Attachment 0013 UH-60V Electrical A-Kit Industry Day Participants and Questions 9 August 2023.pdf

Question # RELEVANT DOCUMENT

(RFQ, SOW,

Attachment xx, etc.)

Section/ Paragraph / page # QUESTION REPLY

1 Validity period It was stated in the Industry Day presentation that the validity period for the proposal is 180 days. Based on the projected award schedule there is about 11 months between proposal submission and award. How will the USG address the discrepancy of having a shorter validity period than the projected evaluation/award time?

The proposal validity period will be reaffirmed in the event the USG requests Proposal Revisions during the course of the evaluation. The USG reserves the right to request extensions of the proposal validity.

2 Page count Will the Government allow an illustration on an 11 x 17 page to count as one page?

No, additional details will be provided in the formal Request for Proposal.

3 Draft RFP L.2iv(4)(a)&(b)

The Government asks for a 180 day proposal validity period, but indicates the anticipated award date is 31 Jan 2024. Will this cause a gap in proposal pricing?

Interested offerors shall use the proposal pricing assumptions to propose the contract pricing. The proposal validity period will be reaffirmed in the event the USG requests Proposal Revisions during the course of the evaluation. The USG reserves the right to request extensions of the proposal validity.

4 Draft RFP L.2(b)

Does the Government have a preferred file naming convention for the submission files?

The USG requests that the proposal filename align to the appropriate Volume. The PIEE Solicitation Module requires segregation of files when uploading files. Interested Offerors are strongly encouraged to provide a list of the associated file names for each volume for USG reference.

Formal Solicitation Section A page 2 A‐2 On Page 2 of the RFP, Section A‐2, you show a total quantity of 12 A‐Kits on the delivery schedule instead of the 10 you cite everywhere else in the RFP. The minimum order is 10. If the Government orders more than that quantity, then the Delivery Rate is 4 per month after the initial 1 First Article Acceptance and ramp up 3 Kits due 30 days later (month 2).

Attachment 0007

In the TDP Drawing List, Part Number 1082235 is listed as “Left Hand Pylon”. This drawing number should be for the “Left Hand Top Deck”. (The Left Hand Pylon is actually Part Number 1082232.)

This is an error; Attachment 0004 has been revised and is incorporated with Amendment 0001

7 1082223 and Attachment 0005

Bill of Materials The list of part numbers and quantities in attachment 0005 do not match what are shown on the drawings. Are we taking attachment 0005 in its entirety and calling it 1082223 even though the drawings do not validate it?

It is not the Government's intent to call Attachment 0005 as 1082223 since Attachment 0005 also includes 1091261‐301. Please refer to section A‐5 of the RFP that states 'Attachment 0005...specifies the components and quantities of each that constitute the UH‐60V Electrical A‐Kit to be delivered under the resultant contract.

8 1082223 and Attachment 0005

Bill of Materials If the answer to the first question is no, where do we get the quantities per kit for the harnesses? 1082214 has no quantities for the harnesses.

Attachment 0005 seems to be the only place the quantities are defined.

Please refer to Attachment 0005 for the required quantity of each harness.

9 1082223 and Attachment 0005

Bill of Materials If the answer to the first question is no, are the new drawings (10912XX) quoted separately? They do not flow down from 1082223. Per the last entry on Attachment 0005, the deliverable items shown in the drawings identified by the offeror as 10912XX are limited to those items shown on drawing 1091261 (i.e., 1091261‐ 301 "ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION, MAGNA‐F"). Those items shall not be quoted separately. The proposed prices for CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 shall include the price for each of the items listed in Attachment 0005.

10 1091257 & 1091258 Bill of Materials The updated TDP included new drawings. Attachment 0005 shows only 1091261 was added to the kit. We were provided drawings for 1091257 & 1091258. Should these also be included in the kit?

