Response_to_Industry_Comments_on_30DEC_RFP_23Feb2017.pdf

A B C D E F G

Unique ID Document Title Reference Comment Rationale Government Response

6069 Section L Various

Section L paragraph 6.1 states that the offers shall only submit the completed pricing tables, total evaluated price/affordability worksheets and variation in quantity narrative.

Section L paragraph 6.2 states no additional pricing information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406‐2, Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, will not be required.

However, Section L paragraph 7.1.11.2 Cost and Software Data Reporting System states the offeror shall use Section J, Attachments 10a ‐ 10h to provide the requirements of DFARS 252.234‐7003(b) in Section L. Item 6 of this clause requires the contractor to submit the 1921 and 1921‐1 forms with the proposal.

Is it the intent of the RFP for the contractor to submit as part of its proposal due on March 30, 2017 completed 1921 and 1921‐1 forms fully populated with cost and pricing values based on the requirements outlined in the included DD Form 2794 CSDR Plans? Does this requirement also apply to subcontractors over $50M? This would be contrary to the level of data and detail required in Sections L 6.1 and 6.2 of the RFP, and contrary to the initial due dates listed in the DD Form 2794 CSDR Plans. This would result in at least 500+ cost reports for the prime contractor and at least that same amount for our subcontractors.

If that is the intent of the RFP, the contractor requests that the government provide sufficient guidance as to how the contractor is supposed to populate the forms. For example but not limited to, please provide information such as the quantity profile by production lot that the forms should be populated based upon (due to the VIQ Clause it is unclear what quantity to use) and whether or not engines should be included for which lots. Without this type of guidance the contractor is unable to determine the manner in which we are to populate the forms.

If it is not the intent of Item 6, for the contractor to submit the DD Form 1921, Cost Data Summary Report, and DD Form 1921‐1, Functional Cost‐Hour Report, with its pricing proposal, please specify what the contractor needs to do in order to fulfill that requirement of the clause.

Clarification/correction would allow all offerors to respond uniformly and compliantly. For the purpose of submitting 1921 and 1921‐1 as part of the proposal, estimates at completion for Level 2 WBS elements on the Government approved CSDR Plan for EMD should suffice.

Section L and Model Contract

Section L 4.2.1.7 and 7.1.10.6

Model Contract Section B Section H

Question/Concern/Comment:

The recently issued Small Business Administration (SBA) Final Rule implements Section 1614 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which provides that prime contractors shall receive credit toward its subcontracting plan goals for awards made to small business concerns at any tier under the contract.

RFP sources:

Section L, 4.2.1.7, Subfactor 1.7 – Small Business Participation: Offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW 52.219‐8, 52.219‐9, 252.219‐ 7003 and 5319.704.

Section L, 7.1.10.6, Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW 52.219‐8, 52.219‐9, 252.219‐7003 and 5319.704.

Section B, Model Contract: Section H 003, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Please confirm this Final Rule is applicable to the above referenced RFP sources in that we can utilize all lower tier small business dollars in its Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted in its proposal and in its Small Business Subcontracting Plans submitted for individual orders.

Other source:

Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (December 23, 2016), Small Business Administration, 13 CFR Parts 121 and 125, Credit for Lower Tier Small Business Subcontracting (Final Rule) Published in the Summary: The US Small Business Administration (SBA) amended its regulations to implement section 1614 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY14, Public Law 113‐66.

From the Final Rule Summary: “Section 1614 amended the Small Business Act to provide that… the prime contractor shall receive credit towards its subcontracting plan goals for awards made to small business concerns at any tier under the contract…to the extent reported on the subcontracting plans of its lower tier subcontractors.”

This rule is effective on January 23, 2017.

Offerors should submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with the provisions of the RFP.

6071 Model Contract Section B

Your Question/Concern/Comment:

Request the model contract be revised to allow for 2 in 1 payments for Fixed Price service CLINs.

RFP source:

Section B CLINs Service CLINs 0025, 0026, 0029‐0031, 0062‐0069, 0070‐0071, and 0074 and FAR 52.232‐16 Progress Payments

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Change the model contract to authorize 2 in 1 payments for service CLINs

Discussion/Rationale:

FAR 52.232‐16 provides for Contractor to be reimbursed 80% of costs incurred on a monthly basis. The 20% withhold is not liquidated until CLIN order is completed and the DD250 processed, which creates an unnecessary cash flow issue. This is contrary to DCMA and DFAS policy which requires FFP service CLINs be paid using 2 in 1 payments. For 2 in 1 payments, the Government pays each month actual cost incurred or agreed to amounts for the services performed. Payment amounts are typically equal monthly payments but different amounts may be established to align with Contractor's expenditure profile.

For example, a service CLIN under Section B could include the following language:

The contractor is authorized to invoice monthly with a (2 in 1) through WAWF using TBD as the inspection/acceptance. A designated Government POC will confirm the services were accomplished and electronically approve the invoice via WAWF. Beginning TBD, the contractor may invoice the following amounts on, or after, the dates listed below:

This type of payment is appropriate because service is complete as work is performed, so it is unnecessary to withhold a percentage of the payment amount to protect Government's interest as it is obtaining the contracted service.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

Model Contract, Section I Section I

Question/Concern/Comment:

Request Government confirm that progress payment withholds will be liquidated at CLIN level for each DO when performance against the CLIN on the DO is completed.

