questions set 4.pdf

Ref Question Response

Is the CLS effort intended to be part of the Prime's role or via an

ACA with an existing provider?

The CLS effort will be the responsibility of the current provider.

SRD 3.2.3.3 When stated mixed formations, does that include adaptable flight performance for guidance?

NO

SRD 3.9.2 Does this apply to CFE only or the entire aircraft? (e.g. IFF) What is the time frame intended for contractor DMS responsibility?

Supply support and DMS refers only to the CFE/CFM related to/generated by the CNS/ATM effort and that part of the aircraft interface affected by such. The remainder of the DMS horizon is limited to the duration and scope of the CNS/ATM effort. However, long term

DMS considerations should be taken into account when proposed solution LRU/SRU/kit assets/interfaces are selected for KC-10 integration and installation. Supply support for aircraft undergoing CNS/ATM prototype and production installation will remain the responsibility of the CLS provider. Parts and support equipment requirements resulting from both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance discrepancies will be handled within the KC-10

CLS provider's closed loop logistics system. KC-10 peculiar support equipment or parts required for any significant time period during the CNS/ATM effort will be coordinated with and authorized solely by the KC-10 SPO on a limited case by case basis. TAT referred to in this section pertains to the LRU/SRU of the CNS/ATM unique avionics equipment complement under warranty.

SRD 3.2.4.2.1.12 Is it acceptable to provide a dedicated handset at each crew position or is it required to integrate the SATCOM voice into the existing interphone system?

NO, it needs to be integrated into the existing interphone system

SRD 3.2.4.4 Is there a specific secure AOC protocol required or is the intent of this requirement and section 3.2.4.4.10 to provide growth to secure data link when the standard is mature?

Revised SRD will provide proper clarification.

Can the government comment on the SOO objective to maximize the use of COTS equipment and the requirements of the SRD with respect to environmental qualification (3.1.1.2), NVIS ((3.2.6.2), chemical defense ensemble requirements (3.6.7), BIT (3.9.4.5.2, 3.9.4.5.3, 3.9.5.4, 3.9.4.5.5)? Specifically will there be exceptions allowed for COTS equipment that do not meet the requirements listed?

Yes, exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis.

In the presentation by Col Fulton, chart #10 lists three KPPs

(CNS/ATM airspace access, Net Centric Operations, and Material

Availability, but the SRD lists only two (CSN/ATM airspace access and Net Centric Operations). Additionally the SRD lists two paragraph references as KSA #3 (paragraph 3.5.2.1 and

3.9.3.1) which are the same requirement. Is the Ao requirement missing from paragraph 3.9.3.1 and should it be KPP #3.

Revised SRD will correct any omissions and discrepancies.

In the presentation by Col Fulton, chart #11 lists four KSAs (FAA certification, Ownership costs, MTBM-T, and GPS obsolescence), but the SRD lists three (Ownership Costs, MTBM-T, and

BLOS/LOS Voice & data). Are the KSAs mentioned in Col

Fulton's charts missing from the SRD?

Revised SRD will correct any omissions and discrepancies.

SRD Paragraph 1.1.1, although the SRD provides guidance of the relative importance of KPPs vs. KSAs, and most requirements that have a threshold have an objective (although not all, 3.5.2.1), what is the relative importance of requirements that are not marked as

KPP, KSA, threshold, or objective? Also does the notation CDD reference indicate some importance to a requirement?

CDD references will be removed from the final SRD. If something is not marked by

KPP,KSA,threshold, or objective, it is not a hard requirement. However, if it is a shall statement, it should be attained as it is probably a derived requirement from a KPP or

Threshold. Will revise SRD. No CDD Reference importance is indicated.

SRD 3.1.1 SRD paragraph 3.1.1, please specify and make available the current KC-10 military operational environment specifications.

World wide operations could include cold soak, desert operations, and chemical/biological environments. In other words in all environmental conditions as well as chem/biological possibilities.

SRD 3.1.2.1 What specific AF, NATO and other applicable standards is the contractor required to be compatible with in regard to modified equipment including avionics, fuel, and electrical power?

