Draft_RFP_Contractor_Questions_18_Apr_2016.docx

1. In reference to SOW Question: Where are modifications to take place?

Answer- The modification will take place at the selected contractor’s facility.

2. In reference to SOW 5.1.3.3, Question: Says “access to FAA certified facilities”, please clarify if the contractor must have a Part 145 Repair Station?

Answer- The contractor shall use a FAA Part 145 Repair Station with the appropriate certifications to perform the C-21 AUP modification.

3. In reference to SOW 5.2.1.1, Question: Is the DAL a government database that the contractor can upload documents and data to, or is this a database that is created/sustained by the contractor?

Answer- The contractor’s Data Acquisition List (DAL) is the data created/sustained by the contractors and accessible to the Government in lieu of CDRLs. The DAL will be added as a CDRL requirement.

4. In reference to SOW 5.2.3, Question: Does the contractor need to have AS9100C Certification as opposed to compliance? Certification is recommended due to higher certification standards?

Answer- The requirement is for certification, not compliant.

5. In reference to SOW 5.2.4, Question: Does the contractor need to have a facility clearance? If so, will USAF sponsor the contractor in obtaining the clearance?

Answer- No, a facility clearance is not required.

6. In reference to SOW 5.2.7, Question: How is “change” defined? Does frequency allocation/spectrum management administered by USG need to be performed if new equipment has the same frequency range as the older equipment?

Answer- No.

7. In reference to SOW 5.2.10, Question: Will MACC certification be performed concurrent to FAA certification?

Answer- Yes.

8. In reference to SOW 5.5.14, Question: Does Tier 1 Data Rights involve contractor transferring STC ownership to USAF?

Answer- No, the Government is requesting Government Purpose Rights only.

9. In reference to SRD 3.4.3, Question: USAF already has an MFD-640 for radar display. Is USAF looking for a new MFD to replace this?

Answer- Possibly – the solution to either keep current display or update with new display should be part of the contractor package and recommendations.

10. In reference to SRD 3.8, Question: Please clarify since the current AHC-3000 complies with CFR Part 25 why is the USAF looking for a new AHRS system? What needs to be addressed with this requirement

Answer- The current fleet doesn’t have this equipment installed. This was on one aircraft that was transferred to another Government agency. This is still a valid requirement.

11. In reference to SRD 3.9, Question: To certify the aircraft for CPDLC and FANS compliance, a certified SATCOM system is needed (which the C-21 does not currently have). Does USAF wish for the contractor to propose a certified SATCOM system? Or does the USAF just want compliant CMU installed now and will install SATCOM in a future program?

Answer- CPDLC and FANS is a requirement. Proposed solution should meet requirements.

12. X005: The language in X005 and the order quantity in CLIN 0005 appear to be in disagreement with SOO paragraph 5.6 which requires multiple training classes of various disciplines at varying intervals. Also, where would the training for test personnel and the TO Verification team be priced? Please clarify?

Answer- CLIN X005 is for the development of all training required by the SOO/SRD. It is a one lot pricing for all of the required training and is complete once the training material are accepted by the Government. The two actual training classes would be priced under CLIN X006.

13. X006: How many students are anticipated per class?

Answer- The Government is anticipating no more than 12 students per class.

14. X007: Suggest the Government consider a spares package in Base Year in support of prototype development/deployment, base year production aircraft modification under X016 and CLIN 0016, and initial Option I deliveries.

Answer- This will be updated in the formal RFP. All spares will be required to be provided in Option Year I.

15. The Section B and the Attachment I Pricing Matrix appear to be inconsistent with X013, X014, and X016.

Answer- CLIN X013 is not being priced by the contractor and is not included on the pricing matrix. CLIN X014 is for any unique support equipment required to support or sustain the contractor’s proposed solution. This is priced as one amount per year. CLINs X015 and X016 quantities will be corrected in the formal RFP.

16. X014: Suggest the Government consider procuring at least two (2) sets of unique support equipment in Base Year in support of prototype development/deployment, base year aircraft modification under XO 16, and initial Option I deliveries. This may be allowable under CLIN 0014, but as stated herein this is only applicable to "all option years".

Answer- This CLIN is for the contractor to propose any unique support equipment that is required to support or sustain the contractor’s proposed solution. The Government is not mandating anything be proposed under this CLIN. What is proposed will be determined by the solution.