RFP source: Section I, FAR 52.232‐16, Progress Payments.

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Confirm progress payment withholds are liquidated at the CLIN level for each DO

Discussion/Rationale:

To withhold liquidation payment after work against DO CLIN is completed would unfairly impact Contractor cash flow and is inappropriate given Government has received the supply or service contracted for under the order.

Yes in accordance with the Progress Payments Clause.

Model Contract, Section I Section I

Question/Concern/Comment:

Request the model contract be modified to allow negotiation of alternative or supplemental payment terms for delivery of supply CLINs.

RFP source: Section I, FAR 52.232‐16, Progress Payments

Discussion/Rationale:

For DOs requiring delivery of multiple units of deliverable items, e.g., aircraft, over a long period of time, it is appropriate to liquidate progress payments for delivery of each item or group of items rather than waiting to liquidate after the final item is delivered.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

APT FINAL RFP COMMENT RESPONSES

A B C D E F G

Unique ID Document Title Reference Comment Rationale Government Response

6074 Model Contract Section B ‐ 040 Section H ‐ H004

Question/Concern/Comment:

Can CLINs subject to an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA), be increased as well as decreased?

Please confirm the price for the CLINs having an NTE value, subject to an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA), can be increased as well as decreased.

RFP source:

Section B ‐ B040 Ordering Procedures (Dec 2005) (Tailored) page 48 Section H, LCMC/WLZ ‐ H004 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR NOT‐TO‐EXCEED (NTE) (JUL 2016)

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

We recognize the Government provided a response dated 8 Nov 2016 (Reference Number 5136). The response does not deconflict Model Contract clauses B040 ORDERING PROCEDURES (page 48) and H00 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR NOT‐TO‐EXCEED (NTE) (JUL 2016) (page 70). Respectfully request an additional review as to the applicability of an EPA to CLINs having an NTE value.

Discussion/Rationale:

Model Contract Page 49 top of page, paragraph d. states:

Upon receipt of the RFP, the contractor shall prepare a proposal in accordance with the following:

1) The contractor agrees that the negotiated price of any CLINs shall not exceed the NTEs calculated for those CLINs established in the Pricing Tables, Section J, Attachment 1, of the contract.

Yet H004 (a) states:

The provisions of this EPA clause provide for both price increases and decreases to protect the Government and the contractor from the effects of economic changes as measured on the national level

RFP reflects the Government intent.

6075 Model Contract Section E

Question/Concern/Comment:

It is our interpretation of certain clauses that:

1. Government obtains title to work in process due to progress payments

2. Except for aircraft, Government assumes risk of loss or damage of government property under the Government Property clause ; and

3. Government obligation to assume risk of loss or damage for aircraft is subject to the Ground and Flight clause Please advise if our interpretation is correct and provide any clarifications to assure appropriate pricing.

RFP source:

Section E, FAR 52.246‐16, Responsibility for Supplies and Section I, FAR 52.245‐01 Government Property, and FAR 52.232‐16 Progress Payments, DFARS 252.228‐7001, Ground and Flight Risk

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Please advise if our interpretation is correct and provide any necessary clarifications to assure appropriate pricing.

Discussion/Rationale:

Clauses seem to contradict each other and depending on how conflict is reconciled could have an impact on pricing and risk to profit.

FAR 52.246‐16 states that:

(a) Title to supplies furnished under this contract shall pass to the Government upon formal acceptance, regardless of when or where the Government takes physical possession, unless the contract specifically provides for earlier passage of title.

(b) Unless the contract specifically provides otherwise, risk of loss of or damage to supplies shall remain with the Contractor until, and shall pass to the Government upon—

(1) Delivery of the supplies to a carrier, if transportation is f.o.b. origin; or

(2) Acceptance by the Government or delivery of the supplies to the Government at the destination specified in the contract, whichever is later, if transportation is f.o.b. destination.

Yet this seems to be in conflict with FAR 2.245‐1 and 52.232‐16 which together could be construed as that section of the contract that "specifically provides" otherwise FAR 52.245‐01 (e) Title to Government property (2), states:

(2) Title vests in the Government for all property acquired or fabricated by the Contractor in accordance with the financing provisions or other specific requirements for passage of title in the contract.

FAR 52.245‐01

FAR 52.232‐16 (d)(1) gives Government title to work in process for which Contractor is receiving progress payments. It states:

(d) Title.

(1) Title to the property described in this paragraph (d) shall vest in the Government. Vestiture shall be immediately upon the date of this contract, for property acquired or produced before that date.

Otherwise, vestiture shall occur when the property is or should have been allocable or properly chargeable to this contract.

FAR 52.232‐16 (d) (6) has title vesting back to the Contractor for those non‐delivered items. It states:

(6) When the Contractor completes all of the obligations under this contract, including liquidation of all progress payments, title shall vest in the Contractor for all property (or the proceeds thereof) not—

(i) Delivered to, and accepted by, the Government under this contract; or

(ii) Incorporated in supplies delivered to, and accepted by, the Government under this contract and to which title is vested in the Government under this clause.

