Telecom_Points_of_Interest.pdf

Talking Point in Response to Q&As for Telecom with Industry 8 May 2018

Script: Today’s telecom is to address feedback to the latest draft RFP. Specifically, AMIC is seeing a trend that industry still may not fully understand the RFP and its application in a multi-award IDIQ structure. We’ve developed a series of talking points that we believe will help clarify this disconnect and allow industry to view the RFP correctly. We believe this context will help industry understand and interpret the language as written and intended. ROE for today’s telecom is AMIC transmit only, but we will stop for brief Q&A after each talking point. Q&A should be limited to clarification on the talking point itself, and we will avoid covering specific technical details of the RFP unless it pertains directly to the talking point itself. Many of our documents have been updated with industry inputs from the 2 Apr

2018 FBO posting, and we anticipate further drafts to be posted prior to the 24 May 2018 Pre-RFP

Conference. Industry is reminded that the RFP is still draft and changes may be made before the Final

RFP is released at any time. Industry is cautioned to stay updated on the most recent Government documents and adhere by the final Request for Proposal once posted.

Additionally, you will hear rALF Vance speak during this telecon. Industry is reminded that he is a B3H

Corporation contractor with a signed NDA.

1. There were two pieces of info inadvertently left out, they have been reposted to FBO.

a. Appendix I, Cat A table – formatting error

b. Attachment X, Engineering Feasibility Assessments – word document so you can utilize it now to support your proposals.

2. CCAS is a recent add to the acquisition and those full requirements are still in development to bring to the same degree of fidelity as ADAIR. Our intention with CCAS is to get it sufficient to let the IDIQ while we continue to refine the specific requirements, if needed.

3. Describe the “best meets” approach versus “minimum requirements.”

a. US government’s previous approach to ADAIR and CCAS has driven a lowest price solution which has suppressed the market, technologically. CAF CAS seeks to re-direct the market. It’s a strategic cultural shift, both by the government and vendors. As the requirements are mismatched with industry, both the requirement and the industry’s ability to meet it are hard to define. As such, the best value trade off essentially indicates the message: make us a forward thinking proposal as cost effective as possible. Appendix I are the estimated parameters for trade-off and Appendix J will become the new market benchmark post-award.

b. Language in the L&M indicates “best meets” which indicates it is the responsibility of the offeror to make a proposal that comes as close as possible to the ADAIR Attributes

1-20 or CCAS Attributes 1-14. The government will award to those companies that can best meet these requirements provided the price-point is reasonable, and manage the total number of awards to ensure sufficient volume of aircraft exist to cover our intended number of OLs and Categories, and to ensure competition remains at the task order level. The proposed aircraft attributes will be incorporated into each contract in

Appendix J. For both ADAIR and CCAS, Appendix I will be retained as the standard for task order proposals, but at that point the government will be assessing the vendor’s task order proposals (essentially your Appendix J with any task order specific modifications proposed) against the Effects Attachment for effects generation. The

Effects Attachment will not be available until the IDIQ MAC is established and the government issues FOPRs. For ADAIR, the attachment will be classified and will rely heavily on NASIC data for threat replication. For CCAS the attachment will be unclassified, and will focus on the aircraft’s ability to replicate fielded USAF platforms.

c. For the IDIQ, the government’s interest is in ensuring MAC participating companies are able to show an ability to bring technological advancement and support them logistically. Therefore, the language for L&M Subfactors C and D are focused more on the ability to advance technology and support it logistically, and less on the specific

Appendix I requirement. Ability to meet specific technology thresholds at various price points is more paramount at the task order level, and this is more about effects than in actual technology data points.

d. IDIQ Bottom Line: Best value trade off exists when the requirements are difficult to define, Appendix I is estimated parameters for tradeoff….so make your proposals and support in your proposals why your aircraft attributes and price points are of a best value to the USAF. Word of caution, avoid making claims that “this was good enough in the past for the USAF; or this is good enough for Nellis Phase I or Phase II; or existing close air support contracts.” CAF CAS is a strategic culture shift designed to force a market shift needed to support the USAF’s transition to a 5th Generation Fighting Force, so what’s been acceptable in the past is not necessarily acceptable now or going forward.

e. We will talk specifics on Appendix I next, but are there questions to this point?.