17. X015: States "One aircraft kit production will be used during the base period". As a modification, install, and testing risk mitigation strategy will the Government allow the kit build and install under X016 to begin prior to prototype completion and STC approval? The language in CLINs 0015 and 0016 seems to indicate these will be ordered and concurrent with the prototype and STC approval, but the intent is unclear. Please clarify.

Answer- The contractor will have the ability for ordering long lead time kits in the base period to support production.

18. CLIN 0004 Simulator Data Package: States the Contractor will provide all labor and materials necessary to provide a Simulator Data Package as described in the SOO and SRD. There is no mention of the Simulator in the SOO or the SRD. Will the Government provide the baseline design and engineering data in order to generate the requested data package? Who will be responsible for acquiring the parts and material necessary for the modification? Who will be responsible for acquiring the necessary spares? Who will perform the modification? Also, the Option Year Engineering Change Packages do not appear to be applicable to the Simulator Data Package.

Answer- The only thing required under this CLIN is to provide the data package.

19. The Government's desire to have the option of ordering twelve (12) production and install kits in each of Option Year's 1-3 is confusing. Stating the requirement this way will have each Offeror pricing thirty (36) kits when only 12 are needed. This will skew the Offerors' Total Evaluated Price (TEP). If an Offerors price is slightly higher or lower this could be marginal based on seventeen (17) production and install kits, but will be significantly inflated on thirty six (36) kits. Additionally, given that the modifications have to be completed by 31 January 2020 it would appear that Option Year III will only be a four ( 4) month period of performance as it applies to the production and install kits. If so, this will hardly allow the Contractor enough time to build and install twelve (12) kits during this period. Our suggestion is to allow the Offerors to propose the number of production and install kits in accordance with their Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) developed to accomplish the objectives of the SOO and SRD.

Answer- The quantities will be corrected in the Formal RFP. There are 19 total aircraft in the fleet that must be modified. The structure of this CLIN allows the government to maintain flexibility on how many aircraft to induct each year based on mission needs. If the contractor’s proposal and the mission needs allow for 12 aircraft to be modified the first year, then obviously there will not be a need to modify twelve each additional year.

20. Paragraph 4.1 Subfactor 1: Avionics Upgrade states the Offeror shall provide a solution for the C-21 fleet that leverages existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) approved for the C-21 aircraft or commercial equivalents that meet requirements contained within the SOO/SRD. Does the Government have data use rights for the STCs? Who is the holder of the STCs? What are the STC numbers?

Answer- At this time, the Government cannot offer data rights in any existing STC.

21. Paragraph 1.2 states that IOC will be attained when the first squadron is modified? Does the Government intend for one squadron to be modified at a time?

Answer- IOC will be defined in the RFP.

22. Paragraph 5.2.1.1 states that the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverables should be minimized by maximizing use of a Government accessible contractor's Data Accession List. However, FA810616R0003; X009 is explicit on CDRL submittals. Also, there does not appear to be a CDRL for a DAL. Please clarify. Paragraph 5.2.9.2 Will the Government or the Contractor determine meeting locations? Will Tinker Engineering be the design and/or Operational, Test, and Evaluation (OT &E) test plan approval authority?

Answer- DAL will be added to CLIN X009. The contractor will determine the meeting locations. Tinker Engineering will be the test requirement focal point and will work with the contractor and the Center Test Authority (CTA) for military approval.

23. Paragraph 5.2.11.2 When considering the Anthropometrics what is the desired design percentile or percentile range?

Answer- Need to use MIL-STD1472G, section 3.3.5

24. Will the Government clarify their expectations under paragraph 5.3.9.2.7 since the way it is currently written this could be a significant cost and schedule driver if an Offeror is to be fully compliant.

Answer- Government expectation is to receive a FAA certified modification that meets all user requirements.

25. Paragraph 5.4.1/5.4.1.1 The TA-24 will be obsolete in approximately five (5) years due to the software coding. Given that this is a Government directed item does the Government assume responsibility for this impending obsolescence of this item?

Answer- The RFP will define the GPS requirement.

26. Paragraph 5.5.1 The style and format of MIL-STD-38784A is very rigid and the current/legacy Technical Orders (TOs) are not written to MIL-STD-38784A. Please clarify? During the development of source data, when it is determined that in order to insert or integrate the C-21 AUP data into the TO's that the legacy data needs to be corrected who is responsible to correcting the legacy data?