When reading FAR 52.246‐16, 52.245‐01, and FAR 52.232‐16, it is a reasonable interpretation that the Government will have title and assumes risk of loss or damage for those materials against which Contractor is receiving progress payments before delivery and acceptance and, therefore, the Contractor would not be required to obtain insurance for the aircraft.

However, DFARS 252.228‐7001 states Contractor is required to cover $100K deductible for each instance before Government assumes aircraft risk of loss or damage and that cost of insurance is unallowable. Therefore, Contractor profit is at risk since we cannot price nor be reimbursed for insurance under the contract.

RFP reflects the Government intent. The Contractor will be obligated to perform in accordance with terms and conditions (all clauses in contract).

6076 Model Contract Section H

Question/Concern/Comment:

Clause H001 creates ambiguity as to whether the Contractor may be required to deliver additional unpriced items during contract performance.

RFP source:

Section H, H001, Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Software Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT), paragraph (b)

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Recommend revision to SCR H001, Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Software Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT), paragraph (b):

From:

"The contractor shall deliver all technical data, computer software, documentation, computer databases, computer software and graphics that are necessary or required to support OMIT . . . ."

To:

"The contractor shall deliver all technical data, computer software, documentation, computer databases, computer software and graphics as required under the SOW and CDRL exhibits…."

Discussion/Rationale:

Pricing for delivery of technical data and computer software will be for those items stated in the Statement of Work and CDRLs. As written, clause H001 creates ambiguity as to whether Contractor may be required to deliver additional unpriced items during contract performance.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

Unique ID Document Title Reference Comment Rationale Government Response

6077 Model Contract Section H, H001

Question/Concern/Comment:

Model Contract, Section H001, Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Software Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT) gives Government greater rights in noncommercial and commercial software than prescribed in applicable DFARS clause

RFP source:

• Model Contract, Section H, Clause H001, Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Software Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT),

• Model Contract, Section I, Clauses 252.227‐7013, Rights in Technical Data‐Noncommercial Items; 252.227‐7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation; and 252.227‐7015 Technical Data‐Commercial Items

• Government’s response to industry question posted 09.30.2016 on the FBO site "It is not the USG's intent to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than provided in accordance with the DFARS clauses."

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Request the USG remove the language as it applies to noncommercial software and apply the licensing regime set forth in DFARS 252.227‐7014. This outcome is consistent with regulatory guidance [DFARS 227.7203‐1((a) (c) (d)] and the Government's previous response to Industry's question: "It is not the USG's intent to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than provided in accordance with the DFARS clauses.

Request Model Contract, Section H, Clause H001, be revised as follows:

• Rename to read: Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT)

• Revise the clause to delete any reference to "computer software documentation, computer databases, computer software and graphics"

Discussion/Rationale:

The DFARS determine the license obtained by the Government for noncommercial software based on the source of funding for its development. Under this structure, the Government receives unlimited rights in noncommercial software developed with Government funds (DFARS 252.227‐7014(b)(1)(i)). However, the model contract, Clause H001, Paragraph (c), gives the "Government unlimited rights in all technical data, computer software, computer databases, graphics, and computer software documentation necessary for OMIT." (emphasis added). The language of the model contract is inconsistent with the language DFARS 252.227‐7014 because it appears to indicate the USG has unlimited rights in noncommercial computer software developed exclusively at private expense.

The license rights contained in DFARS 252.227‐7014 should govern the license the Government receives for all noncommercial software delivered under the contract.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

6078 Model Contract Section H, H001

Question/Concern/Comment:

Model Contract, Section H001, Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Software Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT) gives Government greater rights in noncommercial and commercial software than prescribed in applicable DFARS clause.

RFP source:

• Model Contract, Section H, Clause H001, Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Software Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT),

• Model Contract, Section I, Clauses 252.227‐7013, Rights in Technical Data‐Noncommercial Items; 252.227‐7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation; and 252.227‐7015 Technical Data‐Commercial Items

• Government’s response to industry question posted 09.30.2016 on the FBO site "It is not the USG's intent to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than provided in accordance with the DFARS clauses."

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Recommend the USG remove the language as it applies to commercial software This outcome is consistent with above stated regulatory guidance and the Government's prior response to Industry's question that: "It is not the USG's intent to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than provided in accordance with the DFARS clauses.”

Request Model Contract, Section H, Clause H001, be revised as follows:

• Rename to read: Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT)

• Revise the clause to delete any reference to "computer software documentation, computer databases, computer software and graphics"

Discussion/Rationale:

DFARS requires DoD to acquire commercial computer software using the licenses customarily provided to the public. (227.7202‐1 Policy.(a) Commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation shall be acquired under the licenses customarily provided to the public unless such licenses are inconsistent with Federal procurement law or do not otherwise satisfy user needs.)