This is a FAA certification project, and as such, am not sure that this is a requirement, but a nice to have as stated in the SRD

SRD 3.2.2.3.1 Please specify what future NGA GI&S products the contractor is required to be compatible with.

Need to be compatible with current NGA GI&S and should be compatible with future capabilities to the extent possible.

SRD 3.2.2.3.4 Please specify what "standard GI&S products from NGA" are to be used.

Contractor's responsibility to identify the requirements.

SRD 3.2.2.5.6 Please define the AMC C2 systems that the flight performance module must be compatible with.

AMC Tanker Airlift Command and Control (TACC)

SRD 3.2.2.5.9 Please define the AMC C2 systems that the FMS shall be compatible with.

AMC Tanker Airlift Command and Control (TACC)

SRD 3.2.4.1.11 Please specify the military VHF FM data messages required. Not sure we need to supply the specific messsages just the capability to transmit. Will be determined after contract award.

SRD 3.2.4.3.4.5 Specify/identify the "AMC defined message sets" referred to in this paragraph.

will be provided at contract award

SRD 3.2.4.4.7 Specify/identify the AMC Airline Modifiable Information (AMI) message sets referred to in this paragraph.

will be provided at contract award

SRD 3.4.1.3 Specify the DOD cryptographic modernization requirements for

COMSEC equipment.

The CNS/ATM Program office is not installing any new cryptographic equipment.

SRD 3.2.2.2.6 Define the specific "growth path" requirement (e.g., spare processing, spare memory, wiring provisions software upgrades) and describe acceptable methods of verifying compliance with this requirement.

Revised SRD should address these areas. However, 100% reserve memory and 100% throughput capability is the goal.

SRD 3.2.2.5.3 Identify the specific air refueling rendezvous procedures (e.g., ATP 56 Alpha, Bravo) and rendezvous modes that are required.

This is an existing capability. Procedures will be addressed after contract award.

SRD 3.2.2.5.4 Is the FMS required to accept a DAFIF mission plan/navigation data base or a commercial mission plan/data base? Does the time limit apply to loading each item or the total for all items? Is

Ground Support Equipment included in the definition of "the

CNS/ATM"?

DAFIF data in the form of a nav database that meet DO-200a/201. The time limit is for all items, however, if you can load the Navigation database in the specified time the mission data should take less time. GSE is included. Commercial database is unacceptable.

SRD 3.2.2.5.6 Define the requirements for the flight performance module.

Clarification is required as to what the term "flight performance module" pertains to. If the question involves the flight performance module (FPM) software used with mission planning software that replicates the aircraft performance manual (-1-1) in a digitized format that can be used to calculate time and fuel burn for a flight plan, the response would be different. Mission planning FPMs for USAF aircraft are currently built by a specific developer. The interfaces used by the FPMs are dictated by the FPM Interface Control Working Group. The design of the FPMs supports use in the Portable Flight Planning Software (PFPS) and Joint Mission

Planning System (JMPS), and must also work with AMC's Advanced Computer Flight

Planning (ACFP) system to provide accurate calculations for the route based on the profile requested (altitude, winds, and other parameters). Currently, the ACFP developer is incorporating the FPM into ACFP and works the interface issues. Likewise, the PFPS and

JMPS developers integrate the mission planning FPMs into their respective software. The

CNS/ATM developer should not have any concerns with the mission planning FPM.

Requirements for the flight performance module in the aircraft avionics should have an input from AMC/A3V.

SRD 3.2.2.5.9 Clarify the requirement for compatibility of the FMS with the

AMC mission planning and C2 systems.

The FMS must accept mission planning data, navigation data (DAFIF), Magnetic Variation data, and updates for all. The planned AMC mission planning system is JMPS with the

TASM UPC. The FMS must be able to accept route file information and also accept ARINC messages. The FMS draft and final ICDs for CNS/ATM-compliant Navigation, Mission and

Magnetic Variation data must be supplied to the government so that the mission planning software developer can concurrently develop the mission planning load image that will support KC-10. Additionally, the KC-10 CNS/ATM developer may also need to use the products (worldwide nav data and mission/nav images) during their testing.

SRD 3.2.2.6.1 Clarify the requirement that the INUs provide a blended civil/military GPS navigation solution. Is this requirement levied on the INU itself or on the vaionics system (e.g., FMS)?

How the INUs are integrated into the avionics suite is up to the contractor as long as it meets the FAA certification criteria for meeting all CNS/ATM requirements

SRD 3.2.2.7.1 Specify all intended tanker and receiver aircraft. This is a current capability and should not be degraded. Information will be in the Bidders

Library.

SRD 3.2.4.1.1.1 What is the requirement associated with the SRD heading

"Simultaneous Operation"?

revised SRD should answer the question.

SRD 3.2.4.1.2 Net Ready KPP, currently the SRD states that paragraph 3.2.4.1.2 is KPP #2. Is it the government's intent that entire 41 pages of

Appendix A and all supporting documentation be a KPP?

NO, if a radio interfaces with the GIG, it must be Net ready and meet the requirements of

Appendix A.

SRD 3.2.4.1.2 Net Ready KPP, Appendix A, SV-6, page 1 of 16, item 13

(CPDLC Echo Report D/L), in the SDX Test Description references the CMU-900. Please advise if the government is directing the use of the CMU-900, and if not please delete references to this hardware solution.

AGREE, no reference to CMU-900 should be made. Will be deleted from the SRD.

SRD 3.2.4.1.2 Net Ready KPP in Appendix A, Section 3.14, Section 3.15 Figure

A-2 & Note (pg A-30), Section 3.15.1, Section 3.15.2 text and

Figure A-2 & Note (pg A-31), and Section 4, there is a distinction between the KC-10 program level architecture" and the KC-10

CNS/ATM architecture which appears to be defined in Section

3.14 (Legend: Green: Internal System Functions from the KC-10

Program -level architecture - System Functions that elaborate on sub-processes and data flows happening in the parent System

Function Yellow - system functions assoiated with the KC-10

CNS/ATm system). However, the KC-10 CNS/ATM SRD identifies requirements that are beyond the defined KC-10

CNS/ATM architecture identified in Appendix A which lie in the

KC-10 Program architecture (e.g. Provide for Communications, Provide for Navigation, and provide for Surveillance ). Please clarify the architecture and if there is a requirements conflict which source is to override the other: the SRD or Appendix A?

SRD overrides Appendix A. If a radio interfaces with the GIG, it must be Net ready and meet the requirements of Appendix A.

SRD 3.2.4.1.1.2.3 Clarify the growth requirements for the intercommunication/radio communication panels.

Will change shall to should. Depending on what is added to the KC-10, drives the changes to the intercom panels.

SRD 3.2.4.2.1.10 Is the requirement to have VHF AFM LOS voice and data capability at all crew stations or just the primary crew stations?

Please clarify what are the VHF AM data messages required.

refer to ammended SRD which takes out data capability at all crew stations. VHF datalink is the requirement, what data messages that are required is not defined and will be provided after contract award.

SRD 3.2.4.2.1.11 Is the requirement for VHF FM voice and data restricted to the primary flight crew (Pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer) only?

refer to ammended SRD which takes out data capability at all crew stations. VHF datalink is the requirement, what data messages that are required is not defined and will be provided after contract award. Voice communications capability should be available at all locations defined in the SRD.

SRD 3.2.4.2.2.5 Does this requirement apply only to ATN (not ATS, ACARS, CPDLC, etc.)?

Yes.

SRD 3.2.4.3.4.3 Please specify what types of secure communications are envisioned to be downloaded to the FMS?

No secure comm is required. That was removed from the SRD.

SRD 3.2.4.1.2,

3.2.4.4.5, 3.2.4.4.6, 3.2.4.4.10, 3.2.4.4.13.1.1, 3.2.4.3.3

Please clarify what the secure voice and data link requirements, (e.g., classification, encryption) are for each radio (VHF voice secure vs. non-secure, UHF voice secure vs.non-secure, VHF data link secure vs. non-secure, UHF SATCOM secure vs. non-secure, civil SATCOM, HF data link secure vs. non-secure).

