FOS Comments-Gov't Responses.pdf

Documents Reference Comment Government Response RFP Solicitation:

Section L, Given the criticality of the upgrade, the complexity of the installation coordination, and the potential risks associated with installation of new equipment into legacy sites, we suggest that Past Performance be submitted for evaluation purposes. We request the page count for the technical volume be increased by 10 to accomodate this

Past Performance will not be evaluated as a separate factor or subfactor.

However, it will be evaluated under the Contracting Officers' Determination of Responsibility. This still allows the government the ability to not award a contract if the vendor has negative Past Performance. As a result, there is no need for an additional 10 pages as requested.

RFP Paragraph 2.2 Evaluation Methodology Given the criticality of the upgrade, the complexity of the installation coordination, and the potential risks associated with installation of new equipment into legacy sites, we suggest that more than one proposal be reviewed during the evaluation process similar to other recent aquisitions

"Price will be evaluated first and the proposals will be listed from lowest to highest price. The technical/management evaluation will be performed followed by the past performance evaluation, starting with the lowest evaluated price offeror. The first two proposals evaluated as technically acceptable with acceptable or neutral past performance will be considered the best value proposals and all other technical evaluations will cease."

This will be further clarified at official RFP release. However under Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection procedures, if the lowest evaluated priced proposal is considered technically acceptable, then there is no need to further evaluate other proposals. Because LPTA does not allow "trade-offs", then award is based on the proposal meeting the technical requirements at the lowest price.

RFP Section L Given the expected life cycle of the equipment and the criticality of the upgrade, we suggest that Logistics Management Plan be submitted for evaluation purposes. We request the page count for the technical volume be increased by 10 to accomodate this.

There will be an Integrated Logistics Support Plan required for delivery after contract award. However, the government has developed it's own LCMP and therefore is not required as part of the evaluation process for award. As a result, there is no need for an additional 10 pages as requested.

SOW Para. 1.7.4.5 Due to the proprietary nature of the equipment, we recommend the reprocurement at the LRU level but the reproduction be conducted at the major subsystem level.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

SOW Para. 1.6.4.1

It is the the intention of the Government to have the site surveys performed 8-12 months prior to the Modernization Installation. How can this be accomplished without a separate CLIN for site surveys?

We recommend a separate CLIN for sight surveys to alliviate this issue.

CLIN 0009 Site Survey is already on the Draft RFP and is intended to be on the official RFP release.

SOW 1.7.4.8

Support Equipment – is a portable VOR receiver considered unique support equipment (suggest it is not as it is common to any manufacturer’s VOR product) or is it in the Government inventory?

A portable VOR receiver is not considered unique support equipment as long as the vendor's system will work with the government inventory item (Wilcox 7010).

If not, then it needs to be considered unique support equipment.

CDRL List CDRL A022 CDRL A022 references DD Form 2554-1 (TDP Option Selection Worksheet), but no Form is provided.

Form will be provided at official RFP release.

Performance Spec.

T-GEN-4 Although multiple power levels can be provided, this configuration is less cost efficient as there is a need to provide a 3kw system on every installation when only 1 kw may be required. We recommend that this requirement be changed to a 1 or 3 KW unit (dependent on site specific requirements).

Site conditions normally determine the power requirement which would be selected and configured prior to installation. Better price efficiency can be achieved using a set power level depending on the site. As the need to vary the power during operation or after the initial selection cannot be envisioned, the Contractor requests one to

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

Performance Spec. The VOR and TACAN are referenced to require 2 hours of battery backup (V-GEN-4 & T-GEN-8), does the ATC equipment and/or Flight Check Radio require battery backup?

Yes the ATC Equipment and FC Radio require battery backup. The Performance Specification will be updated to clarify this at official RFP release.

Performance Spec.

V-GEN-2 What FAA spec contains the output power spectrum requirements?

The Performance Specification will be updated to clarify this at official RFP release.