However, the model contract, Clause H001, Paragraph (c), gives the "Government unlimited rights in all technical data, computer software, computer databases, graphics, and computer software documentation necessary for OMIT." (emphasis added). The language of the model contract is inconsistent with the DFARS because it acquires commercial computer software without using standard licenses provided to general public and because it may result in the Government receiving an Unlimited Rights license for commercial computer software.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

6079 Model Contract Section H, H001

Section L

Question/Concern/Comment:

Ambiguity as to identifying and marking commercial and noncommercial technical data in proposal and during program execution in accordance with applicable DFARS clauses and Model Contract Clause H001

RFP source:

• Model Contract, Section H, Clause H001, Delivery and License Rights for Technical Data and Software Necessary for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT),

• Model Contract, Section H, Clause H002 Identification and Assertion of Restriction on Technical Data and Computer Software

• Model Contract, Section I, Clauses 252.227‐7013, Rights in Technical Data‐Noncommercial Items; 252.227‐7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation; and 252.227‐7015 Technical Data‐Commercial Items

• Governments response to industry question posted 09.30.2016 on the FBO site "It is not the USG's intent to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than provided in accordance with the DFARS clauses."

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Request Government confirm the Government still has "Unlimited Rights" in commercial and noncommercial technical data for OMIT purposes even though the offeror in its proposal (or during performance) identifies and marks the data so the Governments rights are limited, or provide additional guidance/direction regarding Government rights and marking of data.

Discussion/Rationale:

The Government has stated in it response an industry question: "It is not the USG's intent to acquire rights in technical data and computer software greater than provided in accordance with the DFARS clauses." Clause H001, Paragraph (c), gives the "Government unlimited rights in all technical data. . . . necessary for OMIT."

This clause appears to be consistent with existing Government rights in noncommercial and commercial technical data. DFARS 252.227‐7013, (b) (3) Limited Rights, (i) refers to paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) through (b)(1)(ix) which list the type of noncommercial technical data the Government obtains Unlimited Rights to. Section (b)(1) (v) provides for the Government having Unlimited Rights in noncommercial technical data " Necessary for installation, operation, maintenance, or training purposes (other than detailed manufacturing or process data)" (emphasis added) , i.e., OMIT technical data. The Government obtains the same Unlimited Rights in commercial technical needed for OMIT purposes. DFARS 252.227‐7015, (b)(iv) states that "(1) The Government shall have the unrestricted right to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data, and to permit others to do so, that‐‐(iv) Are necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (other than detailed manufacturing or process data)" (emphasis added).

Based on the Government's response and our interpretation the above stated clauses, we believe the Government still has "Unlimited Rights" in commercial and noncommercial technical data for OMIT purposes even though the offeror in its proposal and during performance identifies and marks the data so the Governments rights are limited.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

6080 Model Contract

Question/Concern/Comment:

There are FAR and DFARS clauses that are not current. For example, Section I, FAR 52.204‐07, Central Contractor Registration, is now FAR 52.204‐07, System for Award Management (Oct 2016)

RFP source: See above

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Request Government review clauses and amend RFP to incorporate the current applicable regulations.

Discussion/Rationale:

Clauses need to be current so that offerors can conduct risk assessment against current requirements.

The updates in the clause do not warrant an Amendment to the RFP.

Unique ID Document Title Reference Comment Rationale Government Response

6081 TEP Worksheet

Your Question/Concern/Comment:

Need clarification for Total Evaluated Price calculation for FPIF CLINs

RFP source:

Section L Attachment 1a TEP Worksheet

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Request clarification USG desires Column G in the Affordability and TEP Calculation worksheets to be “Target Price X Ceiling Percentage” and not the actual Ceiling Price of each CLIN.

Discussion/Rationale:

The TEP worksheet instructions specify:

“For each Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) CLIN in the Affordability Calculation Worksheet, the offeror shall multiply the sum of the cells identified in Column E by the Ceiling Percentage in Column F and enter that value into the corresponding cell in Column G.”

“For each FPIF CLIN in the TEP Calculation Worksheet, the offeror shall multiply the sum of the cells identified in Column E by the Ceiling Percentage in Column F and enter that value into the corresponding cell in Column G.”

As the cells identified in Column E are “Target Price” (Target Cost + Target Fee), multiplying Target Price by the Ceiling Percentage will not result in the Ceiling Price. Ceiling Price calculation is Target Cost multiplied by Ceiling Percentage.

An RFP Amendment was released to correct the discrepancy and provide instructions that for FPIF CLINs, the offeror shall multiply the sum of the Target Costs in the cells identified in Column E by the Ceiling Percentage in Column F and enter that value into the corresponding cell in Column G.

6082 Section L 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.2

Your Question/Concern/Comment:

May we use Arial or Arial Narrow for tables, graphs, figures, charts, action captions?

RFP source:

Section L 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.2 pg 4 and 5

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Permit the use of Arial or Arial Narrow for tables, graphs, figures, charts, and action captions.

Discussion/Rationale:

The Arial font family is easier to read with a graph table, figure, chart, and action caption especially when 10 point is applied.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

6083 Section L 2.6.1.1

Your Question/Concern/Comment:

Cross Reference Matrix (Section L, Attachment 2) references Section M elements that are not in the final RFP dated December 31, 2016.