No secure comm is required. This will be removed from the SRD.

SRD 3.2.4.4.11 Please specify the requirements for a growth path for future ATC data link communications? (provisions, growth plan, specific technologies envisioned)

The contractor should be able to determine possible future requirements for LOS datalink, especially VHF DL.

SRD 3.2.6.2

3.2.6.16

Clarify the requirements for NVIS displays since 3.2.6.2 states that displays "should" be NVIS and this is an objective, while 3.2.6.16 states that displays "shall" be NVIS.

Revised SRD should clarify the issue. 3.2.6.16 will be revised to read "should".

SRD 3.2.6.6 Please provide a definition of "clear" and describe acceptable methods of verifying compliance with this requirement.

Verification is a requirement of the Offeror. Also, all paragraphs in this section are subject to

FAA certification and as such, the FAA will levy requiremens for compliance and defining

"clear".

SRD 3.2.6.18 Do the KC-10 mission requirements include alert starts in a cold soaked environment?

Yes

SRD 3.2.6.21 Provide a quantitative definition of "effective". I believe that declutter is a FAA requirement and should be addressed by offeror's certification efforts

SRD 3.2.8.1 Does this requirement specify the need to be compatible with all three mission planning systems (AFMSS, JMPS and ACFP), or some of these?

Revised SRD clarifies the requirement.

SRD 3.2.8.4 Can the requirement to provide the zeroize function be satisfied by powering the equipment on/off as well as selectively?

Possibly

SRD 3.2.11.1 Please specify acceptable methods of verifying compliance with this requirement.

Analyze, test, inspect, and demonstration.

SRD 3.4.1.5 Please define "sensitive information" and the appropriate level of protection required.

Reworded Paragraph: 3.4.1.5 The support equipment shall provide a means to protect all data and information (level of classification) consistent with the same level of protection required to troublshoot/maintain systems on the aircraft

SRD 3.5.1.1 Please segregate the CNS/ATM and "green aircraft" elements of reliability/availability as well as describing acceptable methods of verifying compliance with this requirement. Please provide baseline reliability /availability data for the systems/subsystems to be replaced. Please re-state the requirement so that it applies only to CNS/ATM equipment after the modification.

SRD paragraphs 3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2 segregate CNS/ATM and total MC requirements. MC rate is a standard calculation.

SRD 3.5.1.2 At what program event/milestone will the MC rate of 85% or higher be assessed? Please describe acceptable methods of verifying compliance with this requirement. Please provide baseline data on contribution to Mission Capability for the systems/subsystems to be replaced. Please re-state the requirement so that it applies only to CNS/ATM equipment after the modification.

At completion of OT&E and in conjunction with program milestone decisions as is standard.

Baseline data already provided in paragraphs 3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2

SRD 3.5.1.5 Please describe acceptable methods of verifying compliance with this requirement.

Analyze, test, inspect, and demonstration.

SRD 3.6.1.1.1.4 Please clarify whether the stated 100 percent reserve requirement refers to the sum of "…over that used or experienced during most demanding processing and storage…" plus "…necessary reserve margin to support the growth capability defined herein." Please explicitly identify which growth capability is referred to, e.g.

3.2.11, 3.6.1.1.1.6, 3.6.1.1.1.7, etc.

If the most demanding processing takes a 10meg bandwidth, then the system proposed should have 20 meg available. Likewise, if we have a need to store 1 gig of data then the storage capability should be 2 gig. [check #s]

SRD 3.6.3.2 Please clarify the statement 'ALL' communications systems shall operate simultaneously. For example, it is not operationally realistic that two radios should operate on the same frequency at the same time.

As stated.

SRD 3.6.3.2 Please quantify the 'maximum extent' possible requirement and provide additional definition or customer expectations. Please clarify the definition of "in the same environment". Is the intent physical proximity of within the same frequency range or both?

As stated.

SRD 3.6.5.2 Please specify which specific MIL-STD-464 paragraph should referenced or included. (…will operate IAW MIL-STD-464A, paragraphs 5.8, 5.8.2.5.8.3, etc.)