4. Notes to Appendix I: Now that’s we’ve covered the “best meets” approach, let’s talk some specifics for Appendix I.

a. Aircraft may exchange required aircraft performance and capability attributes with desired attributes using capabilities exchanges. The exchanges indicated are the government’s representation of viable capabilities exchanges. This does not preclude capabilities that do not fit precisely into these molds. Bring us a proposal that is best supportable by your specific company, with your specific airframes, with technology advancements adaptable to your aircraft.

b. The aircraft configurations, force ratios, tech advancements are ALL contractor proposed. The data presented represents the government’s estimated parameters for capability exchanges to represent a best value tradeoff against price. Bring us a proposal that is best supportable by your specific company, with your specific airframes, with technology advancements adaptable to your aircraft; AT A COMPETITIVE PRICE

POINT.

c. Table B.2. Force Mixture Timelines – won’t always fit 100% against the Category Tables.

Again, they represent the government’s estimated parameters at force ratios that will be acceptable in a best value tradeoff against price. The threshold and Objective milestones are the government’s target. Ultimately, it’s on the contractor to propose a plan that targets these milestones, but once the government finds the proposal technically acceptable, these milestones go away and the contractor’s proposed milestones, advancements, and force ratios become Appendix J.

d. Appendix I has been updated to include language that indicates an “initial operational capable” as whatever industry can generate to begin flying operations in the threshold periods and “full operational capability” as the terminal condition for aircraft advancements in the Required Objective period, as proposed by the vendor and accepted by the government. This language is synchronized with L&M sections and must be addressed by the vendor under Subfactors C and D through these subfactors references to meeting Appendix I requirements. Likewise language for Performance

Start language from the PWS has been added to L&M to clarify the vendor has flexibility to propose it’s own Performance Start based on vendor proposed IOC conditions. The only true requirement for Performance Start is the ability to fly airplanes to meet the required front-lines.

e. Nellis specifics. Some industry feedback noted that the Nellis attribute constituted separate aircraft Categories. This is incorrect. Per Appendix I, Chapter I, Table G.1 Nellis

Attributes and Exchanges, aircraft are identified in Column one as either Cat C or Cat B.

Nellis has stand alone requirements because the government anticipates less trade space for this OL. This represents a government imposed force ratio specifically to reduce cost, as the total volume of flying vastly exceeds other OLs. The actual requirements listed in Attributes 1-20 are the same across categories B and C. What is different is there is less willingness to trade capabilities (in essence, reduce it’s requirements to meet current market capabilities).

f. More scrutiny will be applied at TO level via Classified Effects Criteria. Example: Radar range. The government fully understands that 80NM contact on a 1M2 is difficult if not impossible to meet. However, there are potential emerging solutions that dictate the government leave this as is, in an effort to both a) ensure existing solutions remain forward developing and b) allow for entry to support a potentially viable true “5th

Generation” capability. At the task order level, and when measured against effects by

NASIC replication standards, the specific requirement becomes less important when measured against the supported USAF platform and training venue. So again, this bring us to a “best meets” proposal that is best supportable by your specific company, with your specific airframes, with technology advancements adaptable to your aircraft; AT A

COMPETITIVE PRICE POINT.

g. Finally, there is no requirement in your proposals to identify which capability exchange you are using, against Appendix I. Simply identify the attributes you propose, by aircraft type and force ratios; and identify these as your proposal to perform for Category A, B, C, D, or E.

h. Are there specific questions to clarify how Appendix I is being used and should be interpreted?

5. Weighting:

a. Weighting exists in the IDIQ and FOPRs and must be consistent across the enterprise upfront to pass business clearance. Government has provided as much information as possible on total weights, both as evaluated weights and informational by OL in

Appendix I. The Classified and Unclassified Effects Attachment to FOPRs will provide additional clarification, but won’t be public until after IDIQ when released as a FOPR, for those vendors who poses Secret FCL.

b. With respect to industry’s question regarding passive detection, the language allows for maximum industry flexibility to propose innovative solutions that best perform to their specific aircraft types and business approaches. However, in this context “Passive

Detect” is generally referred to with IRST, but it’s not exclusive to IRST. Passive detection capabilities still exists in the both the FSU CATM and embedded radar passive capabilities. It is not dictated which of these is implied with “passive” and assumed it’s

“any and or all of the above.” The vendor has the latitude to propose any variety of passive capabilities to meet the intent. Vendors are encouraged to use existing knowledge of USAF systems, tactics, and training venues to best tailor their systems and proposals to offer best-value innovative solutions.

c. Are there specific questions to clarify how the weighting works or how the Effects

Attachment will function?

6. Note on Price:

a. Aircraft attributes 1 to 20, both performance and capabilities, are all the government desires. If cost and vendor’s ability to provide new airframes and/or technology was not limited, then the USAF would issue a much more stringent RFP with Attributes 1 to 20 with no capabilities exchanges at all, in a style more traditional of a material acquisition.