RFP source:

Section L Para 2.6.1.1 states:

2.6.1.1 Cross Reference Matrix

The offeror will provide a proposal cross reference matrix (CRM) (Section L, Attachment 2) that assures all solicitation requirements are addressed and that the applicable information is easily accessible to the evaluators. The proposal CRM should provide a single integrated index for the entire proposal. Deliver the proposal CRM in tabular and Microsoft (MS) Excel 2010 format.

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Recommend revision of Section L, Attachment 2 to delete Factor 2 and the items associated with the deleted Section M, Evaluation Factors.

Discussion/Rationale:

Section L, Attachment 2 includes a section for Factor 2 – Price, which references Section M 2.4.2 ‐ 2.4.6, included in the draft RFP but not in the final version.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

6084 SOW 3.2.7.3

Your Question/Concern/Comment:

Can an Offeror use an LCOM model developed at its own expense if it meets all the requirements of the referenced RFP SOW Section?

RFP source:

SOW 3.2.7.3, Logistics Composite Model (LCOM)

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Would the government accept an Offeror developed Discrete Event Simulation (DES) software model?

Discussion/Rationale:

Although an LCOM Analysis Tool Kit (ATK) is available at no cost to the Government or contractors, if an Offeror has another LCOM model developed in a similar software suite, and is detailed to the LRU level, its use should not impact the overall LCOM results.

RFP reflects the Government intent. The requirement remains as written in the Statement of Work.

6085 SOW 3.2.12.7.4

Question/Concern/Comment:

Paragraph 3.2.12.7.4 requires the CVD to be the first reference in the Certification Compliance Reports. Paragraph 3.2.12.7.2 also cited AW Bulletins and AFI 62‐601 describes the Compliance Report as a single document, updated as compliance artifacts are generated.

Is the CVD an internal program office document for first eyes review only?

RFP source:

Section J, Atch 2, Statement of Work, Paragraph 3.2.12.7.4.

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Request clarification on the planned usage of the Airworthiness Compliance Verification Documentation (CVD).

Request clarification on the intent of the statement: “Make the CVD the first reference cited for each airworthiness criteria in the Substantiating Data References section of Certification Compliance Reports.”

Recommend the paragraph be revised to clarify the intent of the CVD at a minimum or preferably delete the requirement for the CVD

Discussion/Rationale:

The Compliance Report should trace directly to the Substantiating Data References in the Certification Basis. Request clarification on the intent of the statement: “Make the CVD the first reference cited for each airworthiness criteria in the Substantiating Data References section of Certification Compliance Reports.” The CVD should be the only reference, since it contains all the applicable certification documentation listed in the certification basis.

A significant amount of savings could be realized if the CVD was deleted and rely solely on the Compliance Report.

The Compliance Verification Document is an overview document that provides a roadmap for the Airworthiness Process to aide the Government as to the Contractor's strategy and assertions of compliance.

Unique ID Document Title Reference Comment Rationale Government Response

6086 Section L 2.1, 2.5.1, 4.1

Question/Concern/Comment:

Section L instructions, requires the Offeror to explicitly address every requirement in the RFP Statement of Work (SOW) and System Specifications. Is it the intent of the Government for the Offeror to address explicitly each of the SOW, Aircraft System Spec, and GBTS System Spec requirements in the proposal response?

RFP source:

1. Section_J_Atch_17‐Sec_L_Instructions_to_Offerors

a. 2.1 Overview “The offeror’s proposal shall be compliant with Section L and shall meet requirements as stated in the APT Program Statement of Work (SOW), APT Aircraft and GBTS System Specifications (SS), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and Model Contract.”

b. 2.5.1 Page Limitations “Volume I(a) Technical Proposal – 250 Pages”

c. 4.1 General “All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory to include the offeror selected specifications in Section L, Attachment 9, Aircraft System Specification, Appendix D, and Section L, Attachment 10, GBTS System Specification, Appendix G.”

2. Section_J_Atch_2‐SOW_for_APT_Program

a. All

3. Section_J_Atch_3‐Aircraft_System_Spec_for_APT_Program

a. All

4. Section_J_Atch_4‐System_Spec_for_APT_Program_GBTS

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

1) If the Government’s intent is to have the Offeror reasonably address each requirement, will the Government consider allocating an additional 50 pages (for a total of 300 pages) for the Volume I(a) Technical Proposal.

2) In addition, should the Government view this additional page increase favorably would the Government consider a revised proposal submission due date of 15 May 2017 due to the extensive number of requirements to demonstrate compliance.

Discussion/Rationale:

Our Compliance Matrix for Volume I(a) is over 150 pages.

To establish a baseline of estimated requirements, the occurrence of the word “shall” was counted:

SOW: 1,728

Aircraft System Spec: 2,138 GBTS System Spec 3,039 6,905 total “shalls” Assuming an average of two requirements per “shall,” this results in approximately 13,810 requirements or the need to address approximately 55 RFP requirements per page, (based on the current allocation of 250 pages (Vol Ia). There is also the need, generally, to include discussions of overview and approach for each factor and subfactor.