The offeror is directed to Attachment 0005 which specifies the deliverable items under the contract. Neither 1091257 or 1091258 or any of the items listed therein are shown on Attachment 0005.

11 1091258 Bill of Materials If we are quoting 1091258, please provide the following drawings: 1091271, 1091273, 1091274, 1091275, 1091277, 1091278, 1091279, 1091280, 1091281, 1081282, 1091286, 1091287, 1091288, 1091293

There is no requirement for the offeror to propose the entirety of the items shown on drawing 1091258. Note that the parts list for 1091258 does include 1091261‐301, which is included on Attachment 0005.

12 1091261 Bill of Materials Please provide drawing 1091274. It was not included in the TDP. Drawing 1091274 is not required for performance of the contract.

13 1082242‐101 Bill of Materials There are inconsistances in the cage codes specified in the bill of materials for military part numbers. An example would be backshell part number M85049/31‐14W. Some drawings reference cage code 81349 (Military Specifications), Some reference 81343 (Society of Automotive Engineers), others reference 18863 (Glenair). Are we required to only quote Gleniar on the drawings with Glenair's cage code or can use we any QPL manufacturer?

For military and industry standard parts, the offeror can use any QPL manufacturer. For military and industry standard parts, it’s common drawing practice to list the CAGE code of the activity that developed the standard (i.e., 81349 for MIL specs or 81343/0U583, for SAE specs) rather than a specific maufacturer's CAGE code to indicate that the part can be supplied from any qualifed manufacturer on the QPL.

Attachment 0013 Post Industry Day Questions and Answers 9 August 2023

Attachment xx, etc.)

Section/ Paragraph / page # QUESTION REPLY

14 ALL Drawings Build Books There are conflicting marking requirements. The drawings have a note 5 that specifies the marking requirment: "LASER MARK WIRE IDENTIFICATION CODE ON ALL WIRES IAW SAE AS50881. USE IDENTIFICATION MARKERS FOR WIRES THAT CANNOT BE LABELED WITH LASER MARKER. LOCATE IDENTIFICATION MARKERS WITHIN 12 IN OF CONNECTOR AND SPACE EVERY 36 IN ALONG LENGTH OF CABLE/WIRE." But the build books are showing the cable that cannot be laser marked are to be ink jet marked. What is the requirement? Is Ink Jet marking a requirement? Can ID labels be used as specified in note 5?

The ‐400 Wire Specifications define which wires are required to be ink jet marked or indirectly marked. For harnesses that do not have a ‐400 Wire specification, the wires can be ID marked if not able to be laser marked.

15 RFP Contract Clauses Please add clause 52.249‐14 to the contract clauses. This clause is only applicable to cost reimburseable contracts, therefore we will not add this clause to the RFP.

16 Tech Data Missing Missing Drawing 1091274. Please provide. Restricted Attachment 0003‐05 TDP (201‐257) and Attachment 0004 TDPL have been updated to include this with Amendment 0002

17 Tech Data Rev A and Rev B Many drawings have been updated from Rev‐ to Rev A or Rev B. As a result, almost 300 new unique items must be priced with material vendors. Request due date extension to 24‐April to accomodate updated quote receipt.

Extension is granted with Amendment 0002 unitl May 5th 2023 1700 hrs CDT

18 Attachment 7 Cell J:15, L:15, and V:30 Cell L:15 states, "The unit price for this CLIN is based on the Year 5 proposed Unit price for a qty of 48 ea" but the corresponding cell ‐ J:15 ‐ points to cell V:30 which is a range for 49 to 72. Should the statement in cell L:15 instead say, "... Unit price for a qty of 49 ea" in lieu of 48 to ensure USG intent?

Attachment 0007 is revised accordingly and released with Amendment 0002.

19 4th bullet of Section L.A.1.c.(i)1; and SOW 3.14.