Answer- Technical data shall be provided for installation, removal and troubleshooting for all avionics equipment listed in this SOO/SRD utilizing the current C-21 technical order format and structure.

27. 5.5.3.2 Should the source data be formatted in accordance with TO 00-5-3, Life Cycle Management, 1 March 2007 or the latest version released on 1 April 2015?

Answer- Technical data shall be provided for installation, removal and troubleshooting for all avionics equipment listed in this SOO/SRD utilizing the current C-21 technical order format and structure.

28. Paragraph 5.5.3.2.10 We suggest this be reworded to read the Tech Data and Flight Manual Updates are to be delivered in accordance with the approved Integrated Master Plan/Schedule developed under 5 .3 .1 or as approved at the TO Guidance Conference conducted in accordance with paragraph 5.5.3.1. Mandating verified data be delivered thirty (30) days prior to OT &E on a compressed, short duration program, with concurrent design, manufacture, and install and with a test program conducted to comply with 5.3.9.2 will be difficult if not impossible.

Answer- No changes required. Data 30 days prior to test is the requirement.

29. Paragraph 5.6.2 States the Contractor is to provide validated training to test personnel 30 days prior to any operational test and evaluation flights. We suggest this be reworded to read training for test personnel shall be provided in accordance with the approved Integrated Master Plan/Schedule developed under 5.3.1. Mandating training thirty (30) days prior to any operational test and evaluation flights on a compressed, short duration program, with concurrent design, manufacture, and install and with a test plan conducted to comply with 5.3.9.2 will be inefficient and unproductive.

Answer- No changes required. Data 30 days prior to test is the requirement.

30. Paragraph 5.6.3 states the Contractor is to accomplish aircrew training for the C-21A AUP test program 60 days prior to the first aircraft finishing modification. Suggest this be reworded to read the aircrew training be provided in accordance with the approved Integrated Master Plan/Schedule developed under 5.3.1. Mandating training sixty (60) days prior the first aircraft finishing modification on a compressed, short duration program, with concurrent design, manufacture, and install and test program will be difficult if not impossible. In all probability this would force training prior to having adequate, validated, or verified data.

Answer- The RFP will define the aircrew training requirement.

31. Paragraph 5.6.8.2 Reference comments in regarding paragraph 5.6.3

Answer- 5.6.8.2 is for MX training and 5.6.3 is aircrew training. Data 30 days prior to test is the requirement.

32. Paragraph 5.6.10 Please, clarify the intent of the certification. Can the Contractor certify the aircrew? Who determines the training material and presentation is adequate for certification? What is the approval process?

Answer- The FAA will certify the source data for the training in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. The STAN/EVAL will certify the aircrew. The Government will determine the sufficiency of the training submitted.

33. Paragraph 5.6.11 to 5.6.13 is missing

Answer- This will be corrected in RFP.

34. Paragraph 3.3.1 references Appendix D. We could find no Appendix D in the released documents.

Answer- Appendix D reference will be deleted in final SRD

35. Paragraph 3.4 mandates the use of the TA-24. Given the future obsolescence of this unit due to M-Code is it the intent to incorporate this unit and deal with obsolescence later?

Answer- TA-24 or suitable substitute that will satisfy all requirements in SRD. Final SRD will be updated accordingly.

36. Paragraph 3.4.1.8 states the GPS shall have FAA certification for SPS and DOD certification for SPS. Shouldn't the DOD certification be for PPS?

Answer- Yes reference will be updated in final SRD

37. Paragraph 3 .4.2.8 Will the Government provide details of RNA V Type A and Q and how this will be utilized in the C-21A operational environment?

Answer- Conduct navigation using RNAV 2, RNP 2; Type Q/T and A on continental and terminal routes.

Conduct navigation using RNAV 1, P-RNAV, RNP 1; Type B on terminal routes.

38. Paragraph 3.4.2.12 Will the Government clarify how much additional memory capability is desired or required? 1 % additional memory would be compliant, but most likely not adequate. In past document releases provisions for 100% growth was the threshold. ls this still the requirement?

Answer- This should be 100% - final SRD will be updated to reflect this change.

39. Paragraph 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.7.4 addresses the Cockpit Voice Recorder. Should this be the Flight Data Recorder?

Answer- Yes, FDR requirements will be updated and added to final SRD.

