Contractor Questions for MACM DRAFT FOPR FA8552-20-R-0007 - 20200902.pdf

CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS

DATE 7/31/2020 9/2/2020

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

A 1 MUOS Order Description Document; Para 3.a list 4.9 Earned Value as applicable to this delivery order. Given the Draft Letter request list all CLINs as FFP ( less the travel CLINs) and that the MACM SOW paragraph

4.9 is generic, is it safe to assume that there will be no Earned Value Requirement on this order?

Correct. EVM will not be required.

A 2 MUOS Order Description Document; Para 5.a CDRL table

The Draft Security Assessment Plan (DI MGMT‐82135) shows as multiple CDRLs.

Would the Government clarify the intent of multiple CDRLs associated with this document?

Each deliverable is one of a set of RMF documents that provide the Authorizing Officer (AO) all the information he needs to ascertain the risk he is accepting by granting this system an Authority To Operate (ATO) designation.

A 3 Draft Letter Request, CLIN Structure

The MUOS Order Description Document; Para 2.a implies multiple configurations. Is it safe to assume that each TI and KP CLIN will include one aircraft configuration or will the Government expect a TI and KP on each configuration?

The expectation is for three each TI and KP. One each for the AFDW Legacy, one each for the AFDW Block I, and one each for the AETC Legacy.

A 4 Order Description Would the Government identify aircraft configuration by Tail Number so that the info to show a detailed proposed program schedule is available?

Tail numbers can be provided for proposing a schedule; but actual tail numbers will be provided based on aircraft availability at the time. See A6 below for locations and quantities for scheduling purposes.

A 5 Order Description Would the Government identify the locations for each aircraft to include where the TI and Kit proof will occur as well as the production installations?

Fairchild AFB Legacy: 1 TI, 1 KP, 2 PI Andrews AFB Legacy: 1 TI, 1 KP, 16 PI Andrews AFB, Block I: 1 TI, 1 KP, 1 PI

A 6 Order Description Would the Government identify any restrictions/limitations associated with the performance of the Production installations? E.g., parallel modifications at one location, black out times, etc.

The Gov can provide what is known at this time with the understanding that final scheduling will be required based on actual aircraft availability.

A 7 Order Description Would the Government make available a TO library to support this proposal effort? The PM is working to obtain access to TOs for the MACM contract awardees.

A 8 Order Description Will this effort contain specific classified or COMSEC requirements? Only the actual radios (Receiver/Transmitter, R/T) are COMSEC equipment and must be handled through a COMSEC account and procedures. There will not be any classified requirements outside of the software load to test. This must be handled by COMSEC qualified personnel.

A 9 Order Description It is noted that ICS will not be a requirement for this effort. Assuming that the production installations will be dependent of the approval of final technical data, including provisioning, with the TI and KP aircraft have to be returned to original configuration, or maintained, until the production go‐ahead milestone is approved?

The Gov intends to leave the TI and KP aircraft with the new configuration.

A 10 MUOS Order PP Questionnaire

Why is there a Past Performance Questionnaire attached? As briefed at the kick off, PP was approved at the MACM award level. All primes were deemed capable of completing MACM tasks, so there were supposed to be no PP requirements when proposing specific MACM tasks. It was one of the steps implemented to streamline the proposal/award process.

Past Performance was not approved during MACM award. Only experience with modifications was proven. Past Performance determinations were to be made as appropriate at the order level.

Contractor Questions for MACM DRAFT FOPR FA8552‐20‐R‐0007 ‐ 20200825 Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 1 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

B 1 Will the integration of the new ARC‐210 Gen VI MUOS SATCOM radio system and removal of existing radio systems impact civil Air Traffic Control communication and therefore require evaluation for compliance to civil safety requirement per the SAE‐ ARP‐2754/4761 practices?

It's possible. The ARC‐210 radio suite is a more federated system on its own than the current civil nagivation system. The intent is to 'drop‐in' a new system capability without disturbing the current RF foot print and communication suite. However ‐ it would be remiss to not at least convey the possibility of removing systems in order to modernize the helicopters.

C 1 Paragraph 2, b. The MACM Order Description states that the ARC‐210 Gen VI SATCOM radios and kits will be provided as Government Furnished Material (GFM). Will the Government provide offerors with a list of materials and equipment that make up the ARC 210 Gen VI SATCOM Kits?