SOW: pg. 15, Section 3.14 Supply Chain Risk Management Plan

Background: Section L states that "At a minimum the Offeror shall cover the following SOW paragraph: 3.14." SOW 3.14 states that "The Contractor shall plan, develop, implement, and/or maintain a Supply Chain Risk Management plan to protect their supply chain and prevent counterfeit parts. The Contractor shall make available, for review by the Government, Supply Chain Risk Management Plan procedures, planning and all other documentation and data that comprise the Contractor's supply chain risk management plan. The Government may review the documents that comprise the plan, and may perform any inspections, or evaluations to confirm conformance to requirements and adequacy of the plan." SOW 3.14 then lists minimum considerations the offeror must account for in the plan. Question 1: Is the offeror expected to submit a stand‐alone "Supply Chain Risk Management Plan" as part of its proposal that provides approaches to all of the listed considerations in SOW 3.14? Or is this part of the SOW requirement referring to the offeror's existing quality management system (QMS) approaches and processes for supply chain risk management, that the offeror must later make available to the Government for review? Question 2: Is there a CDRL associated with this SOW requirement? Question 3: If this plan is not meant to be submitted with the proposal, should the offeror anticipate Government review of the offeror's Supply Chain Risk Management Plan to occur before or after contract award?

Question 1: The RFP does not require the submission of a stand‐ alone Supply Chain Risk Management Plan. The offeror's proposed approach to supply chain management shall address the requirements delineated in SOW paragraph 3.14. Question 2: There is no CDRL associated with SOW paragraph 3.14. Question 3: The Government does not intend to review the offeror's Supply Chain Risk Management Plan before contract award. The USG will evaluate the offeror's proposed approach to supply chain management as requested in the RFP.

20 SOW 3.9.6 SOW: pg. 8, Section 3.9.6

MANUFACTURING

PLANNING AND CONTROL

Background: SOW Section 3.9.6 states that "The Contractor shall make internal manufacturing planning and control documents used by the Contractor in the performance of this contract, available for Government review. Such documents are limited to existing documents or documents created in support of this contract. The Contractor shall provide the Government access to Contractor documents and reports involving: manufacturing program plans, schedules, flowcharts, work instructions, bill of material, inventory levels, tooling, producibility studies, work measurement, make‐buy, transportation, capacity, machine loading, manpower, quality, and trend reports. Question 1: Is the offeror required to provide the actual referenced manufacturing planning and control documents as part of its proposal submission? Or must the offeror just make these available for review? Question 2: If these documents are not meant to be submitted with the proposal, should the offeror anticipate Government review of these documents to occur before or after contract award?

Question 1: The RFP does not require the offeror to submit these documents with its proposal. The intent of SOW 3.9.6 is so that the contractor makes these documents available for review by the Government during the execution of the contract. Question 2: The Government does not intend to review these documents before contract award.

21 SOW 3.9.7 SOW: pg. 8, Section 3.9.7

MANUFACTURING FACILITY

ACCESS

Background: SOW Section 3.9.7 states that "The Contractor shall provide members of the UH‐60V Production Progress Review access to the manufacturing facilities to review production processes, items listed in the Manufacturing and Planning control paragraph, and/or to review items discussed in the UH‐60V Production Progress Review." Question: Should the offeror anticipate Government review of its manufacturing facilities and related production processes to occur before or after contract award?

Please refer to SOW Section 3.6 PRODUCTION PROGRESS REVIEW which states "The Contractor shall support a Production Progress Review on a semi‐annual basis IAW DI‐ADMN‐81373 and deliver IAW CDRL A004 consisting of the Government and Contractor personnel responsible for the production and delivery of all UH‐ 60V Electrical A‐kits..." SOW Section 3.9.7 requires that the Contractor provide "members of the UH‐60V Production Progress Review" with access to the manufacturing facilities during the execution of the contract. It is not the Government's intent that the offeror provide access to the manufacturing facilities before contract award.

Attachment xx, etc.)