40. Paragraph 3.9 The requirements of this paragraph will mandate the addition of Digital SATCOM. Is it the Government's desire to incorporate SATCOM as part of the C-21 AUP? If so, will the Government please clarify the desired characteristics and capabilities of the Digital SATCOM?

Answer- The solution to either incorporate digital SATCOM or not should be part of the contractor package and recommendations.

41. General: Number of aircraft to be modified Comment/Question: The Statement of Objectives (SOO) shows a total of 19 aircraft to modify, but the pricing file shows 22 total. What is the total number of aircraft to be modified for this program?

Answer- See answer to Question 19.

42. DFARS Ground and Flight Risk Clause not included:

Comments/Request: DFARS Clause 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk (GFR) is not included in the solicitation. Adding the GFR Clause requirement would serve the Government’s interests by better protecting its assets, keeping costs lower because the contractor would not need separate insurance, and lowering the overall program risk because the contractor would operate to Government standards. Recommend adding DFARS Clause 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk to the list of FAR clauses included in this solicitation.

Answer- This is a FAR Part 12 Contract and will not have the Ground and Flight risk clause. This is being resolved by the Addendum to FAR 52.212-4 concerning indemnification being added to the contract.

43. Page 3, B-06: The contractor shall prepare work request proposals with breakouts of all direct and indirect costs for the necessary over and above work CLIN in the format and details described by the ACO, and submit them to the designated Government Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

Question: Will additional information describing the format and details required be provided in the final RFP?

Answer- The information required to be in the work request is already in this section. The selected contractor will be provided an example of the format the Government is requesting.

44. Page 3, B-06: “Hands on” labor shall not include any labor performed by support of supervisory type personnel, such as, but not limited to: timekeepers, payroll clerks, purchasing, material handling, quality control, storing and issuing personnel. Quality control personnel are considered as those personnel who apply standards to finished work/products to determine that finish production work is serviceable in all respects.

Question: How will reimbursement for contractor costs associated with these support functions that are required for O&A activities be provided?

Answer- This will be corrected in the formal RFP. An overhead rate for G&A expenses will be added to CLIN X010.

45. Pages 7-8, CLIN X004 Simulator Data Package: CLIN X004 includes a requirement for a simulator data package.

Question: Who is the current simulator contractor?

Answer- This is not relevant to this modification or needed for a complete proposal.

46. Page 8, CLIN X008 Technical Data Development: The contractor shall provide the technical data package in the required Government style and format.

Question: What is the required Government style and format for the technical data package?

Answer- Technical data shall be provided for installation, removal and troubleshooting for all avionics equipment utilizing the current C-21 technical order format and structure.

47. Page 10, CLINs X015 and X016: The Government will have the option to use anywhere from eight (8) to twelve (12) aircraft kits and inductions per year for Option Years I-III.

The Government will have the option to induct anywhere from eight (8) to twelve (12) aircraft per year for Option Years I-III and those must be completed in that Option Year.

Comment/Question: This implies a minimum of 8 in any year. However, the fleet size is 19 aircraft. Does that mean the Government will only utilize 2 of the option years to modify the 19 aircraft, or will there be a short year (fewer than 8)?

Answer- Please see response to Question 19.

48. Page 10, X016 Aircraft Modification/Production Kit Installation; Page 18, Item No.

0016 Base Year – Aircraft Kit Production (A&B); Page 26, Item No. 1016 Option Year I – Aircraft Kit Production (A&B); Page 33, Item No. 2016 Aircraft Kit Production (A&B); and Page 39, Item No. 3016 Aircraft Kit Production (A&B) (all are yellowhighlighted CLIN titles):

Comment/Question: The CLIN titles highlighted in yellow are Aircraft Kit Production (A&B), but the titles listed in the CLIN descriptions are Aircraft Modification/Production Kit Installation. Should the titles of these CLINs be Aircraft Modification/Production Kit Installation instead of Aircraft Kit Production?

Answer-This will be corrected in the Formal RFP.

49. Page 20, Item No. 1007 Option Year I – Aircraft Initial Spares; Page 27, Item No. 2007 Option Year II – Aircraft Initial Spares:

Question: Are Initial Spares for Options I and II considered stand alone for each option, or should spares be calculated separately for Option II considering the existing spares delivered under Option I?

Answer- Please see answer to Question 14.

50. STC:

Question: Will the Contractor retain ownership of the STC and be responsible for maintaining continued airworthiness?