This is a FAA requirement and not a MIL spec Program. The real requirement is for the FAA to levy upon the offeror

SRD 3.6.7.1 Please specify the documentation that the current aircraft configuration's vulnerability to biological, chemical and conventional attack is compliant with.

Need to ask AMC. Additionally, the aircraft is vulneralbe to chemical and biological attacks, hence the reason for being able to operate the aircraft when using chem gear.

SRD 3.9.5.5.1 As stated the SRD equirement not to exceed the pilot/co-pilot task workload is not quantfiable, and therefore not testable. Please provide clarification/specificity to the requirement.

Both the FAA and USAF should be able to determine if offeror's solution set will exceed the workload that is permissible. It is not quantifiable at this time.

SRD 3.9.5.5.2 As stated the SRD requirement not to exceed the flight engineer task workload is not quantifiable, and therefore not testable.

Please provide clarification/specificity to the requirement.

We can only determine this once the modification configuration is determined

SRD 3.9.5.5.3 As stated the SRD requirement not to exceed the boom operator task workload is not quantifiable, and therefore not testable.

Please provide clarification/specificity to the requirement.

We can only determine this once the modification configuration is determined

Many requirements do not provide level definition as

THRESHOLD (T) or OBJECTIVE (O). Please consider adding requirement level definitions for all requirements to facilitate industry responses aligned as closely as possible to the needs of the government.

Noted.

SRD 3.2.2.3.1 GI&S - Please consider removing or redefining the phrase “and future” from SRD paragraph 3.2.2.3.1 as it is not possible to ensure compatibility with undefined future product changes.

Revised SRD clarifies.

SRD 3.2.2.4.1 Enhanced Auto Flight – Is the Flight Technical Error (FTE) value of the KC-10A autopilot system available as GFI?

No. I believe that FTE is a requirement of CNS/ATM. The value is determined from the avionics that is installed.

SRD 3.2.2.5.8 Zeroize – Please confirm that “standards intended to be material provided in 3.2.8.5?

Standard is referenced in para 3.2.8.5.

SRD 3.2.4.3.4.5 AMC – Will the currently defined AMC message sets be sufficient to satisfy KC-10 CNS/ATM requirements or are additional message set capabilities expected?

AMC platforms message sets are slightly different. AMC is planning on having the required messages and data elements required identified to the system program office by contract award.

SRD 3.2.4.4.3 The KC-10 shall transmit and receive commercial SATCOM

BLOS, CPDLC at pilot/copilot crew station. Please define the roadmap for future utilization of the IRIDIUM SATCOM system.

AMC has not defined a roadmap for future utilization of IRIDIUM SATCOM system across all its platforms. We are currently avaiting the approval of RCTA D0262A and the completion of any other applicable aeronautical updates to RCTA and ARINC standards. We will also be monitoring the commercial FAA Iridium trials to ensure FAA approves the use of

Iridium for CPDLC messages. According to OSD policy military users are required to get

Iridium service through DISA and all traffic must go through the DoD gateway. Currently we are not aware of any Datalink Service Provider (DSP) who has the capability to provide

COLDC or AOC capability through the DoD gateway. If a DSP service did exist through

DoD gateway, we would entertain using Iridium for "AOC messages" providing AMC platforms with a more reliable datalink capability in the polar regions. Once we're confident these concens resolved we may begin building a Iridium SATCOM roadmap.

SRD 3.2.5 Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) – Please define the government KC-10 roadmap with respect to equipment providing

Mode S capability and desired integration into CNS/ATM aircraft systems.

We currently have a Mode-S transponder(APX-119) which should meet the ADS-B requirement.

SRD 3.2.6.2

3.2.6.16

Any new displays should be NVIS compatible (OBJECTIVE).

6.2, 3.2.6.16 Color - Displays shall be NVIS compatible and shall present easily separable color coding. Please confirm that the

NVIS compatibility stated in paragraph 3.2.6.16 should be interpreted as a “should”, (OBJECTIVE) requirement to be compatible the requirement level specified in SRD paragraph

3.2.6.2.