Section/ Paragraph / page # QUESTION REPLY

22 SOW 3.9.9 SOW: pg. 8, Section 3.9.9

QUALITY SYSTEM

Background: SOW Section 3.9.9 states that "The Contractor shall make available, for review by the Government, quality system procedures, planning and all other documentation and data that comprise the Contractor's quality system. The Government will review the documents that comprise the quality system, and may perform any inspections, or evaluations to confirm conformance to requirements and adequacy of the quality system."

Question: Should the offeror anticipate Government review of its manufacturing facilities and related production processes to occur before or after contract award?

SOW Section 3.9.9 describes requirements that are applicable after contract award. The offeror should anticipate that the Government's review of its manufacturing facilities and related production processes before contract award will be limited to evaluation of the information submitted in its Proposal Volume I, Technical (Factor 1) which is to be prepared in accordance with RFP Attachment 0009 Section L Instructions Conditions and Notices to Offerors 28 Feb 2023.

23 TDP, Draft and Final RFP TDP Please provide clarification regarding the TDP provided in support of RFP# W58RGZ‐23‐R‐0082.

The TDP included with the draft RFP did not include drawings for, or reference, the Electrical Installation, MAGNA‐F 11091261. However, the TDP included in the formal RFP did include this system and associated drawings (listed below). Section A‐12 of the Solicitation (draft contract) references this part number as well, included as part of CLIN‐0001, First Article.

The MAGNA drawings are also not included in the top level 1082223‐101 kit that is to be delivered in any of the CLINs in Section B of the solicitation.

Please provide clarification as to whether or not the offeror is responsible for delivering the MAGNA kit in addition to the 1082223‐101.

The offeror shall include the price of the "MAGNA Kit" (i.e. part number 1091261‐301, ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION, MAGNA‐F) in addition to the price of 1082223‐101, ELECTRICAL KIT COLLECTOR UH‐60V, in each of CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003. Please refer to Attachment 0005, UH‐60V Electrical A‐Kit Kitting List 01 Feb 23 for a complete list of the items that shall be priced within each of these CLINs.

24 RFP In the guidance for the ASSIST2Industry points of contact, there is a statement “The required information regarding these two (2) individuals must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal and included in the cover letter.” Our question is, where would you like us to put the cover letter for the proposal? There isn’t any additional guidance for the cover letter in Section L. Would you like it in Volume III, in all three volumes, or as a separate file?

Additionally, is there any additional information you require in the cover letter?

The proposal cover letter goes before the Proposal Volumes. For additional information regarding the cover letter, please refer to the

RFP.

25 Extension request We respectfully request a due date of 3 May 2023. It would be greatly appreciated, I’m guessing, for all of us working so hard to prepare this proposal and precise pricing. We are also curious what the Army’s budget is for this effort. In the past, when we have submitted bids for efforts such as this, there was a disclosed ballpark number. Please share this information if possible.

Extension is granted with Amendment 0002 unitl May 5th 2023 1700 hrs CDT. The Army does not disclose its budget to potential offerors.

26 Attach. 9 Section L Section A.2.c.ii. Volume II – Price, Par (1) Electronic files,

pg. 6

Section L states that the offeror shall “complete Exhibit A and B Contract Data Requirements List.” Exhibits A and B are the CDRLs. Questions: (1) Is the offeror expected to complete all of the CDRLs with proposal submission? If so, please clarify what the offeror must complete. (2) Please further clarify whether or not the offeror is required to submit the DD Form 1921, Cost Data Summary Report, and DD Form 1921–1/FlexFile, Functional Cost‐Hour Report, and all associated requirements, such as “the process to be used to satisfy the requirements of the DoD 5000.04‐M‐1, CSDR Manual, and the Government‐approved CSDR plan for the proposed contract with its pricing proposal.” Providing all of the CSDR data alone would require hundreds of hours.

1) Blocks A and F are required to be completed by the Offeror.