Performance Spec.

V-GEN-4

Rather than require a UPS, can a minimum run time without AC power be specified. (i.e., some solutions may have a battery backup provided). Replace b), c), and d) with one item stating run time upon loss of AC power.

The UPS is the requirement and therefore no change to the Performance Specification for this issue is expected.

Performance Spec.

V-GEN-7

This requirement specifies redundant monitor, should it also specify redundant transmitter?

No, there is no redundant transmitter.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY COMMENTS

FA8102-12-R-0001

1/13/12

Performance Spec.

V-GEN-9

Is there a single monitor antenna per VOR or multiple to support 8- or 16-point automatic ground checks?

There are multiple monitor antennas to support 16 point automatic ground checks.

The Performance Specification will be updated to clarify this at official RFP release.

Performance Spec.

V-MRS-29

SW certified by Microsoft Logo Program? Can the specific LOGO program be specified?

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

Performance Spec.

V-IF-1

Does the surge protection requirement include the RF cables to the antenna?

Yes.

Performance Spec.

V-IF-2

Does the requirement for shielding of cables inside cabinetry extend to ribbon cables as well?

Yes.

Performance Spec.

V-IF-3

The specification as written is difficult to verify (i.e., varying levels of compliance would be acceptable), can this be clarified?

The Performance Specification states "All equipment or equipment cabinetry shall be EMI/RFI shielded." The emphasis here is on the word "or". As long as one or the other is properly shielded then it is sufficient.

Performance Spec.

T-IF-15 table

4.2.5 Should this be V-IF-15?

Yes. This error will be corrected in the Performance Specification at official RFP release.

Section B CLINS

The Draft RFP calls for deliveries to be in accordance with ISO 9001- 2000 which is a 12 year old standard. Companies that are truly maintaining their ISO compliance should have at least progressed to the 2008 standard. Suggest that the RFP package be updated to reflect ISO 9001-2008 to ensure that present day practices are followed.

Concur. The CLINs will be corrected to reflect ISO 9001-2008 to be consistant with other references in the requirements package.

Section B CLINS

Please confirm that the identification of FOB Destination means that the contractor shall be responsible for shipping cost from the contractor's facility to the locations identified.

Yes. The contractor is responsible for shipping costs for FOB Destination.

Section L 1.2.6

The ITO indicates that the offeror shall provide a cross reference matrix. However, table 1.2.1 does not identify a line item where this is to be placed in the proposal.

This will be clarified at release of the RFP, however it is anticipated that it will be included in the Techncial Volume.

Section L 2.3

As the FAA has no programs for FAR-171 design approval of TACAN equipment please confirm that the conduct of successful flight check in accordance with AFMAN 11-225, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual satisfies this requirement as identified in SOW paragraph 1.

AFMAN 11-225 provides Flight Check procedures and as long as those flight checks were approved by the FAA as stated in Section L, then this will be sufficient.

Section M 2.4.1

As the FAA has no programs for FAR-171 design approval of TACAN equipment please confirm that the conduct of successful flight check in accordance with AFMAN 11-225, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual satisfies this requirement as identified in SOW paragraph 1.

AFMAN 11-225 provides Flight Check procedures and as long as those flight checks were approved by the FAA as stated in Section M, then this will be sufficient.

SOW

1.5, 1.6.2.1, 1.6.2.2, 1.6.2.3

The SOW makes several references to "site specific materials" which would be evaluated as part of the pre-installation survey identified in

1.6.4.1. This makes it unclear how contractors are to provide a firm bid when such materials will vary from site to site and will not be known until after contract award.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

SOW

1.7.4.2

CDRL A019

Most present day LRU-level testing approaches utilize specialized fixtures and automated test sets. It is unclear how the Government intends to secure such test environments if they are to execute the maintenance instructions defined in the Depot Level Repair Instructions. LRU-specific test environments are certainly not available "with little to no lead-time" as defined in 1.7.4.8. Please confirm that the "little to no lead-time" relates to the Governments ability to place procurement documentation and not for the actual delivery of LRU-specific test environments.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

SOW 1.7.4.6.2

In order to provide a FFP proposal for the development of Technical Orders, the impact on the existing TO's must be evaluated. When will the USAF provide those current TOs to evaluate what existing information may need to be incorporated into the new TOs?