Confirmed. The "shall" statement in 3.2.6.16 should be changed to "should".

SRD 3.9.4.5.3

3.9.4.5.4

Please identify the identification level (i.e., system, LRU, component level) that is expected for the capability defined in

SRD paragraphs 3.9.4.5.3 and 3.9.4.5.4.

LRU level.

General – What aircraft engineering and/or aircraft performance data should be expected to be available as GFI in support of the

KC-10A CNS/ATM upgrade?

KC-10 Tech Orders

SRD 1.1 Offeror requests that the Government consider that the secondary missions could impact the CNS/ATM EMI and TEMPEST requirements called out in this SRD. In the final RFP, please provide more information about the secondary systems.

EMI and TEMPEST testing should only be required of the installed equipment. I don't believe that any CNS/ATM equipment will interface with the secondary missions.

SRD 3.2.3.2 Offeror requests that the Government state if it requires military station keeping equipment with formation lights and special data link for horizontal and vertical offsets required for large formations and close formations of aircraft; or if it requires small aircraft formations with loose aircraft formations that can be met with commercial systems (e.g. ADS-B and TCAS/MASS).

I don't believe there is any new requirement for formation station keeping other than what is currently on the aircraft which uses ETCAS.

SRD 3.2.4.2.1.5 Offeror requests that the Government consider that in this requirement only "HF (up to secret) military voice" requires encryption. However, we susepct that the Government requires encryption for all mission data messages even for official use only.

It this assumption correct?

No requirement for secure/classified communications for this effort. All references to classified communications will be removed.

SRD 3.2.4.3.4.5 Offeror requests that the Government provide current AMC defined message sets with the final RFP.

Will be defined after contract award.

SRD 3.2.4.4.13.1 Offeror requests that the Government provide more clarification, indicating which intelligence systems the CNS/ATM-modified KC-

10 shall be capable of interoperation with in the final RFP.

I believe that would be the TACC for military operations. Enroute and terminal ATC facilities are both Air Force Bases and FAA/ICAO facilities.

SPO Note: Recommend removing "and intelligence system" from this SRD requirement. Rationale: The CNS/ATM program is not installing any classified datalink soultion which would included intelligence systems.

SRD 3.2.4.4.13.1.1 Offeror requests that the Government clarify, in the final RFP, which future systems the KC-10 will need to interoperate with, and which ones will need to be secure.

At this time, there is no requirement for secure communications. Revised SRD should clarify.

SRD 3.2.5.1.2 "should" is used. Is this truly an objective or should it be a requirement?

Changing should to shall.

SRD 3.2.6.2 This is an objective. Para. 3.2.5.1.2 makes NVIS compatibility a requirement.

Revised SRD should clarify the issue.

SRD 3.2.6.16 Expand and define the NVIS specification that applies in terms of color compatibility. "Easily" is not verifiable.

Displays need to meet FAA certification requirements.

SRD 3.2.8.4 Offeror requests that the Government clarify this requirement in the final RFP. Does this mean that with power off, the zeroize function still needs to work? Then the power cannot be off.

Are there other ways to zeroize without power? No other comment.

SRD 3.3.4 Define "Hazardous Materials and Ozone Depleting Substances." The Offeror needs to understand requirement.

SRD 3.1 Offeror requests that the Government consider placing this section in a SOW, rather than in the SRD.

The Offerors provide the CSOW and should address the requirements of this effort.

Offeror requests that the Government clarify whether or not this objective implies a formal R&M demo.

JRMET requirement is stated in SOO para 5.3.10.4 (version at Industry Day) formal R & M demo is not required or implied. JIAW AFI 99-103, the governments objective is to establish a JRMET which is a Government team. Contractor needed to support the DR process. The

JRMET will assist the PM in the collection, analysis, verification, and categorization of reliability, maintainability, and availability (RM&A) data. The JRMET may also review applicable DRs and recommend whether or not they should be closed. This process occurs primarily during DT/OT&E. Final SOO will be revised to clarify requirement.