Answer- Yes, contractor will retain ownership of STC and be responsible for continued ownership as long as the certificate is valid and the C-21 aircraft are still in service.

51. 5.2.1.2: CDRLs identified in the Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW).

5.2.8 Requirements Traceability. A requirements traceability process established, maintained, and integrated into the Offeror’s management practices providing effective requirements traceability among the SRD, CSOW, CDRLs, system specification, product specifications, test plans, test procedures, and others documents as applicable.

Comment/Request: The Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) is referenced twice in the SOO, but there is no requirement included. Will a CSOW requirement be included in the final RFP?

Answer- This will be corrected in the formal RFP. Yes, a CSOW is required.

52. CLINs and Paragraph 5.2.3: Quality Assurance. An effective quality system to document and maintain a quality such as International Standardization Organization (ISO) 9001 as a means of ensuring quality control for products and services.

Comment/Request: The CLINs require AS9100 quality system compliance, but this SOO paragraph suggests ISO 9001. Recommend the ISO 9001 reference in Paragraph 5.2.3 be changed to AS9100 to match the CLINs.

Answer- This will be corrected in the formal RFP.

53. Paragraph 5.2.4 Security: IAW the DD Form 254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification, the contractor shall comply with the security requirements listed in the DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual/Supplements, DoD Series Security Regulations, AFI 31-101VI, and AFI 33-201V5.

Question/Request: Does this program require access to classified information and/or material? If so, respectfully request a DD Form 254 be issued with the final RFP IAW the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) 4-103.

Answer- No, a DD Form 254 is not required. This will be corrected in the formal RFP.

54. Paragraph 5.7: Ownership Cost. The total C-21 AUP Operating and Support (O&S) costs shall not increase current C-21 weapon system O&S costs.

Questions: How will the cost for future O&S be calculated? Will the cost be defined in current dollars or future dollars? How will the Government calculate and verify this requirement?

Answer- The MTBF needs to be greater than or equal to the current installed boxes available. Utilizing the analogy estimate.

C-21 AUP RELIABILITY DATA

* Based on OEM projected reliability.

55. Paragraph 3.1.2: The modified C-21 aircraft shall maintain current mission requirements

(MANDATORY).

Comment/Questions: The current mission requirements were not included in the draft Solicitation documentation. Will they be listed in the final RFP?

Answer- C-21 worldwide missions are similar to the commercial missions of the Learjet Model 35A

56. Paragraph 3.2.4.1: The selected avionics system suite shall not exceed the current power draw of the pre-modified installed equipment. (MANDATORY).

Question: Will the current Electrical Loads Statement be provided as part of the final RFP?

Answer- The C-21 Electrical Loads Analysis (ELA) will be posted to the FedBizOps C-21 technical data library.

57. Paragraphs 3.5.2 and 3.5.3: The weather radar shall provide for selecting a range (MANDATORY). The range of the weather radar shall be a minimum up to 250 NM (MANDATORY). Comment/Request: Please define the minimum range.

Answer- Minimum range will be cited in final SRD as 250 NM

58. TA-24 TSO-C-145, WAAS/LPV, and M-Code Compliance:

Comment/Request: Current TA-24 literature does not confirm that the unit meets TSO-C- 145 or complies with WAAS/LPV or M-Code. The literature only confirms that the unit has an upgrade path. Will the Government provide confirmation that the TA-24 meets TSO-C- 145 and/or complies with WAAS/LPV or M-Code?

Answer- Requirement is for a growth path to M-Code GPS. SRD has been updated to reflect requirement.

59. Paragraph 1.1.2: Award will be made on the basis of “best value” utilizing tradeoff source selection procedures. If used, the tradeoff will be between technical risk, past performance, and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable.

Question/Comment: If the tradeoff cited in this paragraph is not used, what tradeoff will be used to determine best value? Attachment 5 – Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 does not include the “if used” language in the tradeoffs discussion.

Answer- The award decision will be made in accordance with the enclosed addendum to FAR 52.212-2.

60. Paragraph 1.5: All or parts of the Contractor’s Technical Proposal may be added to the contract. Question: How will the contractor be notified about which parts of the final Technical Proposal will be included versus excluded prior to final contract negotiations?

Answer- The Contractor’s Technical Proposal will be added to the contract in its entirety.