Yes. Exact GFM will be provided as a TO Desc Appendix.

C 2 Draft Letter of RFP CLIN 1017, Option 1, places a requirement to perform Installations on 19 Aircraft in a Period of Performance NTE 11 months. The SOW does not identify production installation as a requirement. Will the Government please clarify?

TO Description Para 2c has been updated to show the potential requirement to complete production installs during the option period.

C 3 Draft Letter of RFP To aid in the development of the pricing and evaluation, will the Government clarify if the trial kit and proof kit installations are to occur at the Contractor's location or at a Government Facility?

All TI and KP will be at the Gov Facility. See A5 for specifics.

C 4 Draft Letter of RFP Will CLIN 0005, Trial Kit Production, require a Physical Configuration Audit and First Article Inspection prior to Installation?

The SPO team will be at the site and will conduct an inspection of the Kit at the beginning of the install.

C 5 Draft Letter of RFP Please confirm that Inspection and Acceptance for the kits will be at origin. Origin C 6 Draft Letter of RFP What location(s) will the ARC‐210 GEN VI SATCOM Kits be delivered to after they are accepted by the Government?

Fairchild AFB, 4 ea and Andrews AFB, 21 each.

C 7 Order Description, Appendix D, Section C

Due to COVID‐19, will the Government please reconsider the requirement for a physical deliverable package and consider an electronic submission via DOD safe site instead?

While it has nothing to do with COVID‐19; DOD Safe Site is the required method.

Vendors are given the option to submit a hard copy if they desire.

C 8 Order Description, Appendix D, Section E, Item 4, Factor Two

The wording of this factor indicates the Government expects the offeror to provide the Co‐Site analysis "... showing the calculations for the new SATCOM antenna ..." in the proposal narrative. The wording in Item 5 (Technical Ratings) says the offeror needs to provide sufficient detail "... to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete Co‐Site Analysis...". Please clarify, does the Government expect actual Co‐Site Analysis calculation results in the proposal, or does the Government expect a narrative description of the approach to completing the analysis?

The Gov expects the proposal to include a proposed solution and a proposal level analysis in sufficient detail to prove the viability of the solution.

C 9 Order Description, Appendix D, Section E, Item 4, Factor Three

The wording of this factor indicates the Government expects the offeror to provide the Structural Analysis "... showing the calculations for the material effects of stress and weight and balance ..." in the proposal narrative. The wording in Item 5 (Technical Ratings) says the offeror needs to provide sufficient detail "... to indicate understanding of the tasks involved to successfully complete structural analysis...".

Please clarify, does the Government expect actual structural analysis calculation results in the proposal, or does the Government expect a narrative description of the approach to completing the analysis?

The Gov expects the proposal to include a proposed solution and a proposal level analysis in sufficient detail to prove the viability of the solution.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 2 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

C 10 Paragraph 2a & 2b, Draft Letter of RFP

Paragraphs 2a, 2b, and the Draft Letter of RFP CLINs seem to be in conflict. Will the Government clarify if production kits will be installed by the Contractor?

The production kit installations are to be a priced option on the task order. At this point in time, the Gov expects the contractor will do the installations. However, with the mandated 50/50 workload requirements, we do not have a final decision on whether or not we will be required to use Depot Field Teams for the production installations.

C 11 Page Count Will the Government Clarify if the Proposal IMS is part of the 30 Page Technical Solution? Can it be added as a non‐page counted Appendix?

Non‐page counted Appendix is acceptable.

C 12 CDRLs CDRLS A00Y and A00Z seem to be duplicates of A01J and A01K respectively but they may just apply to different CLINs, basic and option. Will the Government consider combining these into one CDRL to reduce cost and administrative burden to the Government?

A00Y and A00Z are for the Security Assessment "Plan". A01J and A01K are for the Security Assessment "Report". The plan will document how the Security will be assessed to mitigate discovered weaknesses/vulnerabilities. The report will detail what happened when the plans were implemented with regards to the security controls. The Government will remove the requirement for the Draft plan and Report; but the final for each will remain.

C 13 CDRLs A00F is for Training Program Development and Management Plan – Is the Contractor expected to deliver a plan only or to deliver a plan and also conduct training?

No training plan is required and this CDRL has been removed.

C 14 CDRLs The amount of CDRL requirements adds significant cost and effort to this order.

Would the Government consider reducing the number of CDRLs for this effort?

The Government has reviewed the CDRL list and removed a number of CDRLs, but in doing so, identified some necessary CDRLs originally omitted.

C 15 Order Description, Appendix D, Section C

Is the Total Compensation Plan and Voluntary Protection Program Information listed with Volume I applicable to this order? If yes, please provide guidance on what content and format is required for this information.

Deleted

D 1 Order description paragraph 2b states “The ARC‐210 Gen VI SATCOM radios and kits will be provided as Government Furnished Material (GFM).” Can we get details on what is in the kits?

Yes. Exact GFM will be provided.

D 2 Are the 21 AFDW aircraft located at Joint Base Andrews and the 4 AETC located at Kirtland AFB? Will trial installs and kit proofs be at those locations?

Yes

D 3 Are the 3 trial kits installs and 3 kit proof installs to be performed on the 3 different configurations of the helicopters? The 3 different configurations being the AFDW Legacy, AFDW Block I, AETC Legacy? Does the government have a schedule of helicopter availability for trial kits? Which configuration would be first, second, third or is the expectation to do them concurrently?

Yes Correct Not at this time The expectation will be consecutivly for TI…concurrently for KP if possible (personnel/aircraft availability)…first at Andrews or Fairchild will be based on aircraft availability.

D 4 Order description paragraph 3b shows SOW paragraphs not applicable for this delivery order. It lists software 3.9.10 but in the CDRL table there is reference to 3.9.10 for CDRL A00V – Software User Manual (SUM). Same issue with CDRL A02J.

Para 3b has been updated.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 3 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

D 5 Are all 59 CDRLs required for this effort, they are listed as required but in the technical factors the SOW paragraphs listed do not include reference to the paragraphs in the CDRL table. An example would be CDRL A03C Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis Report (FMECA) MACM SOW 3.9.11. MACM SOW 3.9.11 is not listed in Factor 1 bullets a‐h. Can you please clarify?

The Government has reviewed the CDRL list and removed a number of CDRLs, but in doing so, identified some necessary CDRLs originally omitted.

D 6 Order description Appendix A ‐ States “the Small Lightweight UHF Diplexer (SLUD) can be considered for removal. “Is removal a requirement?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

D 7 Order description Appendix C – States “There may be a small footprint COMSEC control panel that may be considered for removal if present and would afford room for the ARC‐210 control panel.” Is removal a requirement?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

D 8 Concerning the use of the term, ‘federated’, the draft states that, “The Contractor shall develop and integrate a permanent modification upgrade by installing a federated ARC‐ 210 Gen VI MUOS SATCOM radio system and new SATCOM antenna into twenty‐one

(21) AFDW UH‐1N aircraft”

D 8.1 Based on the documentation for all three configurations, it appears the government may desire an “Integrated” design for each based on the following logic:

D 8.2 Configuration A – Removes COMM 1 and replaces it with an ARC‐210 which receives audio from the aircraft intercom system

D 8.3 Configuration B‐ Likewise seems to indicate two integrated radios being reconfigured/replaced with an integrated radio

D 8.4 Configuration C‐ Seems to indicate the replacement of an integrated radio with another integrated product

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 4 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

D 8.5 Does the government in fact seek an integrated solution instead of federated? No, the Gov seeks removal of the specified integrated radios and the installation of a federated Gen VI.

D 9 For configuration B, the ARC‐210 Gen 5 and 6 both have embedded Crypto. Does the government wish to retain the KY‐58 (from the replaced GEN 1 radio), or is there interest in removing it from the aircraft in lieu of utilizing the embedded crypto?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

D 10 Order description CDRL A033 ‐ Airworthiness Certification Criteria Report. Is there a requirement to submit a Modified Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) For the proposal submittal?

Not for the proposal submittal. A initial ADF/MACC will be provided for the TO.

D 11 For MACM SOW 3.8 Cybersecurity Implementation is there an existing ATO for the 3 configurations of the UH‐1N?

An ATO is being worked on and is scheduled ot be completed in the Jan/Feb 21 timeframe. The ATO will be require before any radios can be "turned on" for testing.

D 12 DRAFT Letter Request for Proposal (RFP) In paragraph 2, the second bullet mentions a WBS. Is there a requirement for a WBS or IMS to be included in the proposal response?

Yes, IMS and WBS will be required.

D 13 DRAFT Letter Request for Proposal (RFP) states funds are not presently available for this effort. When will funding be available, first Quarter FY 2021? Table in draft RFP shows POP starting in Dec 2020.

Funds will be available at contract award.

D 14 DRAFT Letter Request for Proposal (RFP) Appendix D paragraph C – states “Page limit for Total Compensation Plan, Voluntary Protection Program Information is reflected below.” There does not appear to be any mention of the page limit in the document.

Can you please clarify?

Reference removed.

D 15 Should Order description Appendix D paragraph 4 factor 3 reference MACM SOW 3.9? Yes, 3.9 is the correct SOW paragraph.

D 16 Order description Appendix D paragraph 4 factor 1, bullet h lists Joint Interoperability Test Command (JTIC) and references MACM SOW 3.16. MACM SOW 3.16 Certifications: The Contractor shall obtain commercial and/or military certifications/ authorizations as specified by the orders. Can you please elaborate on what you expect for this section in the proposal?

Just need to ensure the narrative covers this as a known requirement and identify whether or not the proposed solution is expected to affect the JTIC certifications.

D 17 Order description Appendix D paragraph 4 factor 1 lists SOW paragraphs the contractor shall address, those are listed below:

D 17.1 a. Overall Design: Assumptions and engineering approaches / methodologies used

(MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13);

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 5 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

D 17.2 b. Cyber Assessment (MACM SOW 3.8);

D 17.3 c. Technical Risk Identification (MACM SOW 3.29);

D 17.4 d. Installation Plan (MACM SOW 3.9.6‐3.9.8, 3.25);

D 17.5 e. Technical Data Development (MACM SOW 3.9);

D 17.6 f. Configuration Control (MACM SOW 3.18, 3.19, 3.9.2, 3.9.10.9);

D 17.7 g. Provisioning (MACM SOW 3.26.5) D 17.8 h. Joint Interoperability Test Command (JTIC) (MACM SOW 3.16) D 17.9 Is there no requirement to address all MACM SOW paragraphs? The proposal must address the SOW paragraphs identified in TO Descriptoion para

3a.

D 18 Order description, Appendix D.A. General states that proposal submission must be received via Email or DoD SAFE and that mailing a hard copy may be done. The NOTE in paragraph C. Volumes General states that the Technical and Cost Volumes shall be submitted in written form and CD(DVD)‐R. IS submission by DoD SAFE or encrypted email the correct method for this solicitation or is there a requirement for physical copies?

DOD Safe Site is the required method. Vendors are given the option to submit a hard copy if they desire.

E 1 Order Description Section 2, Para. B, states “The ARC‐210 Gen VI SATCOM radios and kits will be provided as Government Furnished Material (GFM)”. Can the Gov’t list exactly what is being provided as part of the GFM?

Yes. Exact GFM will be provided.

E 1.1 For Example:

E 1.2 Receiver Transmitter (RT) P/N xxxxx E 1.3 Radio Control Unit (RCU) P/N xxxxx E 1.4 High Power Amp (HPA) P/N xxxxxxx E 1.5 Antenna P/N xxxxx.

E 1.6 Or, is the contractor to assume that all Group B components are GFM and the winning bid determines type and quantities Production installs kits will be any and all required items not provided through GFM.

E 2 Order Description Can the GFM list be broken down by Appendix A, B, and C as each grouping of aircraft have different requirements? For example, Appendix B indicates there needs to be a second SATCOM antenna installed for the AFDW Block 1 aircraft.

The same GFM will be provided for all 25 aircraft. The solution for installation of the GFM will determine whether or not additional antennaes are actually required or can be used dual purpose.

E 3 Order Description Can the Gov’t define the specific cybersecurity requirements for the respective cybersecurity CDRLs and correlate these requirements to the DID items. Each of the DIDs of these CDRLs contain multiple reports/plans and don’t share the same descriptions/titles. For a singular example, DI‐MGMT‐82001 requires items such as Security Plan, RMF Implementation Plan, PIT Implementation Plan, and IA Test Plan.

