Fixed ILS RMM Mod Questions.docx

Document

CDRL A020

There is no remote control defined to be provided with the designated kits. Is the USG providing this or will there be a separate CLIN ?

The system is required to have remote capability, however, the remote control unit is not a part of this effort.

“Acceptance by the Government shall occur after successful installation and flight check by the Contractor.”

Is this flight Inspection in support of an FAA flight inspection or a separate commercial flight Inspection? How is it determined that the flight inspection is successful?

Yes flight inspection will be performed by FAA. AFMAN 11-225 provides information of successful flight inspection criteria.

“After each production installation, the Contractor shall perform a checkout of the system to ensure that it is operating properly including a flight check.”

Is this flight Inspection in support of an FAA flight inspection or a separate commercial flight Inspection? How is it determined that the flight inspection is successful?

Yes, the flight inspection will be performed by FAA. FAA will perform checks IAW AFMAN 11-225 (also known as FAA Order 8200.1B), Section 217 and will report results to installation team and on-site government personnel.

The USG Response, ”Yes a power conditioner is expected. However the specific requirements will be determined during contractor site surveys.” Is unclear. Is the USG also requiring site visits as deliverable line item? If so, when would these site visits occur?

Yes, the contractor will be performing the visits. Site surveys should be captured in the price of the equipment and will be scheduled IAW specific locations placed on applicable delivery orders.

includes DI-ILSS -80134A

“The equipment shall be provided with sufficient instructions or diagnostics tools to troubleshoot the equipment down to specific LRUs with a 95% or better confidence to either that LRU or next higher assembly.”

As stated, this requirement can be met with no diagnostic tools as the “next higher assembly” is likely the entire cabinet in most modern ILS design. Such approach would not be consistent with the customer’s expectation. Suggest rewording to reflect industry standard approach of “98 percent of all detectable faults to an ambiguity group of 3 LRUs” and “95 percent of all detectable faults to an ambiguity group of 1 LRUs” The Government will consider using the recommended Fault Isolation provided validation occurs that substantiates the Industry Standard identified in the question.

SOW

1.1 / Spec 2

The blanket inclusion of numerous applicable documents as well as inclusion of “any applicable supplements to those documents as well as other documents specifically called out within them” with no specific callout from the SOW or Specification, brings undue ambiguity and risk to the program for both the USG and contractor.

It would be prudent to specify explicitly what is to be followed in the body of the spec/sow and in the applicable documents introduction state “The documents listed in this section are considered reference unless listed specifically in subsequent sections” as done in other USAF solicitations.

The documents in the SOW (Para 1.1) are few in number and shall be followed in their entirety. The Performance Spec (Spec 2) references many documents that are already identified as Reference documents.