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY COMMENTS

Specification 1.2.5

Please provide documentation for the AN/GRA-29 TACAN tower. This is required to confirm mounting and maintenance access for a replacement TACAN antenna

It is assumed this is refering to AN/GRA-49 (not 29) TACAN tower. As such, applicable TO's will be provided.

Specification 2.1.1.1

In order to determine the current configuration, procedures and other details pertaining to the current fielded systems the existing TO's must be evaluated. When will the USAF provide the identified current TOs for contractors to asses the current configuration?

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

Specification 2.1.1.3

Table 2.1.1.3 identifies several documents pertaining to Information Assurance, Security and Certification and Accreditation yet there are no tasks identified in the SOW. Please identify specifically what IA/C&A activities are intended to be conducted on the program or if these activities are intended to be conducted by the Government after delivery.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

Specification 4.2.7 5.2.7

There are numerous requirements called out for computers yet there are no computer delivery requirements called out in Section B. Please clarify if these requirements represent the configuration that the Government will provide or clearly denote deliverables in the contract for contractor responsibility

There is no requirement for computers to be provided. However, if your system requires a unique computer, then it should be provided with the system. In that case, the computer would have to adhere to the requirements as defined by your reference in the Performance Specification.

Specification T-GEN-4

T-GEN-3 specifies the TACAN must support SSV Class H. Because the contractor is providing both the transponder and the antenna it is not necessary to specify a power output (for example a higher gain antenna requires less transmitter power to achieve the same coverage). The service volume requirement alone allows for a system design tradeoff to be made for receiver sensitivity (also effected by antenna gain). Suggest that the design requirement T-GEN-4 be deleted because the functional requirement is best specified by T-GEN- 3.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

Specification T-MRS-15

Requirement implies that there is an automated ground check associated with the TACAN which is not the case. Please clarify the intent of the requirement or remove.

Correct, there are no automated ground checks. The Performance Specification will be corrected at official RFP release.

Specification V-GEN-11

If the existing obstruction lights are retained, the contractor will require details on the existing design to provide a sensor to monitor light outage. Please provide the specification details concerning the existing model and type (e.g. incandescent or LED) of the existing obstruction lights.

All lights are expected to be incandescent.

Specification

V-IF-5

T-IF-5

This requirement may be in conflict with V-GEN-4/T-GEN-8. If the UPS is to operate at 200% the maximum load of the equipment, this is likely to exceed the stated 1.44KVA existing equipment power.

The UPS must have the capability to operate at 200%. The UPS doesn't have to fall under the 1.44KVA, only the equipment. The Performance Specification will be updated to clarify this issue at official RFP release.

Specification

V-MRS-1

V-MRS-26

T-MRS-1

T-MRS-26

MRS-1 appears to be in conflict with MRS-26. MRS-1 implies that all MRS access is through the ATC interface. As most of the MRS requirements must be implemented internal to the VORTAC equipment, MRS-26 can then not be satisfied if access to this information is via a common communications unit (e.g. ATC location).

Please clarify why MRS access is specified to be through the ATC and how it is envisioned that MRS-26 could be satisfied by such an implementation.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

Specification

V-MRS-9

V-MRS-22

T-MRS-9

T-MRS-22

Please confirm that when the term "locally" is used with respect to the recording, archiving and setting of data that this means within the VOR or TACAN where loss of communication does not impact the recording of such data.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

Specification V-SAF-4

It is not clear what "control" requirement is meant by simply stating MIL-STD-882D. Please elaborate on the specific requirements that are to be addressed by the contractor.

