being installed on other NOAA aircraft for use by the new automated dropsonde launcher system.

Question #8 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 13, Ref A.9.6.8) Can additional information be provided for the viewports and apertures used on the NOAA G550 and the NASA C-130H?

Response #8: The specific design of the NOAA G550 modifications are proprietary to Gulfstream. Some of the NASA C-130H data is government owned and can be shared at a later date. e.g. the 21” lower fuselage optical port modifications are government owned and can be shared after we have finalized Inter-Agency Agreements. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) G550 science modifications can be found at their public website;

https://www.eol.ucar.edu/content/nsfncar-hiaper-investigator-handbook The NCAR C-130 science modifications can be found at their public website;

https://www.eol.ucar.edu/content/nsfncar-c-130-investigator-handbook https://www.eol.ucar.edu/content/nsfncar-hiaper-investigator-handbook https://www.eol.ucar.edu/content/nsfncar-c-130-investigator-handbook

Question #9 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 14, Ref A.9.6.8) What are the optical property requirements (optical grade, wavelength spectrum) for the optical view ports?

Response #9: There is not a requirement to deliver optical glass with any ports. The ports would be delivered with metallic blank out plates, with the ability for NOAA to install transparent windows post-delivery. To accommodate transparent windows, the ports shall have the ability to edge clamp windows of varying thicknesses, and of the same diameter as the blank. Also see reference A.9.6.9 Side Fuselage Window Ports. These ports shall be delivered with transparent windows, which may be plastic, such as acrylic. Optical glass is not desired at delivery in these locations also.

Question #10 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 16, Ref A.9.6.13.1.2) What are the interface requirements for the stores being installed? Does NOAA have an existing specific design in mind for the third hard point installation?

Response #10: The structural interface will remain the same as OEM design. The power and data interface will be finalized at a Technical Interface Meeting after award, but will meet the general routing requirements listed in A.9.6.13., except for the correction of routing through the trailing edge, not leading edge (ref. Response #12). Also see notional wiring in Response #15. For the third hard point, a notional location and design would be similar to the USAF EC-130J;

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104535/ec-130j-commando-solo/

Question #11 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 16, Ref A.9.6.13.1.3) Integrate hard points to wingtip, or remove wingtip and approve existing hard points for use? What type of load (size, shape, etc.)?

Response #11: Approval of existing wingtip hard point is preferred if it provides the required capability.

The loading requirement is similar to the side fuselage ports, A.9.6.8, but with higher weight loading. Capable of carrying loads inside a wingtip structure or outside; 50 lb required, 100 lb desired, with an offset from the wingtip of 8” required, 16” desired, with an equivalent frontal aerodynamic load area of 0.8 ft2. Conduit shall be extended to this location for power and data.

Question #12 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 16, Ref A.9.6.13.2) Current pylon wire routing is along trailing edge.

Why is routing along leading edge desired?

Response #12: Pylon wire routing along the trailing edge is acceptable. NOAA was not aware of this, as all other NOAA aircraft wing wiring is routed through the leading edge.

Question #13 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 16, Ref A.9.6.13.1.3) Current pylon wire routing is along trailing edge.

Need clarification on the purpose of leading edge conduits. What type of wiring? Size? Connectors? Nacelle 1 & 4 conduits very space constrained.

Response #13: See response 10, 11, 12 and 15. Trailing edge conduits are acceptable, and negate the need for leading edge conduits. The power and data routing will be finalized at a Technical Interface Meeting after award, but notional wiring is provided in Response #15.

Question #14 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 16, Ref A.9.6.13). Does customer intend to potentially fly with all stores locations occupied at once?

Response #14: Yes, within the capabilities of wing and hard points. A normal mission configuration would not have all wing stations occupied, but NOAA desires the ability to use all hard points if necessary, within the loading capability of the hard point and the wing.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104535/ec-130j-commando-solo/

Question #15 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 16, Ref A.9.6.13) Need interface data for development of the new hard points and pylons. How does it need to be supported? What are the wiring/power requirements?

Response #15: Hard points - The 4 existing OEM hard points will not change. The 3rd hard point shall be as similar as possible to the OEM hard points. The wingtip hard point would have a new attachment method proposed by the contractor. The power and data requirements will be finalized after contract award during design reviews, but notionally the design should allow for the following:

Power and signal wiring should provide the same capabilities on both wings. Inboard OEM hardpoints