However, given the relative differences between government’s desires and reality of the marketplace, this RFP indicates what the government views as relative capabilities exchange opportunities to provide cost effective options, and the responsibility of making a best value argument then rests with the vendor. If a vendor can present all performance and capabilities using a single platform and without any exchanges, it must do so at a competitive price-point and support this approach is the best value to the government. Conversely, if a vendor proposes to use force ratios and capabilities exchange to present a force mixture sufficient to create total force effects and a reduced cost, then the vendor must likewise support this approach as the best value to the government. Between Table B.2 and the individual Category Tables, the government has indicated that both approaches are viable, but will ultimately be on the vendor to support that their approach is cost-effective.

b. Are there any questions to clarify the price point as it pertains to vendor’s proposed aircraft types and force ratios?

7. Security Language:

a. The security language in the PWS is under review by the appropriate security agency(ies). Security language is meant to address three main issues: FOCI (which by default implies the ability to acquire an FCL); second, foreign SME support for aircraft and technology of foreign origin; and third, the integration of advanced programs protocols.

b. To address all of these points: We have firm commitment from Deputy Director of

OSI/PJ, ACC/A8Z and ACC/CV in working at VCSAF level to support this effort. Our guidance has been to move forward assuming the security apparatus will absorb contractor performance with increased technologies into the larger security community so that we can use what we are contracting in the manner intended. The intent, in-fact highly desired, is to allow foreign platforms and technologies which generally necessitates some foreign technological support. However, involvement of those foreign support specialists and your company’s processes to use them will be closely scrutinized. Section L&M, Foreign Contractor Participation indicates, “Exceptions may be approved, on a case-by-case limited basis, by the Government contracting agency under direction from the appropriate security agency(ies).” However, PWS restrictions can’t be updated until the appropriate security agency(ies) have taken a look at the contractor’s technology, foreign support, and security processes to make adjustments.

c. AMIC is engaged currently with the security community to develop a way forward for security processing of contractors and associated technologies, paired with the serviced

OL. Our current methodology may include a requirement for vendors awarded IDIQ

MAC entry, to produce a draft security plan and begin coordination with the security community at that point, for eventual incorporation when appropriate at the task order level. This is still very much in development.

d. It is unclear at this point if we are going to receive further changes or updates to this language from the security apparatus pre-RFP. The language in the PWS defaults to adherence to DoDM 5220 NISPOM, which will ultimately determine what is and is not acceptable. It is the government’s intention to allow some foreign contractor support, but we must first see proposals to determine what is and is not feasible. Use sound judgement and your existing knowledge of security issues to develop your approach and how you will address security, as we realize this will continue to evolve as the security agencies engage industry, post IDIQ award.

e. Are there questions on the security element to this RFP, both for FOCI, foreign involvement, or support of advanced programs – keeping in mind we are UNCLASSIFIED in this forum?

8. P5CTS Pods:

a. We’ve updated the CFE ACMI language to allow for any solution set that is “compatible with USAF carried P5CTS systems” and clarified that there is no requirement for the CFE systems to include a ground live-monitoring capability. The language is now ACMI centric vice P5 centric to allow industry to propose creative alternative solutions.

However, it’s still on the prime offeror to support the technical solution proposed is both technologicially viable and of best-value to the government.

b. Per ACC/A3A, the current USAF P5CTS system is the official system of record. No technological specifications on the system will be provided by the USAF. It’s assumed for an offeror to be technologically acceptable to the government, the offeror should know how to integrate its technical solution into this system.

c. To the point of ACMI support, A3 has not yet determined if this will be a requirement.

We expected a firm decision no later than 1 May 2018 in order to remain on timelines for the RFP, but it’s been delayed due to the RTRB. We are actively engaged to provide industry a final decision. This language may or may not change for the final RFP as a result.

d. Are there any questions on the still developing ACMI support requirements?.

9. Aircraft performance, Configurations and ASD.

a. The government is reluctant to dictate what is and is not an air to air configuration based on the wide variety of platforms and configurations available. Based on the government intention to support both Beyond Visual Range and Within Visual Range training venues, it’s in the government’s best interest to allow industry to propose configurations it deems of best value concurrent to their overall proposal.

b. Likewise, the government is reluctant to dictate a firmer definition of what constitutes

ASD due to this same disconnect. Given the previous “best meets” discussion for both the IDIQ and Appendix I, the government is better served allowing industry to determine the best way to meet the services requested. While there does exist certain room in the existing definition for vendors to make outlandish claims of ASD or performance in various configurations, vendors are cautioned that whatever ASD claimed must be supportable with OEM publically available information and classified sources available; keeping in mind the source selection team is intimately familiar with aviation operations, can issue EN’s for clarifications, and can find a vendor not technically acceptable if the ASD proposed doesn’t match established norms for the platforms proposed.

c. The government has considered several alternative definitions ASD, including the most recent definition for Nellis Phase II, and has defaulted to the existing definition.