Assuming even a doubling of the number of Vol Ia pages to 500, the number of requirements to be addressed on each page is approximately 28. With an allowance of 2,000 pages it is an average of 7 requirements per page.

The offeror is responsible to meet all the requirements in the contract and assert to such via the signed CEO letter. Section L identifies all items required to be submitted as part of the proposal.

6087 Aircraft SS 3.5.9.2

Question/Concern/Comment:

The master warning and master caution indicators cannot be placed within a 30 degree cone of forward vision without significantly impeding external vision. Military Standards conflict on the definition of the forward line of sight. “Forward line of sight” is not defined and left to interpretation among the military standards.

What is considered forward line of sight for master caution and master warning signal placement? MIL‐STD‐411 states the master warning and master caution within a 30 degree cone of the forward line of sight and in compliance with MIL‐STD‐203 or as stated by the acquiring activity. MIL‐STD‐203 references MIL‐STD‐1472 as for the placement of the master warning and master caution. MIL‐STD‐1472F places the normal line of sight as 15 degrees down from horizontal.

RFP source:

APT SRD 3.5.9.2 states:

Both aircrew positions shall have identical master warning and master caution located within a 30° cone of the aircrew’s forward line of sight.

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Request the USAF define forward line of sight or utilize the normal line of sight as defined in MIL‐STD‐1472G for placement of master warning and master caution.

Discussion/Rationale:

MIL‐STD‐411

5.1.2 Location and arrangement of signals. The location and arrangement of dedicated warning, caution and advisory signals shall be in accordance with MIL‐STD‐203 or as specified by the acquiring activity (see 6.3.1). Warning signals shall be installed within the pilot’s 30 degree (total included angle) forward cone of vision. When space is limited or the required number of warning signals is excessive, warning signals may be grouped outside of the pilot’s 30 degree forward cone of vision, provided a master warning signal is installed within the pilot’s 30 degree forward cone of vision. Additionally, the master caution signal shall be located within the pilot’s 30 degree forward cone of vision.

MIL‐STD‐203

5. 8.3.1 Master warning signals.

(a) Single / tandem pilot. The visual master warning signal shall be located within the pilot’s 30 ° cone of vision.

MIL‐STD‐1472

5.1.2.2.3 (h)

h. Emergency use. Emergency displays and controls shall be located where they can be seen and reached without delay (e.g., warning lights within a 30‐degree cone about the user's normal line of sight (see figure 2); an emergency control close to its related warning display, or use of the nearest available hand in its nominal operating position).

JSSG‐2010‐4

Visual warnings should be located within 30 (deg) of the operator’s normal line of sight.

The forward line of sight for master caution and master warning signal placement is meant to be consistent with the "Normal Line of Sight" as defined in Mil‐Std 1472 G while facing or looking forward.

6088 Section M 2.2.9

Question/Concern/Comment:

Important product support factors are not included in the evaluation of Utility above Threshold.

RFP source:

Section M 2.2.9 Subfactor 1.8 – Utility Above Threshold

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Request Section M 2.2.9 Subfactor 1.8 – Utility Above Threshold, Table 1.6a: Technical Evaluation of Elements be modified to include additional Product Support parameters such as Ra (Material Reliability), Am (Material Availability), MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure), MTBM (Mean Time Between Maintenance) , and MTTR (Mean Time To Repair), as a utility above threshold evaluated element.

Discussion/Rationale:

Up to 70‐75% of life cycle costs can be attributed to operations and sustainment activities. The Offeror can provide utility above the threshold in specific Product Support parameters such as Rm, Am, etc., that can significantly drive down the O&S costs due to higher reliability and better maintainability. Providing a VATEP downward when these parameters are exceeded provides incentives for the Offeror to reduce the overall life cycle costs.

RFP reflects the Government intent.

6089 RFP

Question/Concern/Comment:

The RFP’s apparent preference for an NDI item (as suggested by the evaluation criteria) is not consistent with the program’s Capability Development Document (CDD) recommendations for a “new start”, and does not facilitate a full and open competition.

RFP sources:

Section L para 4.2.1.6 : “Flight test results will be submitted NLT 90 days after the initial proposal as Volume I(b) Section M paragraph 2.2.7.1, High G Maneuvering, requires the offeror to “. . . demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, by means of offeror‐ conducted flight test…” Section M paragraph 2.2.7.2, Maneuverability, requires the offeror to “. . . demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, using data from flight test validated performance model output and design analysis…” Section M paragraph 2.2.7.3, High Angle‐of Attack (AOA) Maneuvering, requires the offeror to “. . . demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, by means of offeror‐conducted flight test…” Section M paragraph 2.2.7.4, Flight Endurance, requires: “…the offeror shall demonstrate using data from flight test validated performance model output and design analysis…”

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

To ensure a full and open competition for all potential Offerors, request the submission due date for Flight Test Data, Volume I(b), be extended from 28 June 2017 to 28 Jun 2018, while retaining the Government’s fourth quarter 2024 IOC date.

Reference:

• CDD for the Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems, Version 6.0, validated 13 October 2015.