2) The CDSR data is required to be completed and submitted post‐ award as required by the Exhibit B CDRL’s instructions and Attachment 0006 Cost and Data Software Reporting Plan (CSDR)

27 Attach. 9 Section L Section A.1, Par d Proposal Organization, pg. 2

Section L states: “The Table of Contents and Summary Section are excluded from page limits.” Question: Will the volume cover pages and acronym lists likewise be excluded from the page limits?

Volume Cover Pages and Acronym Lists will be not excluded from the Page Limits

28 TDP Drawing # 1084100 On Drawing # 1084100, the revision block on the top of the page shows “revision A”; but the revision on the bottom right block has revision “– (dash)”.

Which revision should the offeror use?

As shown on the TDPL, the correct revision for drawing 1084100 is revision A. An updated drawing is hereby provided that correctly shows Rev A in the bottom right block.

29 TDP Drawing # 1082218 and Attachment 5 Kitting List

Per the NHA, the 1082218 Pin Filter Adapter Collector is used on 1082223. However, 1082223 only shows ‐101, whereas 1082218 shows dash ‐101 thru ‐110. The Kitting list shows all of the dash numbers (‐101 thru ‐110). Question: are the Pin Filter Adapters listed on the kitting list to be kitted with the top‐level kit?

Per the Kitting List, all of the Pin Filter Adapters shown on drawing 1082218 (‐101 through ‐110) are required components of the 1082223‐101 Electrical Kit Collector UH‐60V.

Attachment xx, etc.)

Section/ Paragraph / page # QUESTION REPLY

30 Attach 9 Section L Sections L.A.2.c(ii) Volume II Price/Par (1)/Electronic files, pg 7

Section L states “The Offeror shall provide a Table of Contents showing each file submitted as part of the Price Volume with a short description of the contents of the file. Hyperlink each of these entries in the Table of Contents to the respective files.” Question: How does the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) system enable hyperlinking of files?

The government is not aware of any issue with PIEE and hyperlinks within the files.”. If you have an issue with files loading in the PIEE Solicitation Module that have hyperlinks within them you should reach out to the PIEE helpdesk for assistance. PIEE is the only entity that has control or ability to do anything within the system in that regard.

31 Tech Data Missing Drawing 1082542 During the rev changes, 1082542 Rev A now calls out a build board (1084130 ) per note 7. The UH‐60V fabrication board collector (1084100) failed to incorporate the change and therefore the drawing for build board (1084130) was not provided. Please provide clarification and drawings for 1084130 build board.

1082542 note 7 was erroneously updated in Revision A of the drawing and, therefore, should be ignored. Fabrication Board 1084130 has been obsoleted, so it does not apply to this solicitation. A build board is not required to build the 1082542‐101 harness; it can be manufactured solely based on the provided data within the 1082542 Rev A drawing, build book, and wire specification.

32 Solicitation, Delivery Date of First A‐Kit

RFP According to Page 2 of 63 of solicitation W58RGZ‐23‐R‐0082, Section A‐2, “The Delivery Schedule”, it says the first A‐Kit is due “12 Months After Contract Award”. This would not be a problem except for sole source wire with lead times of 60 weeks for all of us bidding on this. Would it be possible to change the Delivery Date referenced from “12 Months After Contract Award” to “18 Months After Contract Award” so the winner can supply the first A‐Kit on time, per the contract?

The Government reviewed this question and determined that 18 months to deliver the First Article is reasonable. Therefore, the Delivery Schedule for the First Article is revised from 12 months to 18 months

33 TDP and RFP (Sections F & H)

TDP (Multiple drawings) Solicitation Special Contract Requirements / Section H / par. H‐2.2 / pg. 24 RFP Section F Deliveries or Performance / Section F / par. (a) / pg. 64

Background: The RFP requires delivery of the FAI kit 12 months ACA. The offeror is also liable for a penalty of $450.00 per calendar day for late deliveries.

