Industry_Questions.docx

1. The Combined Synopsis/Solicitation lists hardware deliverables in Line items 0003, 0004, and 0005, however the statement of objectives does not discuss hardware at all and implies that the T-53 model will be installed on already existing USAFA hardware. Please clarify what hardware deliverables are required for this contract.

- There are no hardware requirements associated. This is only software.

2. Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, Section II Solicitation Instructions, Part d (2) lists three parts that should be included in the quote. Should each of these parts (i.e., price quotation, technical information, contract documentation) be submitted as separate documents, or may they be combined into a single document?

- They can be submitted as one document or separate.

3. In the CLIN instructions it acknowledges that the Line Items may not correspond with how we work and that we can change them, but it does mention ‘hardware’. I am assuming that as the T-53 is to be expansion software for P-3D, you already have P3D in use on your own hardware setup with VR headsets etc and don’t require us to supply hardware?

- PRE-DEPLOYMENT IS OUR PRIORITY. WE WOULD ACCEPT A VERY BASIC POST-DEPLOYMENT MODELING THAT CAPTURED THE CONCEPT OF NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE AS THE CHUTE DEPLOYS, FOR 400’, THEN NOSE UP…THIS WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DYNAMIC OR ACCURATE MODELING OF DECELERATION…JUST BASIC MODELING TO ALLOW THE USER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT BASIC ATTITUDES WILL BE EXPERIENCE.

3. CAPS system – this is the Cirrus aircraft parachute – whilst it is possible to visually simulate aircraft systems and failures that would lead to parachute deployment (as an animation and with effects), simulating the effects on the aircraft post-deployment is not something that anyone has achieved in Prepar3D up to now, and this may prove challenging. Is this essential or would the pre-deployment simulation with visual effects be adequate?

- PRE-DEPLOYMENT IS OUR PRIORITY. WE WOULD ACCEPT A VERY BASIC POST-DEPLOYMENT MODELING THAT CAPTURED THE CONCEPT OF NOSE-DOWN ATTITUDE AS THE CHUTE DEPLOYS, FOR 400’, THEN NOSE UP…THIS WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DYNAMIC OR ACCURATE MODELING OF DECELERATION…JUST BASIC MODELING TO ALLOW THE USER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT BASIC ATTITUDES WILL BE EXPERIENCE.

4. This clause: “The contractor will deliver engine and flight performance models for both the normally aspirated stock T-53 engine, and for any turbo-normalized, turbo-charged or enhanced T-53 engine and/or propeller modifications that mayoccur within 3 years from contract awarding.”

Accurately assessing the cost of re-working the aircraft for significant modifications may prove very difficult, given we do not know what changes the aircraft manufacturer is considering. There is also a concern about the time it may take to assess the manufacturer’s modification and then accurately code that into the simulator. We would prefer to see something along the lines of ‘will use best endeavours to accurately replicate changes to engine and propeller configuration within three years from contract awarding’.

- WE HAVE THE FLIGHT TEST DATA FROM THE TURBO-NORMALIZER TEST (COMPLETED 22 AUG). I WILL SEE ABOUT THE RELEASABILITY OF IT AS PART OF T-53 SOFTWARE MODELING. IT IS NOT AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY…WE DO KNOW HOW IT MODIFIES PERFORMANCE.

5. I saw this elsewhere in the documents: “Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.” So, presumably there may be some room for leeway on the specifications if it is justified?

- THE INTENT OF THIS STATEMENT IS TO SAY THAT WE (USAFA) WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPER THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE MODEL. WE KNOW THERE WILL BE SOME COMPROMISES AND CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED MODEL GIVEN SOFTWARE LIMITATIONS IN P3D…USAFA WILL WORK WITH THE AWARDEE TO DETERMINE WHERE THOSE COMPROMISES ARE NEEDED AND WHAT SOLUTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE.