RFP_Questions_2_May_16.docx

1. Is it the AF intent to actually integrate a dual INS system along with dual AHRS into the platform along with a dual FMS system?

Answer: Dual INS is the requirement. The Offeror’s solution will determine if dual AHRS is required IAW 14 CFR part 25 requirements.

2. Is it the government’s intent is to integrate a dual M-Code GPS architecture or single?

Answer: Not requirement – up to vendor’s proposed solution. Requirement is for a redundant GPS system providing SPS and PPS functionality that meets RNP requirements.

3. Do you plan to sustain the current CRT flight displays or upgrade to LED?

Answer: The Offeror isn’t required to change displays - up to vendor’s solution to keep or change out the displays.

4. SRD 1.3: System Background - Obsolescent equipment is predicted to start affecting the C-21 aircraft availability by 2020. The Avionics Upgrade approach is to address obsolescence by replacing the avionics suite in its entirety and ensure sustainability through the projected service life for any remaining avionics equipment. - Does this RFP encompass all required equipment to be replaced? Systems such as TCAS and TAWS are not listed? May the contractor assume that any system not identified by the government as obsolete may be retained?

Answer: SRD only lists what is a requirement other items not listed may be updated in future. Any system not identified in SRD will be retained on aircraft.

5. SRD 3.4. 1.1: The modified aircraft shall have a redundant GPS that provides FAA SPS and DOD PPS functionality (MANDATORY). -Does the DOD PPS have to be dual or just redundant to an FAA SPS GPS, e.g. are two military GPSs required?

Answer: Redundant capability required.

6. SRD 3.4.2 .16 The FMS shall have GPS, VOR, VORIDME, TACAN, TACANIDME and DMEIDME updates to the INS (MANDATORY). -Please review the requirement for the TACAN to update the INSs. This is a legacy (pre-GPS) technique that, as a practical matter, will not improve the navigation solution. This aircraft will have three GPSs, plus other navigation sources, providing updates. The current serviceable (analog) TACAN will likely have to be upgraded to meet this requirement with no appreciable benefit.

Answer: The TACAN update to the INSs is not required.

7. SRD 3.4.2.19: The FMS shall have dual INS capability (MANDATORY). - Does the solution require dual AHARS and dual INUs (four heading reference units) or may the two INUs meet AHARS Systems requirement?

Answer: Dual INS is the requirement. AHARS functionality addressed in SRD 3.8.1.

8. SRD 3.4.3.2 : Weather radar data shall be displayed on a minimum of 2 displays to prevent a loss of weather radar data from a single display failure (NON-MANDATORY). 3.5.5 The modified C-21 aircraft shall provide weather radar information to the EHSI and MFD with selectable navigation graphics overlays (MANDATORY). - Please clarify where weather radar data must be displayed.

Answer: Dependent on Offerors solution using either existing displays or proposed new equipment.

9. SRD 3.5.6: The modified C-21 aircraft shall provide information for wind shear (MANDATORY). - What type of system is requested; Predictive or Reactive? Must the wind shear information be provided by the weather radar or is information available from another source acceptable?

Answer: A predictive system is required and provided by the weather radar.

10. SRD 3.7.4: The FDR shall operate in full Learjet 35A (C-21A) flight profile spectrum (MANDATORY). - Please provide expanded clarification on the specific parameters required to be recorded or a TSO or other standard to meet.

Answer: The minimum requirements to be measured by FDR are IAW current 14 CFR part 25 and 91 and Eurocontrol.

11. 3.9.1: The modified C-21 aircraft shall meet all FANS I /A and Link 2000 + Programme mandates (MANDATORY). -What are the Link 2000+ Programme mandates? This program appears defunct.

Answer: Per AC 120-70C, section 5.3.1 states the LINK 2000+ program has been amended by the Commission Implementing Regulation EU 2015/310. The Offeror shall propose a solution that meets this amended requirement.

12. SRD 3.10.4: The modified C-21 aircraft shall operate in modes I , 2, 4 and Mode 5, Level 1 (MANDATORY). - Does this requirement demand Level 1AIMS testing to be performed on the transponder? Will the USAF support this testing since the modifier may not have the proper facility clearance to do the testing? If classified material will be transported to the contractor’s facility for testing, a facility clearance may be required.