While developing our response to the RFP, we discovered that a number of items of material required for the production of the UH‐60V Electrical A‐Kit have lead times that do not support a 12‐month delivery. As one example, part number M27500‐10SP‐3U00, Cable, Special Purpose, Ele, 3Cond, 10AWG, specified in the Government provided drawing 1082430, Harness Subassembly, DC Power has only three approved manufacturers for the base wire used in the manufacture of the cable, Judd Wire, Marmon Aerospace and TE Connectivity. One of these manufacturers is on a stop ship order and the other two have an estimated 15‐ month backlog making it impossible to meet the Government’s desired delivery beginning 12 months ACA. This is only one of many parts whose lead times prevent fabrication and delivery of kits within 12 months ACA.

Question: Will the Government extend the required delivery dates to account for the parts supply issue? A more reasonable expectation for delivery would be 24 months to allow for receipt of material, fabrication and test of harnesses, and final kitting and delivery to the Government.

Question: Are there commercial alternatives that are known to the Government?

Question: Due to the numerous uncertainties present in the world‐wide supply chain, will the Government remove the late delivery penalty payments?"

The Government reviewed this question and determined that 18 months to deliver the First Article reasonable. Therefore, the Delivery Schedule for the First Article is revised from 12 months to 18 months.

The Government is not aware of any commercial alternatives. The Government is not in agreement with removing the delivery penalty payments.

Attachment xx, etc.)

Section/ Paragraph / page # QUESTION REPLY

34 RFP Section M & RFP Attach. 0007 Pricing

Template

Section M / par. D.2.b.6).iii /

pg. 7 & Attach 0007 Pricing

Template

Section M states “For CLIN 0003 that has multiple quantity ranges, the evaluated price will be calculated as follows: the Government will calculate the average unit price for all five years at quantity range 24‐48 and multiplied by a best estimated quantity of 48 units.” However, Attachment_0007_Pricing_Template_20_Mar_2023 uses the Year 5, quantity 25‐48 price and multiplies it by 230 (The unit price for this CLIN is based on the Year 5 proposed Unit price for a qty of 48 ea.) rather than taking an average. Questions: Which is correct? If Section M is correct, will the Government provide an updated Pricing Template?

Solicitation, Attachments 0007 Pricing Template, 0009 Section L, 0010 Section M, and 0013 Questions and Answers updated in Amendment 0006.

35 RFP Amendment 0008;

Attachment 0009 (Section L), dated 3 August 2023

Attachment 0009, Section L, paragraph A.(ii)(4)(e)

Progress Payments

If the progress payment schedule equals 95% of the total proposed price, does the Government hold back the remaining 5% until the Government determines that all contract obligations have been met? Is this equivalent to retention?

Offerors are not required by Section L (Attachment 0009) to propose a schedule for progress payment financing. Progress payment financing will be administered in accordance with FAR 52.232‐16 and DFARS 252.232‐7004 (DEVIATION 2020‐O0010). Progress payment financing amounts are not based on the contract price; rather, they are based on the contractor’s actual costs incurred during contract performance.

In general, a contractor can invoice for its incurred costs as work progresses under the contract, and as invoices are reviewed/approved, the Government will pay 95% of the invoiced costs (see DFARS 252.232‐7004 DEVIATION 2020‐O0010). FAR 52.232‐ 16 provides instructions for computing the contractor's incurred costs and Government progress payment amounts. The Government will make progress payments to the contractor when requested as work progresses, but not more frequently than monthly. Upon delivery of an end item, the Government will pay the contractual price of the item, less any progress payments made.

Thus, there is no fixed hold back or retention percentage. The difference between the amount financed and the contract price will be dependent upon the contractor's costs incurred during contract performance. However, per FAR 52.232‐16(a)(6) and DFARS 252.232‐ 7004, the total amount of progress payments the Government makes cannot exceed 95% of the total contract price.