Not all of the DID items for the cybersecurity CDRLs would seem applicable to the modification program.

The Gov removed most of the "draft" Cyber CDRLs; but will require all Cybersecurity CDRLs still listed.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 6 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

E 4 Appendix A With regards to the KY‐100M system being retained. The Gen VI radios have the same capability as the KY‐100M’s. Should the COMM1 KY‐100M still be retained?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

E 5 Appendix A Please verify that the Gov’t wants to retain LOS capability of #1 Comm? The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

E 6 Appendix B With regards to the KY‐58 system being retained. The Gen V and Gen VI radios have the same capability as the KY‐58M’s. Should the COMM1 and 2 KY‐58Ms still be retained?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

E 7 Appendix B After reviewing the pedestal layout, it looks like the DMLV will need to be relocated to make room for the second RCU. Can we relocate the DMLV to another area not readily accessible (maybe avionics bay)?

If that is your solution, it can be proposed.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 7 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

E 8 Appendix B Can the Gov’t confirm that Comm #2 is to be AM‐LOS capable as well as FM‐LOS? The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

E 9 Appendix B There is conflicting verbiage for this requirement. Do the Comm1 and Comm2 systems need to be completely federated AND fulfill all roles of each other for redundancy? Is the Gov’t open to alternate solutions?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

E 10 Appendix C Can the Gov’t verify the AETC base that these aircraft are located (Fairchild, Kirtland, or both)?

All four aircraft are at Fairchild AFB.

E 11 Appendix C (Assumption: The Fairchild aircraft are the intended recipients.) The task description states that the Homing system should be maintained and if the Gen VI does not support it, then it should be addressed. Since the Gen VI does not support FM Homing, does the Gov’t want to install the FM ARC‐186 just for FM Homing purposes or have the contractor provide another solution to obtain that capability?

The homing system shall be maintained if at all possible. It may be possible to just add the ARC‐210 Gen Vi and not remove a ‐186.

E 12 Appendix C Can the Gov’t confirm what capability they want for ARC‐210 GEN VI to provide (in addition to MUOS)? Do you want LOS‐AM and LOS‐FM?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 8 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

E 12.1 The block diagram shows an FM only system, while the ARC‐186 description describes an VHF AM and FM system.

The ARC‐186 is AM/FM capable, but not necessarily configured that way on all aircraft.

E 13 Appendix D Section E, paragraph 4 Technical Factors, Factor Two implies that the contractor is to perform and show calculations from a Co‐Site Analysis as part of the proposal effort.

A Co‐Site Analysis is part of the design process and part of the Technical Reports deliverables versus performed in support of proposal efforts.

The Gov expects the proposal to include a proposed solution and a proposal level analysis in sufficient detail to prove the viability of the solution.

E 14 Appendix D Section E, paragraph 4 Technical Factors, Factor Three implies that the contractor is to perform and show calculations from a stress analysis and weight and balance analysis.

These analyses are part of the design process and part of the Technical Reports deliverables versus performed in support of proposal efforts.

The Gov expects the proposal to include a proposed solution and a proposal level analysis in sufficient detail to prove the viability of the solution.

F 1 Tech Factor 2 & 3 Is the USG sure they want a co‐site analysis (Technical Factor #2) and structural analysis (Technical Factor #3) with the technical proposal? These types of analyses typically take significant engineering effort to produce and are more often seen at a CDR level of design maturity.

The Gov expects the proposal to include a proposed solution and a proposal level analysis in sufficient detail to prove the viability of the solution.

F 2 3.9.9.2 What does the USG expect to test as a part of the Electromagnetic Interference Test Procedure (EMITP) CDRL (A00A)? Is this a full aircraft systems test?

The required test will be dependent on the contractors proposed solution.

F 3 Section 3.b Section 3.b. of the Order Description indicates that the software section of the IDIQ SOW is not applicable to this effort however, the CDRL list indicates a Software Users Manual (SUM) (A00V) is a required deliverable. Can the USG clarify these requirements?

Yes, that was incorrect. The software sections of the IDIQ SOW were put back into the applicability paragraph.