Answer: Yes, AIMS testing is required and will be supported by the USAF. No classified material will be required.

13. Answer 54 to draft RFP released 18 Apr: The MTBF needs to be greater than or equal to the current installed boxes available. Utilizing the analogy estimate. Table follows. -Please provide additional MTBF information to include all components potentially to be replaced, e.g. flight instruments, EHSI, MFD, TACAN, etc.

Answer: The previously supplied MTBF data constitutes the baseline for the C-21. Any additional equipment replaced should have a higher MTBF than the existing components, which were supplied in the equipment listing previously posted.

14. CLIN DESCRIPTIONS X016 Aircraft Modification/Production Kit Installation: ...The Government will have the option to induct anywhere from six (6) to twelve (J 2) aircraft per year for Option Years I-III and those must be completed in that Option Year. - If aircraft must be completed in the same option year they are inducted, the schedule will be significantly impacted. For example, if the modifications are scheduled to take three months each, then no inductions could be scheduled the last three months of each year.

Answer: Correct. The induction of the aircraft must be completed by the end of the OY. Aircraft production can cross OYs given the aircraft was inducted with current OY funding.

15. Quality Assurance: Will DCMA be performing in-process inspections? If so, will hold points be required IAW a DCMA C-21A Platform List? If so, please provide a copy of any DCMA Platform (or Local) hold point inspection list applicable to this solicitation.

Answer: No, DCMA will provide quality oversight without hold point inspections.

16. SOO 5.2.7: Frequency Allocation. All new or changed Radio Frequency (RF) spectrum data identified. ALL required frequency allocations obtained - Please provide the existing equipment RF spectrum data.

Answer: The currently installed equipment list is posted and provided the data necessary for the Offeror’s to determine the RF spectrum data.

17. There seems to be a discrepancy in attachment 3 of the RFP….Page 17 (3.10.1) calls for the APX-119 XII, however, Page B-7 (3.10.1) calls for the APX-119 XXI.

Answer: There was a typo and it should be a XII (Mark XII). The XXI was a typo.

18. Reference: Table 1 Proposal Organization, Attachment_4_C-21_AUP_FAR_52.212-1_Addendum ITO Paragraph Numbers listed in Table 1 Proposal Organization do not always align with the text in the document. For the Price Volume, we believe 6-17 in Table 1 should be 6-14. For the Contracts Volume, Sections 7.1, 7.1.4, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.5 in Table 1 do not have corresponding sections in the document. Also, what is required for Table 1 item 5.3 – Roadmap?

Answer: That is correct. An amended FAR 52.212-1 has been added to Amendment 1 to the RFP. Roadmap is defined in section 5.3.3.

19. Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW). Does the Government have a preferred format for the CSOW?

Answer: No, as long as it addresses all the requirements.

20. SRD Section 3.4.2.16 through 3.4.2.20 makes several references to the FMS/INS integration requirements. Is the modified C-21 required to have an Inertial Navigation System (INS) or Inertial Reference System (IRS) installed? If so is the requirement for a single or dual INS/IRS.

Answer: Requirement is for a dual INS

21. SRD Section 3.8 references that the Attitude Heading Reference System must meet minimum FAA Airworthiness requirements in current 14 CFR part 25. Is the modified C-21 required to have a new AHRS system installed? If the requirement includes an INS and or IRS does that meet the requirement for the AHRS or is the modified C-21 required to have a separate AHRS in addition to an INS/IRS Answer: A new AHRS is required that meets 14 CFR part 25.

22. Is the contractor required to asses’ obsolescence of the remaining installed avionics for a minimum period of time? If so for how long?

Answer: No, the requirement is for the new equipment being installed for AUP.

23. In the answers provided on April 18, 2016 , question 11, it was stated that “CPDLC and FANS is a requirement. Proposed solution should meet requirements” I would just like a clarification that the modified C-21 will require the complete installation of a certified FANS and Link 2000+ (CPDLC) system(s).

Answer: Yes - Per AC 120-70C, section 5.3.1 states the LINK 2000+ program has been amended by the Commission Implementing Regulation EU 2015/310. The Offeror shall propose a solution that meets this amended requirement.