This should read "System Safety Requirement". The Performance Specification will be corrected at official RFP release.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY COMMENTS

TMCR 2.9

Please confirm that it is the Contractor's responsibility to develop accessible and viewable updates and to provide a retrieval interface for them (e.g. FTP), and the Government's responsibility is to retrieve and deploy the updates through its interface and tools. If this is not the case, the contractor requires a full understanding of the existing Government methodology for automation of updates on their computer platforms.

No, this is an incorrect assumption. The government is responsible for developing accessible and viewable updates.

FOS Ship-To All

Please confirm quantities and ship location. Ship to Location Doc shows 105 sites. (81 Tacan, 26 VORTAC,3 VOR). The RFP part 1 schedule indicates equipment provisions for 105 ATC Equipment, 93 TACAN, 27 VORTAC, 6 VORs, and 1 each First Articles ( ATC equipment, VORTAC, and Flight Check Radio)

The government will clarify the quantities to ensure consistency throughout the RFP/documents at official RFP release.

SOW GFP Page 17

With regard to heavy lifting in removing and re-installing the new equipment. Will each base supply such heavy lift equipment as GFP, crane to lift equipment and a cherry picker (man lift) for equipment guidance into location. Base Support is not defined well in SOW, GFP, page 17. Also, please confirm Government retains and removes the existing equipment from sites.

Base Support will be better defined in the SOW at official RFP release.

Qty’s in Install Matrix totals 110 but qty’s in Base plus Option years tota

Quantities are estimates only. However, consistency will be clarified at official RFP release.

In Service use is stated as 98% and than in other places as 99%.

Should be 99%. This will be corrected throughout documentation at official RFP release.

Qty in Site Surveys is 15 but qty’s in Option years are 16.

Quantities are estimates only. However, consistency will be clarified at official RFP release.

Delivery schedule of FA is unrealistic under any conditions.

The government feels 180 days for delivery of the FA, for a non-developmental, off the shelf solution is sufficient.

Specification T-GEN-4

T-GEN-3 specifies that the TACAN provide adequate Signal in Space to provide NAS coverage as defined in FAA Order 6820.10, Chapter 6, Paragraph 25b. In that the contractor is providing both the transponder and the antenna, the requirement for an output of at least 1kW (and adjustable up to 3kW) limits the contractors system design optimization which would otherwise result in a lower power system and adequate Signal in Space. Industries most advanced TACAN antennas deliver gain at least 4-5 dB over the current AT-100 TACAN antenna. Please consider removing the 1kW and 3 kW power requirements of T-GEN-3 which will provide added value of the TACAN System.

This issue is being reviewed by the government team and will be answered at a later date prior to RFP release.

SOW 1

The SOW paragraph 1 states "The Non-Developmental equipment shall have verifiable performance documentation confirming that the proposed equipment as successfully passed FAA flight check". Would other means to pass a flight inspection in accordance with AFMAN 11- 225, United States Standard Flight Inspection Manual be acceptable?

For example a Flight Test performed by the USN or Ohio University.

A Flight Test performed by an entity than the FAA is not considered acceptable.

SOW 1

In order to stimulate the economy and encourage small business, would the USAF consider making this procurement a "Small Business Set Aside". At least two or more US based Small Businesses would be able to perform and deliver all of the requirements under this Draft

RFP.

Market Research does not support setting aside this procurement for small business. Full and open competition is allowable and anticipated.

SOW 1

Does this RFP provide any benefit for US based companies? Buying American made goods helps to stimulate and grow the US economy.

The two main TACAN system suppliers are both based in foreign countries.

Buying American is encouraged, but no additional credit is given for doing so in an LPTA source selection process. Any foreign companies that participate must be Qualifying Countries as defined in DFARS.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO INDUSTRY COMMENTS

Sheet1