F 4 3.29 Is the Contractor responsible for any Risk Management Framework (RMF) testing that may be required due to cybersecurity?

Yes, the contractor will be responsible.

F 5 Will all antenna information, to include existing antenna part numbers, locations, frequency bands used, power levels for transmit and receive, be provided by the USG to conduct a co‐site analysis?

The Government will provide an ICD with much of the information requested. That being said, you have the option of proposing various antennae for which you will need to obtain the information if not in the ICD.

F 6 Will information be provided by the USG for all inline RF components (filters, relays, amplifiers, etc.) to aide in the co‐site analysis?

EN

F 7 Appendix A For the AFDW Legacy configuration, is it the USG's intent to maintain a configuration with upper LOS, lower LOS, and SATCOM antennae? Does the USG intend on using both radios on any of the three antennae at any given time?

The Gov is open to varying solutions and understands equipment may be removed or relocated based on your design solution. The Gov is requiring MUOS SATCOM as well as DAMA/IW and LOS AM/FM capability as the end result. The position for each one is preferred to be as close to current as possible, but can be moved if necessary.

The Gen VI shall be capable of performing to it's full capabilities (MUOS and DAMA/IW SATCOM as well as LOS AM/FM) which will provide redundency for the other SATCOM and LOS AM/FM radios. The radios not removed from the aircraft shall maintain their current capabilities (DAMA/IW SATCOM or LOS AM/FM). This will provide redundency for all capabilities except MUOS.

F 8 3.30.1 Can the USG provide the name and part number of the ICS systems installed in each of the 3 aircraft configurations?

The information is in the technical orders.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 9 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

F 9 Appendix C Does the AETC Legacy configuration have ample ICS inputs to support both the ARC‐ 210 Gen VI and the ARC‐186 radios?

The information is in the technical orders.

F 10 Appendix C Appendix C refernces "aircraft at Fairchild have a Land‐Mobile Radio installed and that system shall remain." Is the previous statement true for all 4 AETC Legacy aircraft?

(Are all 4 of these aircraft in the same configuration?)

Land Mobile Radios will need to remain if they are on the aircraft.

F 11 Will the USG provide UH‐1N aircraft technical data such as weight and balance limitations, electrical loads analyses, and structural repair manuals to support NRE design?

The PM is working to obtain access to TOs for the MACM contract awardees.

F 12 3.9.10 CDRL A02J (Handling Procedures for Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Sensitive Items) refers to IDIQ SOW paragraph 3.9.10, which is not applicable to this Order Description.

Can the USG provide the correct SOW paragraph?

Yes, that was incorrect. The software sections of the IDIQ SOW were put back into the applicability paragraph.

F 13 CLIN 0001 Firm fixed price is appropriate when purchasing commercial items, supplies, or services that are subject to detailed and definite specifications. With the uncertainties inherent in non‐recurring engineering design activities it would seem that cost plus fixed fee would be more appropriate. Would the Government consider changing the pricing arrangement of CLIN 0001 to cost plus fixed fee?

The Gov feels the uncertainties inherent with integrating a federated system are significantly lower and will allow for firm fixed pricing.

F 14 3 Does the Government have a preferred pricing template for this solicitation? If not, is the fully disclosed output from commonly used pricing software such as ProPricer sufficient?

Commonly used pricing software is sufficient. It needs to be exportable to an excel spreadsheet with formulas.

F 15 General In order for the Contractor to propose, the locations of the installation will be needed.

Please specify the number and type of installations with their respective locations.

Fairchild AFB Legacy: 1 TI, 1 KP, 2 PI Andrews AFB Legacy: 1 TI, 1 KP, 16 PI Andrews AFB, Block I: 1 TI, 1 KP, 1 PI

F 16 General How will inspection and acceptance of each CLIN occur? Origin F 17 E.4 Does the Government expect the contractor to form the design prior to contract award enough to develop a complete Co‐site analysis? This is an extensive task to perform without compensation. Does this analysis already exist as a baseline?

The Gov expects the proposal to include a proposed solution and a proposal level analysis in sufficient detail to prove the viability of the solution.