24. Reference Attachment_2_C-21_AUP_STATEMENT_OF_OBJECTIVES_dated_11_Apr_16, Page 5 of 25, Paragraph 5.2.1.2 CDRLs identified in the Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW). Is it the Government’s intent for the offeror to fully develop CDRLs (using form 1423) as an attachment to the Contractors Statement of Work (CSOW) requirement? If so, which items in the CDRL form 1423 is the offeror required to complete? Or may the offeror merely state in the CSOW the associated data deliverables as stated in the Solicitation pages 7 - 8 Item X009 Deliverables?

Answer: No, contractor’s format is acceptable.

25. Since the requirement is for a modification of an FAA registered aircraft, request CLINs 0003, 0016, 1016, 2016, 3016 be revised to state Quality Assurance Requirements as: FAA Part 145 Certified vs AS9100.

Answer: The overall requirement is for an FAA certified modification on the C-21 aircraft. The CLIN language doesn’t require the FAA Part 145 reference.

26. Respectfully request the Government reconsider the requirement for AS9100 Certification vice Compliance. Requiring third party certification on contractor’s Quality Management System (QMS) imparts a financial burden without realizing product or program savings, unless used as justification for waiving Government audit of the offeror’s QMS. Current DCMA policy mandates DCMA a Quality System Audit (QSA) on a contractor receiving a contract with FAR clause 52.246-11, "Higher-level Contract Quality Assurance Requirement". Additionally, to obligate the contractor to AS9100 Certification places a higher requirement on the offeror then even that enjoyed by the Original Aircraft Manufacturer’s engineering element. Compliance with AS9100 is sufficient.

Answer: AS9100 Certification is the contractual requirement.

27. Is the SOO intended as a contractual tasking for the contractor? Many of the objectives listed appear to be internal to the USAF and not within the contractor's control to achieve. Recommend that the SOO be modified to clearly identify those objectives the government wishes the offeror to perform and price.

Answer: Yes, the SOO requirements are required to be performed by the contractor. Government team members will be involved but the contractor is required to comply with the SOO requirements.

28. 5.2.9 Meetings and Reviews. Effective and timely meetings. 5.2.9.2 Adequate preparation, agenda, execution, minutes and appropriate level of participation (including travel)for meetings, to include: Technical Interchange Meetings (T!Ms), Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs), Critical Design Reviews (CDRs), Production Readiness Review (PRR), Test Planning Working Groups (TPWGs), independent review teams, Interface Control Working Groups (ICWGs), System Verification Reviews (SVRs), Acceptance and Test of hardware, Crew Working Groups (CWGs), Tech Order (TO) conferences and other meetings as applicable. This is a commercial contract to modify a civil type certificated aircraft with COTS equipment under a small business set-aside. The objective is to deliver STC'd aircraft with the desired capabilities. Many of the specified meetings, conferences, working groups, boards, reviews, and teams specified here and throughout the SOO appear to replicate internal USAF processes for organically modifying military aircraft. The orchestration and execution of events extraneous to FAA certification, including development of their associated agendas, minutes, entry and exit criterion, etc. will impose substantial programmatic costs and add months to the first article. Examples include, but are not limited to, "independent review teams, Interface Control Working Groups, Crew Working Groups, Production Readiness Review, Configuration Control Board, Test Readiness Reviews, Safety Review Board s, etc." Recommend the government review meeting requirements and clearly identify those that must be added to the STC process.

Answer: See answer for #27.

29. 5.4 Human Systems Integration (HSI). Many of the objectives under this section appear to be outside the scope of this contract, such as "achieve required effectiveness of human performance during system operation, maintenance, support, control, and transport" (what is the required effectiveness for all of these functions?) and "HFE that consider, but is not limited to: human characteristics, ergonomics, anthropometry, biomedical factors, cognitive capabilities and limitations, performance aiding, control and display integration, automation, perceptual cueing, etc. for all operations and maintenance. This includes its operators, maintainers, sustainers, trainers, and other support personnel." How is the contractor to consider the perceptual cueing (etc.) for maintainers, sustainers, trainer, and other support personnel? Recommend that 5.4 requirements are reviewed.

Answer: Vendor needs to determine how this requirement is met. Commercial standards for HSI acceptable to meet FAA certification requirements.