● 45A per phase of 3-phase 115V/400Hz with Neutral

● 45A of 115V/60Hz (interruptible) w/neutral

● 20A of 115V/60Hz (uninterruptible) w/neutral

● 45A of 28 VDC w/return

● 20A of 28 VDC Weight off Wheels w/return

Outboard OEM hardpoints

● 30A per phase of 3-phase 115V/400Hz with Neutral

● 30A of 115V/60Hz (interruptible) w/neutral

● 30A of 28 VDC w/return

● 20A of 28 VDC Weight off Wheels w/return

Third hardpoint

● 15A per phase of 3-phase 115V/400Hz with Neutral

● 15A of 115V/60Hz (interruptible) w/neutral

● 15A of 28 VDC w/return

● 15A of 28 VDC Weight off Wheels w/return

Wingtip hardpoint

● 15A per phase of 3-phase 115V/400Hz with Neutral

● 15A of 115V/60Hz (interruptible) w/neutral

● 15A of 28 VDC w/return

● 15A of 28 VDC Weight off Wheels w/return

Every hardpoint shall also include the following signal wires, separated from the power wires to avoid signal interference.

● 2 RJ45 CAT6A cables

● 2 mult-mode fiber network cables

● 2 50Ω coax cables

● 3 cables, each providing 4 twisted pair, for a total of 12 pairs, or 24 conductors. each pair individually shielded, and each cable shielded.

Question #16 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 16, Ref A.9.6.13.1.3) Are these the BL 61 pressure panels fwd and aft of the wing, or the panels under the wings between the main landing gear frames? Will need to know size of wiring, types of connectors, number of connectors.

Response #16: Also see Response #15. A.9.6.13.1.3 is a requirement for a structural hard point at the wingtip. A.9.6.13.2, 3, 4 and 5 are for conduit runs from the inner fuselage to each hard point. These conduits will be used for science data, power and control wiring to each wing station hard point. The contractor shall propose the best location to route the wiring.

Question #17 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 17, Ref A.9.6.13.6.1.3) Does the government desire an additional pylon (or similar) at another hard point on the wing?

Response #17: No, the 3rd hard point and wingtip hard point are for post delivery of NOAA equipment

TBD.

Question #18 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 21, Ref A.9.7.12) Is it acceptable for the walk-around gaseous oxygen storage bottles to be located in the aft fuselage?

Response #18: Walk-around gaseous oxygen bottles shall be located at multiple locations in the aircraft. For design estimation, one walk-around oxygen bottle shall be located in each of the following three locations; the flight deck, forward and aft cargo compartments. Specific locations to be determined at configuration review.

Question #19 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 21, Ref A.9.7.12) What oxygen bottles and life rafts does NOAA use today?

Response #19: On the NOAA WP-3D; Life rafts are Winslow 9-13 capacity 913FAUL-3J0-1-301 (2 each), Walk-around bottle 5500C1AY0N, with smoke mask 651-01B (2 each)

Question #20 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 24, Ref A.9.8, A.9.9) Lockheed Martin can't find the thermal design requirements for scientific stations. Does the government prefer forced air cooling?

Response #20: Supplemental cooling systems are not required. Normal aircraft forced air cooling will be used throughout the aircraft. Some stations will require forced air cooling using the existing system with additional ducting required at those electronic racks. For design purposes, three electronic rack locations should be considered for design of additional ducting. One in the forward, mid and aft cargo compartment.

Question #21 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 25, Ref A.9.8.2.1) For all of the power requirements, can the requested capacities be split among multiple power sources or does it need to be all on a single power source/bus? Example: Does the 40 kVA (60 kVA desired) 115VAC/400 Hz power all need to be a single bus? Or can it be split between multiple power sources/busses? Same question for the 60 Hz Interruptible power, 60 Hz Uninterruptable power, and 28 VDC power at 100 amps (200 amps desired). NOTE: High Power Drops are already broken into sets of three, so it is assumed that they can be allocated to different power busses if needed.

Response #21: A detailed power bus structure would need to be submitted to fully answer this question, but in general, yes, multiple buses per power source may be acceptable, depending on the bus structure used.

Question #22 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 25, Ref A.9.8.2.1) What is the hold up time requirement for the 115VAC/60Hz Uninterruptable power? Is the hold up only intended for normal power source transitions ( <100 ms), is it multiple seconds, multiple minutes?

Response #22: A few minutes of hold time is necessary to permit normal shut down of science equipment.

Question #23 SOW. Pg. 25, Section A.9.8.2.1 indicates that all mission equipment (except some subset of the DC equipment) must be able to be operational when aircraft is powered from external power, the APU or any single engine generator. Is this the correct interpretation?

Response #23: A detailed power bus structure would need to be submitted to fully answer this question, but in general; On the ground, yes. Inflight, mission equipment must be operational when powered from 2 or more engine generators.

Question #24 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 30, Ref A.9.9.2.2.2) What are the specific communications and ICS requirements for each mission station?

Response #24: Flight deck ACPs shall have full radio and internal communication net capabilities. Cargo compartment ACPs may have radio capability and shall have internal capabilities. Also see A.9.9.2.3.