61. Paragraph 3.10.3, Table 1 Proposal Organization: Title Page (Not included in 95 page limit), Team List (see Attach 2) (Not included in 85 page limit), Avionics Upgrade (Subfactor 1) 100 page limit, and Technical Risk – Included with the 100 pages of technical Comment/Question: There are three different page limits shown in Table 1 for the technical volume: 85, 95, and 100. What is the page limit for the technical volume?

Answer-This will be corrected in the Formal RFP. The Page limit for the technical volume is 100 pages.

62. Paragraph 3.10.3, Table 1 Proposal Organization: ITO Paragraph 4.5 Technical Risk (Factor 2) is not listed in this table, and Technical Risk is shown as ITO Paragraph 4.6.

Comment/Request: Paragraph 4.6 does not exist in the ITO, and Paragraph 4.5 is Technical Risk. Should the table reference to ITO Paragraph 4.6 be changed to 4.5?

Answer-This will be corrected in the Formal RFP.

63. Table 1 Proposal Organization and Paragraph 3.10.10 Requirements Correlation Matrix: Comment/Question: Paragraph 3.10.10 requires the contractor to complete the Requirements Correlation Matrix provided in Table 2, but Table 1 does not define where to provide the completed matrix as part of the offeror’s proposal. Where should the Requirements Correlation Matrix be provided within the proposal?

Answer-This will be provided in the Formal RFP.

64. 3.13 Electronic Offer: The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007 or 2010, MS Excel 2007 or 2010, MS-Project 2007 or 2010, and MS-Power Point 2007 or 2010, or Microsoft Office XP as applicable.

6.11 Submission of Price Matrix: Data file should be .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2007 or earlier) compatible format.

Comment/Question: Paragraph 3.13 requires MS Excel 2007 or 2010, but Paragraph 6.11 requires MS Excel 2007 or earlier. Which version of MS Excel is required?

Answer-This will be corrected in the Formal RFP.

65. 4.3 Subfactor 3: Schedule and Planning: The IMP must correlate to the IMS, CSOW, CWBS, Model Contract, offeror’s organizational structure and specification tree.

Comment/Question: This paragraph cites the CSOW, but there are no requirements for a CSOW included in the draft RFP. Will a requirement for a CSOW be included in the final

RFP?

Answer-See answer to Question 52.

66. Paragraph 4.5 Technical Risk (Factor 2): The offeror shall classify each risk in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table X, Technical Risk Rating (same as the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph X).

Comment/Questions: Table X and Paragraph X do not exist in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2.

Where is Table X, or what is the correct table reference for this? Should Paragraph X be changed to Paragraph 2.3?

Answer- This will be corrected in the formal RFP.

67. SRD 3.3.2: "The Pilot's and Copilot's displays shall be driven by separate sources to prevent a single point failure." Was this statement derived from a basic concern for reversionary operation of the EFIS, or is there some additional intent?

Answer- This is for aircraft redundancy. If pilot’s display fails then the copilot’s display shall still be operational and vice versa.

68. SRD 3.3.3: " ... as stated in 3.3.4 .. . " Should this reference be 3.3.2?

Answer- Yes, SRD will be updated to reference 3.3.2

69. SRD 3.4.1: Are the requirements in this section meant to apply to both civil and military GPSs or are they limited to the TA-24 GPS?

Answer- SRD Section will be rewritten to separate out civil and military requirements.

70. SRD 3.4.1.2: The TA-24 may not be capable of LPV approaches.

Answer- SRD Section will be updated

71. SRD 3.4.2.16: Does the current INS interface to the FMS? Will the current INS be retained?

Answer- Yes, requirements added to FMS section in SRD. C-21 does not currently have an INS, utilizes directional gyro system.

72. SRD 3.5.6: "The modified aircraft should provide information on ... lightning intensity."

Is the display of actual lightning activity required or is inferred lightning activity acceptable? Must the lightning intensity information be inherent in the weather radar unit or is a separate stormscope acceptable? The size and shape of the C-21A nose may limit selection of a weather radar system.

Answer- This requirement is up to the contractor’s solution.

73. SRD 3.7: The FDR requirements appear to be copies of the CVR requirements.

Answer- Yes, FDR requirements will be updated and added to final SRD.

74. Title is Flight Data recorder but the body of the section is Cockpit Voice Recorder

Answer- Yes, FDR requirements will be updated and added to final SRD.

75. Flight Data Recorder Section 3.7.1 same issues as identified above

Answer- Yes, FDR requirements will be updated and added to final SRD.