Vendors are advised to support their proposals with OEM data specifically to support aircraft performance, configurations, and ASD. Example: Appendix I provides a definition of ASD. If your platform’s OEM uses an alternative definition that’s close, then provide this OEM data in your proposal and interpolate you’re company’s ability to meet the to the government’s definition from this datapoint Are there questions on this point?

10. IDIQ Notional Loads versus Task Order OL Performance:

a. Keeping in mind the IDIQ is essentially the “gate” for entry, your company is not proposing to a specific OL for the IDIQ award. Instead, it is proposing to the Notional OL loads identified by Aircraft Category indicated in the L&M Table L-1. Workload for these

Aircraft Category should be to meet the turn patterns and flying sorties indicated as if it was an actual OL, and not for those workloads identified in Appendix I or Task Ordering

Guide by OL. These workloads are provided for reference of future FOPRs.

b. The IDIQ proposal is agnostic of geographical location. The government understands that pricing will differ between IDIQ and task order based on workload differences and geographical locations. These OL notional loads represent the average by Category Type of all the OL’s intended in the IDIQ, and inform the reason the USAF has established the minimum guarantees where they are (12 aircraft for ADAIR and 8 for CCAS).

c. For ADAIR (Category A-C), the primary driver of requirements is RAP, measured by the

USAF as a sortie. As such, pricing is based on supporting this sortie, as actual ASD flown will not determine if a USAF pilot logs a RAP counter or not. ASD’s presented in Table L-

1 represent the average of those OL’s requested ASD, and are provided as a baseline for the proposal. Vendor’s ability to support these notional sortie loads, and not the actual intended OLs, is the evaluation criteria for IDIQ entry.

d. For CCAS (Category D-E), JTAC training is supported by on-range hours supporting multiple JTACs concurrently with a 2 T 2 baseline requested. The associated number of sorties is developed by using a 2.0 ASD to support a 90 minute vol (CAT D) and 1.5 ASD to support a 60 minute vul (CAT E), and is provided as a reference point. Vendors may propose meeting the on-range hours with more aircraft and more turns (ie – 3 T 3 or 4 T

2) to cover the required on-range hours, but the primary workload reference is the on-range hours supported by a 2 T 2 or 2 T 0. Deviations from this baseline are acceptable, but the vendor must support a best value case, and associated price-points, in their proposals. Vendor’s ability to support these notional on-range hours loads, and not the actual intended OLs, is the evaluation criteria for IDIQ entry.

e. Irrespective of how your company figures sorties, hours, or ASD, the standard pricing point for both is the sortie. As previously discussed with industry, vendors will be responsible for figuring attrition into their calculations to support the sorties intended.

Invoicing will by month, not sortie, at a rate of 1/12 of the total flying volume on the annual task order. This will reduce administrative burden across the enterprise for both contractors and the government. Supported wing’s Weather attrition data will be provided at ADAIR locations. The government understands this may increase the cost slightly, but accepts and justifies this increase as contractor scheduling flexibility is needed on the overall effort. At the actual task order level, each contractor and supported wing will be required to coordinate via long range scheduling lull’s in the wings flying which will release the contractor to support other venues. We currently project supporting all named USAF exercises requiring ADAIR at a standard 2-week TDY, 6 Turn 4 baseline, and include a minimum of 5 wing additional venues; all as part of the current flying hour program built into the 12 ADAIR OLs; with two noteable exceptions

(Kelly and Hickam). At the task order level, additional TDY taskings may be coordinated with each vendor that exceed the programmed FHP on the task order.

f. Are there any questions on to clarify this point?