• CDD Section 3.3, Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Update, made by Air Education and Training Command (AETC) reflects the change to the Initial Operational Capability from 2017 to 2023, and updates the original 2014 AoA to account for this modification.

• CDD Section 3.3.1, Conclusions and Recommendations, states the AoA Update resulted in the determination that “…all alternatives were more closely aligned in total costs. As a result of the relative parity in costs, the AoA study team focused much of the discussion on the capabilities being delivered by a new start and whether these capabilities were worth the cost, informed by risk to mission and risk to program success”

• CDD Section 3.3.1, Conclusions and Recommendations, goes on to say : “Based on these factors, the team assessed the new start alternatives significantly increased mission effectiveness while reducing risk to the AETC mission, all at an acceptable level of risk for program success. The team recommended that the T‐38 be replaced with a viable alternative that will meet an IOC date of (on or about) 2023.”

Discussion/Rationale:

A clean sheet solution appears to be the recommendation of the CDD, and the Offeror’s proposal is evaluated using actual flight data. The RFP requirement to have an existing prototype effectively eliminates smaller, non‐traditional, non‐OEM Offerors from the competition.

The RFP reflects the Government intent.

Unique ID Document Title Reference Comment Rationale Government Response

Question/Concern/Comment:

Please provide rationale and clarity on why 2.2 Factor 1 – Technical Performance and Risk Assessment, 2.2.7 Subfactor 1.6 – Aircraft Performance, the USG intends to evaluate the offeror’s proposed aircraft ability to meet Aircraft Performance with what appears to be substantially different criteria for similar aircraft performance areas. For example, Section M 2.2.7 subparagraph 1) and 3) state “To be acceptable in this area the offeror must demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft by means of offeror‐conducted flight test IAW Government‐provided test procedures” while Section M 2.2.7 subparagraph 2) and 4) state “To be acceptable in this area the offeror shall demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, using data from flight test validated performance model output, and design analysis.”

Further, request rationale and clarity on why in Section M 2.2 Factor 1 – Technical Performance and Risk Assessment, Section M 2.2.9 Subfactor 1.8 – Utility Above Threshold, the USG intends to use similarly disparate criteria running the gamut from a flight test data standard to a mere proposal statement standard in evaluating utility above threshold without reference to the risk of producing such performance in EMD or Production.

RFP source:

Section L, para 2.9.1 Section L para 4.2.1.6 Section L, 4.2.1.6 1) thru 4) Section M, paragraph 1.1, Figure 1 Section M, paragraph 2.2 Section M, paragraph 2.2.7 Section M, paragraph 2.2.9 CDD V6.0 dated 13 Oct 2015

Discussion/Rationale:

The RFP does not explicitly require a Non Developmental Item (NDI) or an off‐the‐shelf aircraft. However, in many instances, the wording of the RFP implies such an aircraft is required. For example:

• RFP Section L, para 2.9.1 requires the submission of Subfactor 1.6 Aircraft Performance, Technical Volume I(b) by 28 Jun 2017, 1200 hrs EST [sic EDT] at AFLCMC/AHQ building 570. Section L para

4.2.1.6 provides specifics as to what is required in the submission. The second sentence of this paragraph states: “Offeror‐conducted flight tests of the proposed APT Aircraft, using Government‐provide test procedures where specified below, are required to substantiate the proposed aircraft’s capability. Flight test results will be submitted NLT 90 days after the initial proposal as Volume I(b), Attachment 14b, and will be evaluated during source selection.” It also goes on to state: “The Government expects that the aircraft used to generate flight test data in support of the proposal will possess flying qualities and performance representative of the proposed production aircraft.”

• RFP Section L para 2.9.1 requires the submission of the Proposal Executive Summary and Volumes I(a), III, IV shall be submitted at AFLCMC/AQH, Building 570, NLT Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 1200 Eastern Standard Time. There is a similar disparate mix of “standards” that will be used to substantiate aircraft (and other FoS) performance for the Utility Above Threshold section.

• Section L, 4.2.1.6 1) states: “The offeror will submit a time‐stamped cockpit audio and video. . . .”

• Section M, paragraph 1.1, Figure 1 shows aircraft performance is either acceptable or unacceptable. Section M paragraph 2.2.7 clearly requires “. . . .demonstrated performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, using data from flight test . . . .”

• Section M, paragraph 2.2.9, Table 1.6a right hand column numbers 1 and 2 states “Proposed values will be evaluated in 2.2.7 (1) (3).” In other words, it requires actual flight test data.

• Section M, paragraph 2.2.7 subparagraphs 1) and 3) state “To be acceptable in this area the offeror must demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft by means of offeror‐conducted flight test IAW Government‐provided test procedures.”

• Section M, paragraph 2.2.7 subparagraphs 2) and 4) state “To be acceptable in this area the offeror shall demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, using data from flight test validated performance model output, and design analysis.”

• Section M, paragraph 2.2 Factor 1 – Technical Performance and Risk Assessment, 2.2.9 Subfactor 1.8 – Utility Above Threshold, the USG intends to use similarly disparate criteria that run the gamut from a flight test data standard to a mere proposal statement standard in evaluating utility above threshold without reference to the risk of producing such performance in EMD or Production.