Final functionality of each ACP location to be negotiated and determined at the configuration review and based on system capability and cargo crew position prioritization. There should be at least 3 ICS channels, one for all stations for safety of flight, one for just the flight deck, and one for the cargo deck to discuss mission requirements. All the ICS nets shall be monitorable by the flight deck.

Question #25 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 30, Ref A.9.9.2.2.2) Will the scientific experiment stations require full capability to use the aircraft radios, or only need mission or private networks to enable communications amongst the mission crew with aircraft PA monitoring?

Response #25: Crew science stations in the cargo compartment do not all need aircraft radios. It is highly desired that some stations have access to at least 1 VHF radio and 1 satcom channel. All stations need mission channels and PA monitoring. Also see response #27.

Question #26 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 31, Ref A.9.9.4) Which Iridium SATCOM service is required, Short Burst Data (SBD) or Certus?

Response #26: Two SATCOM services are required for redundancy that meets the minimum data rate requirements in A.9.9.4, with preference given to constellations that provide higher data rates and reliability. The service may be Iridium or other similar constellations.

Question #27 (SOW, App A - Specification Pg. 9,23, Ref A.9.5, A.9.7.14) There are conflicting requirements on the number of racks and seats. Please verify the notional number of crew seats:

Section A.9.5 states - 9 scientific racks x 2 seats per rack = 18 seats Section A.9.7.14 states - 16 seat

Response #27: Notional number of crew seats in the cargo compartment would be 16. A.9.5 states “...racks with one or two operator seats behind (aft of) each rack”. All racks may not have two seats.

Therefore, 16 mission seats on the cargo deck are considered a notional number.

Question #28 (Multiple Sections) The RFP, SOW and Spec use terms and phrases such as "Airworthiness standards set by NOAA", "guidelines of NOAA Airworthiness Requirements," "NOAA standards for airworthiness," and NOAA Airworthiness Report. Is implementation of the Contractor's established USAF-approved Airworthiness Certification Management Plan (ACMP) based on MIL-STD-516C sufficient to provide the Airworthiness evidence and artifacts needed for certification of both the "Green" and Modified aircraft?”

Response #28: Yes

Question #29: The RFP for the C-130J requirement has reference in a couple of places to ‘similar to the NOAA G550’ (Forward Fuselage Hardpoints and Automated Dropsonde Dispenser System) however additional information is needed with regard to those details. In that context, can you advise:

a. Whether the NOAA G550 has been modified and delivered, yet? And,

b. Who the USG/NOAA contracted with to modify the G550 to include any POC information that may be available?

Response #29: The NOAA G550 modification is currently in progress by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation in Brunswick GA. Information requests should be routed through the NOAA Aircraft Acquisition Program Manager, Alan Goldstein, alan.goldstein@noaa.gov.

Question #30: RFP Appendix A Specification references installations that we need to quote install on the C-130J:

● A.9.6.1 Forward Fuselage Instrument Pads … for the NOAA science data system, similar to NOAA

G550.

● A.9.6.2.2 Required; One aperture port for the dropsonde launcher in the lower portion of the cargo compartment, similar in size and capability as the NOAA G550 drop station aperture port (approximately 4” x 6”).

Response #30: A.9.6.1 Forward Fuselage instrument Pads will provide mounting for small science instruments similar to the primary flight pitot and temperature probes. Capable of carrying external loads of 5 lb per hardpoint, with an equivalent frontal aerodynamic load area of 20 in2, 8 in from surface. A.9.6.2.2 Aperture port capable of carrying loads inside and outside the port simultaneously; 30 lb required, 50 lb desired, with an offset from the fuselage skin of 8” required, 16” desired, with an equivalent frontal aerodynamic load area of 0.8 ft2. Also see Response #7.

Question #31: (RFP, Factor 1 Technical Ability and Management Approach, Pg.30) The RFP is requiring certification as “a C-130J Authorized Service Center” and the requirement to execute the program, “[I]n accordance with…required certification compliance documentation as a certified repair station for the C-130J,” discriminates against offerors who have not been granted that information by the OEM (RFP (p30); Factor 1, Management Approach).

Response #31: See Amendment 0002

Question #32: (RFP, Factor 3 Past Performance, Pg.36) The current RFP states that offerors who cannot demonstrate any past performance working on an aircraft or who choose not to disclose any past performance, “[W]ill receive a neutral rating.” The inability to assign an unfavorable evaluation to an organization without any past performance (or with undisclosed, unsatisfactory past performance) presents significant risk to the government.

Response #32: No change to RFP will be made as FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) requires that “[i]n the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance information or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” This language, “may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably,” defines the neutral evaluation that is required by 41 U.S.C. § 405(j)(2).