11. Minimum Guarantee and Funding:

a. Government has heard industry’s concerns over assigning a minimum workload guarantee on the IDIQ. In a multi-award concept where follow-on task-orders are competed, government has rejected a minimum workload guarantee, as this represents unacceptable risk to the government and counter to competition in the MAC. However, government has assigned a minimum workload guarantee in the form of contractor performance needed to acquire airworthiness on 12 aircraft (ADAIR) or 8 aircraft (CCAS) respectively. It is the government’s intention that this minimum guarantee convey to industry it’s intention to utilize these aircraft or actual performance, as the government is paying a high-dollar for what amounts to no actual performance in return.

b. Furthermore, each task order to be fielded once the MAC is established does have a fixed workload by OL. Each task order itself is not IDIQ, what is IDIQ is the number of

OL’s the government will eventually field.

c. AMIC realizes that our OLfielding approach is critical to industry’s decision making process. To date, we have been unable to provide much clarity in this regard. We have been working with the plan to field all OLs (initially ADAIR, now including CCAS) as rapidly as possible post IDIQ award. The primary focus currently is ADAIR OLs, but the

CCAS OLs will be molded into this overall plan. The government’s ability to field OLs, to include the order in which they field, is contingent upon and bounded by what industry proposes, total funding applied, the rate at which funding is applied, the acquisitional burden, and NEPA requirements. Similar to the bounding of the published maximum cost per flying hour, the government’s ability to field all OL’s will ultimately be determined by the final price point for Cat C capability, and trade-space options against the price-points of Cat A/B capabilities, against the overall funding applied. The final pricing of all Categories of aircraft, with associated technology improvements, affects the OL fielding. Likewise, the ability to handle the acquisitional burden affects the speed at which the task orders can be fielded. This acquisitional burden is directly proportional to the complexity, and inversely proportional to the quality of proposals provided by industry. As such, the government is unable to determine an exact timeline for fielding of OLs. There are four primary OL laydown projections currently cycling based on changes to the supporting assumptions. These will be provided in the coming weeks as the current POMing cycles play out.

d. For CCAS, AMIC has been directed to build the acquisition to support 10 total OLs, with the expectation that industry’s ability to meet these requirements at lower price points is generally better than that in ADAIR, and that funding is available.

e. For both ADAIR and CCAS, the CAF CAS solution is specifically designed to allow for growth across any USAF MAJCOM and DoD sister service.

f. For the minimum guarantee, all IDIQ awardee’s will be issued an IDIQ PWS for program management under Task Order #1 needed to support completion of the Airworthiness.

The aircraft received airworthiness need not be the final platforms complete with technological advancements, only those needed to initiate performance within 12 months of IDIQ award. Completion of this airworthiness does not guarantee award of follow-on task orders. However, for those companies that win follow-on task orders inside this 12 month period, they will have to garner this airworthiness certification on those airframes prior to performance start.

g. Are there questions for clarification of minimum award, airworthiness, or funding at this time?

12. Third Party Validation and Government Fly Off:

a. The third party validation and government fly off exist for two reasons. First, this is to ensure that some test and verification on vendor proposed advancements in-fact produce the capability proposed. This is to reduce the risk to the government of paying for a product/service that can’t perform as advertised. It is a way to adjudicate what would be a follow-on effort to a material acquisition with the reality that we are paying for services vice acquiring technology. Second, given the ADAIR portion of CAF CAS exists to replicate threat capabilities and not actual threat system, some adjustments to government MDS OFPs will be needed. The combination of third party validation and government fly-off allows the government to address both of these issues.

b. The government expects both of these deliverables to be an iterative process. When the vendor provides a third party validation, the government intends to share it with the material acquisitions world and USAF Systems Program’s Office to allow a review and input on if it is sufficient to address both of these issues or concerns. The government does not intend on the third party validation to mirror what the USAF testing community would do, but a program utilizing similar constructs would provide sufficient validity. Additionally, the Government Fly-Off is not intended to be a dedicated, stand-alone event, but rather the government’s opportunity for force a particular engagement parameter during an existing ADAIR sortie that allows the government to examine it’s own OFP’s to make follow-on adjustments to either the OFP itself, or published guidance to support threat replication written standards. If it’s subsequently found the government needs a dedicated fly-off in a given area, Eglin test range, for example, follow-on discussions with the government for funding would be warranted. However, this is not expected.

c. There is a disconnect on this particular issue. For those vendors who may be already moving out on technological advancements and have an existing testing program supported as part of that development, the government reserves the right to either accept previously conducted testing or ask for additional testing points of interest. Until we see what these particular vendors can provide, the government can’t accept or deny existing work. In the case where a particular sub-contractor is providing both the technology installation and testing services as a single effort, the government likewise can accept this as a third party validation, but reserves right to make this determination until after the plan is presented.

d. To disassociate what AMIC is building from what a material acquisition would apply as a

“fly-off”, the PWS language has replaced fly-off with the term “Contractor/Government

Avionics Validation Flight Evaluation (CAVFE).”

e. Are there any questions for clarification on this specific talking point?

13. Are there any questions for clarification on the overall structure of the MAC IDIQ and intentions for the follow-on task orders? Has this telecom provided needed clarification to help you interpret the RFP as currently written? We will post minutes of this telecon.