30. 5.6.9 System Test & Evaluation. Currently four or five separate flight test plans appear required: an FCF after several months of major modifications, a company flight test plan, TIA (FAA) flight test plan, OT&E flight testing and perhaps an additional acceptance flight. Recommend that the USAF provide a FCF pilot for the post-modification FCFs. Even experienced Lear 35 type rated contractor pilots are unlikely to have the training, skill or experience desired to fully flight check all systems on a heavily modified C-2 1 . A qualified FCF pilot teamed with a contractor pilot executing the appropriate FCF checklist will significantly lower risk on these critical first flights. All OT&E testing (if any) should be combined with company flight testing. This may require USAF pilot participation on company test flights. After the FAA STC is issued, it will be essentially too late to make any changes to the aircraft configuration.

Answer: Air Force pilot participation will be defined by the ITT test process (SOO para 5.6.9.3). The contractor is required to provide the necessary resources to meet aircraft certification test requirements.

31. 5.6.9.2.5 Develop strategies for supporting certification of system readiness for OT&E in accordance with AFMAN 63-119, if required. Recommend removing this as a contractor objective.

Answer: No, the contractor is required to facilitate and execute the test program. See question 30 response.

32. 5.6.9.4.3 Participate in test planning meetings, hosted by the Air Force, to support OT and interoperability testing. What are the interoperability objectives?

Answer: Interoperability refers to the modifications internal aircraft and external systems interface requirements. The contractor shall host and participate in user meetings to ensure the AUP modification testing is IAW the C-21 SOO, para 5.6.9 and SRD system requirements.

33. 5.7.3 Supportability. An AUP aircraft that is fully integrated with existing Air Force aircrew training, maintenance planning, support equipment, computer resources, and human systems integration. How is the contractor to ensure that the aircraft is fully integrated into existing aircraft aircrew training, maintenance planning, etc..?

Answer: The C-21 uses the FAA approved OEM Type Certificate as the basis for aircraft certification utilizing commercial practices to the greatest extent possible. Any changes to the aircraft configuration are required to amend the Type Certificate utilizing the STC process to ensure integration The contractor shall host and participate in user meetings to ensure the AUP modification meets requirements IAW the C-21 SOO, para 5.6.9.

34. 5.7.4 Support Equipment. Many objectives within this section are beyond the control of the contractor.

Answer: The contractor is responsible for the support equipment requirements in 5.7.4. The contractor is required to identify, procure and deliver the SE/TE required to sustain the AUP installed systems. This includes tech data and users manuals as applicable.

35. 5.7.5 Supply. An effective serialized Item Management plan, compatible with the current C-21 CLS inventory management system. Please provide specifications for the current C-21 CLS inventory management system.

Answer: An effective serialized Item Management Plan is the requirement, contractor format is acceptable. The serialized management plan shall provide sufficient detail that allows for the accurate tracking of all serialized items that are or will be installed on the C-21 fleet. This also includes spares and SE/TE used for the C-21 AUP.

36. 5.7.6.3 Components under warranty or repair contract replaced, repaired, and returned to service by contractors within 30 days or according to warranty or repair contract. After government acceptance of an aircraft, will conveyed component warranty service be provided by the CLS contractor or the installer?

Answer: Upon delivery of the aircraft, the warranty will be transferred to the Government and will be managed by the CLS contractor.

37. Spares that comply with Anti-tamper provisions, unique identification and corrosion prevention control requirements. What are the Anti-tamper and corrosion prevention control requirements under 5.7.6.4?

Answer: These requirements are met using the existing commercial Type Standard Order (TSO) and component certification for COTS/MOTS equipment.

38. 5.7.10 Key Logistics Criteria. Please define these criteria if this is a contractor objective.

Answer: This requirement provides the objective for the contractor to minimize the life cycle cost of the proposed solution for the C-21 weapon system.

39. 5. 7.11 Program Support. Recommend removing this as a contractor objective.

Answer: This requirement provides the objective for the contractor to minimize the integration of the proposed solution within the existing legacy C-21 weapon system.

40. 5. 7.12 Mobility/Lift. Recommend removing this as a contractor objective.

Answer: This requirement provides the objective for the contractor to minimize the logistics infrastructure to the greatest extent possible while still meeting program requirements.