F 18 E.4 Does the Government expect the contractor to form the design prior to contract award enough to develop a complete Structural Analysis? This is an extensive task to perform without compensation. Does this analysis already exist as a baseline?

The Gov expects the proposal to include a proposed solution and a proposal level analysis in sufficient detail to prove the viability of the solution.

F 19 G Offeror Selection, a Best Value choice will be made. What are the relative weighting of the factors (i.e., technical, cost, etc.) in the Best Value Decision?

Far 16.5 does not require weighting.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 10 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

F 20 Section 3 MUOS Order Descrip on Sec on 3 states that “This order does not require specific delineation from the baseline SOW Revision A, as written (dated 06 May 2020).

Appendix D, Section E states that “Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s technical proposal.” We have already written to how our company fulfills the base requirements in the SOW through our IDIQ submission. Please clarify if it is necessary to address the basic SOW requirements again for this RFP? If so, will the USG extend the number of pages allowed for submission? Attempting to address the 125+ applicable SOW requirements (Section 3.a) in addition to the specific technical factors required for this effort (Appendix D, Section E.2) in a 30 page Technical Volume limit (Appendix D, Section C) will likely result in less technically detailed and/or non‐compliant submissions

The contractor must address the entirety of the SOW as it relates to the current modification specified in the Task Order Descriptionfor this effort.

F 21 Appendix D, Section A MUOS Order Description, Appendix D, Section A. General states that “Proposals must be received by AFLCMC/WIUKB via eMail or DoD/SAFE…”. However, Section C. ‐ Volumes General states that “**Technical and Cost/Price proposal information (PCO note: or name other volumes) shall be submitted in written form (1 copy) and CD‐R or DVD‐R (write once/read only) (1 copy)...”. Is an emailed or DoD/SAFE submission acceptable as the only submission or are physical print and CD‐R/DVD‐R copies required as well? If a physical and CD‐R/DVD‐R copy are required, what is the deliver address and who is the POC recipient for these copies?

DOD Safe Site is the required method. Vendors are given the option to submit a hard copy if they desire. Address is in Appendix D of TO Description.

F 22 Appendix D, Section C.2 MUOS Order Description, Appendix D, Section C.2 states that “Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12 and shall be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper, excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets, etc.” Please clarify if the font size of 12 also applies to the charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets, etc. or if a smaller font size (i.e. 8pt or 10pt) is acceptable.

10 is acceptable for charts, graphs, drawings, and supporting illustrations.

Spreadsheets shall be 12

F 23 CLINs In the Options the USG has Production Kits and Production Kit Installs each as a single CLIN. However there are three different kits being produced and installed. Is it the USG's intent for the contractor to roll the three separate kits into a single CLIN and provide one unit price for three different items/installs?

True…there would be different install kits because of the diffierence in configurations. Should/could this be sub‐CLINed to account for those variances.

F 24 CLINs The USG is asking the contractor to propose pricing FFP to design, fabricate and install kits. All of this prior to a design being completed, a site visit, or a design meeting with the customer. This will result in contractors pricing in all the associated risk of design change and other developments thus increasing the cost for the USG. Please advise if this can be changed to a CPFF or CPIF.

This effort is to install a federated system. While the Gov is open to various solutions, there is no expection of LRU development. Production kits are expected to be antennaes, mounts, and cables, etc.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 11 of 12

MACM FOPR # FA8552‐20‐R‐0007

TITLE UH‐1N MUOS SATCOM

ID Q&A #

REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN

STRUCTURE, GFI etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

F 25 CLINs Will the USG provide an install schedule for the option production installs? This will allow the vendor to appropriately bid the manpower necessary to perform to the schedule.

The anticipated schedule will be 3 trial installs approximately 3 weeks in duration each beginning Oct 21, with 3 kit proofs approximately 2 weeks in duration to follow beginning Apr 22. Option award and production installs to begin in early/late Aug 22, respectively. The Gov anticipates the production installs to be 5‐7 days each.

Some of this will depend on the design selected.

F 26 Will the USG allow the Offeror to perform on‐site surveys of each aircraft configuration prior to the proposal effort, and/or after potential award?

An on‐site survey will not be possible. The Gov is attempting to acquire/create a photo book for at least one of each configuration to help with this situation.

Dated : 31 July, 2020 Page 12 of 12