The RFP reflects the Government intent.

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Recommend the proposal instructions and evaluation criteria be revised to allow engineering data and modeling to be considered a common means of compliance for all Aircraft Performance and Utility Above Threshold evaluation criteria, thus allowing industry to design to the specific specifications required for the APT Program.

Despite the above examples, the Capability Development Document (CDD) V6.0 Dated 13 Oct 2015, page 7 second to last sentence states “Based on these factors, the team assessed the new starts significantly increased mission effectiveness while reducing risk to the AETC mission, all at an acceptable level of risk for program success.” In other words, the CDD recognized the benefits of offerors proposing developmental solutions in response to the Air Force’s needs.

Despite the language of the CDD, the RFP appears to leave the Government without any discretion to consider clean sheet design aircraft and corresponding benefits in performance, schedule, and cost (acquisition and life cycle).

We believe the USAF may inadvertently be limiting competition and eliminating innovative, and cost‐effective, solutions by requiring submission of flight test data (and therefore impliedly requiring a fully developed and prototyped aircraft at the time of proposal submission) in advance of the USAF’s planned four (4) year Engineering, Manufacturing and Developmental (EMD) phase. The RFP restrictions as they currently exist, may limit full and open competition. Restricting submissions to existing aircraft and actual flight test data may compromise the Government’s ability to achieve best value for the Government’s APT Program.

Question/Concern/Inquiry:

There is concern regarding the RFP requirement to provide flight test data being inconsistent with SOW requirements to "design, integrate, test, verify, and certify the APT System to meet the APT Aircraft System Specification (SS). . . . ." As written this appears to require a contractor to perform unauthorized contract work (design, integrate, test, verify, and certify) in order to submit a compliant proposal unless the intent of this acquisition is for an NDI aircraft.

RFP source:

SOW 1.1 a) The scope of this SOW includes all Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), production, and sustainment activities to include but not limited to

a) design, integrate, test, verify, and certify the APT System to meet the APT Aircraft System Specification (SS) and the APT GBTS SS

b) deliver EMD aircraft for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E), SOW 3.0, 3.1

3.0 ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT (EMD) / PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Air Vehicle

The Contractor shall design the APT Aircraft IAW the Aircraft SS. The Contractor shall integrate, test, certify, manufacture, and deliver APT Aircraft.

Section L, 1, Page 1 NOTE: Offerors are advised that the costs of any response to, or other costs incurred as a result of responding to, this solicitation are at the offeror’s own risk. Any costs incurred in preparing a response to this solicitation may be attributable to bid and proposal (B&P) overhead costs but may not be directly charged to any resulting awarded contract. (emphasis added)

Discussion/Rationale:

The above excerpts from the RFP indicate the Government is expecting prototype aircraft development even before the four yearlong the EMD phase. These requirements are inconsistent with RFP Section L and M as the RFP is requiring a pre‐existing aircraft to provide the required flight test data as part of the proposal. Requiring flight test data without allowing for other means to verify performance compliance leaves the Government to narrowly consider existing aircraft. The effect, without allowing a clean sheet aircraft designed to the specificaitons released with the RFP may result in the loss of potential to reduce cost, schedule, and technical risk. This results in a less than full and open competition as it is restricted to existing aircraft. Often an approach like this results in program cost growth and schedule slippage.

The RFP reflects the Government intent.

Section L, 4.2.1.6 Subfactor 1.6 —Aircraft Performance, Page 27 The offeror shall provide evidence that clearly substantiates its ability to deliver an aircraft with performance that meets the following requirements as documented in the Aircraft SS. Offeror‐conducted flight tests of the proposed APT Aircraft, using Government‐provided test procedures where specified below, are required to substantiate the proposed aircraft’s capability. Flight test results will be submitted NLT 90 days after the initial proposal as Volume I(b), Attachment 14b, and will be evaluated during source selection. The Government expects that the aircraft used to generate flight test data in support of the proposal will possess flying qualities and performance representative of the proposed production aircraft.

Section M, 2.2.7 Subfactor 1.6 ‐ Aircraft Performance, starting on Page 7 This subfactor will be evaluated and receive an Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) rating

1) High G Maneuvering To be acceptable in this area the offeror must demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft by means of offeror‐conducted flight test IAW Government‐provided test procedures

2) Maneuverability To be acceptable in this area the offeror shall demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft, using data from flight test validated performance model output

3) High Angle‐of‐Attack (AOA) Maneuvering To be acceptable in this area the offeror must demonstrate performance of the proposed APT Aircraft by means of offeror‐conducted flight test IAW Government‐provided test procedures

4) Flight Endurance To be acceptable in this area the offeror shall demonstrate using data from flight test validated performance model output

Recommended Corrective Action/Recommendation:

Remove the inconsistency by allowing an offeror to propose a design while removing the evaluation requirement for actual flight data this early in the program schedule. If selected under revised selection criteria, fund the design, integration, test, verification, and resulting certification of the APT development aircraft selected.

6091 RFP

6090 RFP