41. 5.8.3.2.4 - 5.8.3.2.10. Multiple references to the development and publication of operational and maintenance Technical Orders. Recommend removing as the contractor is only delivering technical data in an approved format. Reference CLIN 0008.

Answer: This requirement requires the contractor to provide the data in the approved format, Microsoft Word, for both operational and maintenance technical orders.

42. 5.8.8 Marked-up Source Data. Prepare and deliver one (1) paper set of marked-up contractor source data with the modified airplane. Deliver three (3)paper copies of the flight manuals and two (2) paper copies of the wiring diagrams, maintenance and !PC. Please describe the "marked-up contractor source data" to be delivered with the modified aircraft. Won't the TOs already be published at delivery? What are the paper copies of the flight manuals to be delivered with the aircraft? Will the USAF flight manuals and checklists be completed before the FCF?

Answer: This requirement is in reference to the first aircraft modification for verification purposes.

43. 5.9.2.2 Verified TOs used as source data to develop qualification maintenance training and delivered thirty (30) days prior to test and evaluation. Recommend removing this as a contractor objective.

Answer: Verified TOs are required prior to entering test and evaluation.

44. CLIN 0009, Item AOO 1. Multiple Items are described as due at contract award. However, these will take time to develop. For example, creation and delivery of the FAA Certification Plan may require 60 days. Recommend stating delivery IAW the accepted IMS.

Answer: Draft documentation, to include the FAA Certification Plan is required to be included in the proposal. This documentation will be assessed using the evaluation criteria for contract award.

45. What is the contractual requirement for the contractor's Quality Management System? The SOO 5.2.3 requires "an effective quality system to document and maintain quality such as International Standardization Organization (ISO) 9001 or AS9100C certification as a means of ensuring quality control for products and services." The contract states "The Contractor shall provide and maintain an inspection system to maintain FAA FAR Part 145 requirements covering the services or supplies under this contract." The contract states "the Contractor shall comply with ... AS9 l 00" under Item No. 0001, etc. Answer #4 released 18 Apr 2016 referring to the draft RFP and regarding AS91OOC requirements stated "The requirement is for certification, not compliant."

Answer: See Answer #26.

46. What is the contractual requirement for the contractor's Quality Management System? The SOO 5.2.3 requires "an effective quality system to document and maintain quality such as International Standardization Organization (ISO) 9001 or AS9100C certification as a means of ensuring quality control for products and services. The contract states "The Contractor shall provide and maintain an inspection system to maintain FAA FAR Part 145 requirements covering the services or supplies under this contract." The contract states "the Contractor shall comply with ... AS9 l 00" under Item No. 0001, etc. Answer #4 released 18 Apr 2016 referring to the draft RFP and regarding AS91 OOC requirements stated "The requirement is for certification, not compliant."

Answer: See answer #26.

47. Is certification required at proposal submittal or upon contract award?

Answer: AS9100C QMS Certification required at contract award.

48. Reference ITO, Page 3, Table 1 Proposal Organization, Volume II Past Performance Page Limitation of 13 pages for “Present/Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) (See Attach 1.1) to include the Relevant Contract Narrative” AND Reference ITO page 9 & 10, paragraph 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The 13 page limitation is in conflict with paragraph 5.3.1 which states: Request each PPI form not exceed a target of 18 pages, although more or less may be submitted, if necessary and relevant to the AUP effort. In addition 5.3.2 states: The offeror is requested to limit the narrative to a maximum of 5 pages. However, the offeror may exceed the requested page limit, if determined necessary to fully describe relevancy. To eliminate confusion, offeror requests the Government remove the page limitations in Table 1 Proposal Organization.

Answer: An amended FAR 52.212-1 has been added to Amendment 1 to the RFP.

49. Reference ITO, Page 3, paragraph 3.10.2, Attachment 2.0 – Team List. This attachment is missing from the solicitation documents, please provide.

Answer: An amended FAR 52.212-1 has been added to Amendment 1 to the RFP.

50. Section 5.2 of Attachment 4 states: Each offeror is requested to submit Volume II – Past Performance for each relevant contract five (5) calendar days prior to the solicitation closing date. Since 5 calendar days prior to Friday, May 13, is Sunday, May 8, will the Government consider past performance late if submitted Monday, May 9?

Answer: No.