Industry Questions-Responses_Part I.pdf

1 | P a g e

22-Dec-22

Industry Questions & Responses – Part I T-6A Texan II Avionics Replacement Program (ARP)

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS & RESPONSES:

1) CLIN 0032 Aircraft Spare Kit Buy. Recommend dividing spare kit purchases into A and

B kits, each separately priced. While LRUs from the B kit will need to be replaced from time to time, it would be a rare occasion to replace an aircraft’s wire harness. Recommend a minimal order of 6 spare A kits (one per operational site).

Response: The Government intends to continue with the current CLIN structure.

Minimum order for this anticipated contract is defined in FAR Clause 52.216-19.

2) RFP - CLIN 1022 Aircraft Kit Buy. Recommend dividing this CLIN into A for A kits and B for B kits. This facilitates delivery and payment for the contractor and their subcontractors; inventory management and component security during site installations as the two kits will be needed at different times during installation; and spare purchasing as the number of spare A kits needed (wire harnesses, brackets, etc.) should be a fraction of the number of desired B kits.

3) CLIN 1023 ATD Kit Buy. Recommend dividing this into 5 different CLINs representing the 5 types of ATDs and their associated quantities. The costs of these kits will vary greatly from one another, and depending on the delivery schedule of each kit, the price paid by the USG for individual kits could be significantly above or below that kit’s value. Additionally, should the government desire in the future to amend the number of kits ordered, determining a reasonable price for a particular type of ATD kit would be difficult with a “blended” price of 5 kit types?

CLIN 1023 ATD Kit Buys includes the OFT, IFT, and UTD trainers. ATD EPT and EST are currently under CLINs 1034-1035.

4) Referencing Attachment 2 – SOW, posted 16 November 2022 – Section 3.22, page 49, which states: “Heads-Up Display (HUD). This contract includes scope to add a Heads-Up Display requirement to the proposed solution during the term of the contract, inclusive of options. If the Government requires any additional work related to the HUD, the work will be bilaterally negotiated between the parties.” QUESTIONS: “Negotiated between

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

2 | P a g e parties” – could the Government please clarify who “the parties” are? For example, does it refer to the Government and the awarded prime contractor, or the prime contractor and their selected HUD provider? If it refers to the Government and the awarded prime contractor, then does the Government anticipate releasing an open competition RFP for HUD providers for this program? If yes, then could the Government offer a timeline when the RFI/RFP phases are scheduled to begin?

Response: The “parties” are the Government and the awarded prime contractor. If the Government chooses to utilize this anticipated contract for the HUD requirement, then the process would not be a full and open competition. The process would be sole source to the awarded prime contractor as HUD would be in scope of this effort.

5) The T-6A SOW references the PT-406 Gap Analysis. However, the Gap Analysis does not appear to be available in the Bidder’s Library or in the other materials provided by the Government. Will the Government make the Gap Analysis available to the Bidders?

And if so, when?

Response: The Government is reviewing this request. If the Government decides to include this document, a solicitation amendment would be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

6) Appendix I to the SOW is supposed to contain the OSD DDCA approved CSDR plan for the contract, however, there is no CSDR plan or content in SOW Appendix I. Does the USG intend to provide this information as an amendment to the SOW prior to the proposal due date? If not, is there any further definition of the CSDR scope required of offerors?

7) In Appendix E of the Attachment 2 – SOW, the Development Testing start is listed as 470 calendar days after contract award (ACA). The Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) Delivery is listed at 554 calendar days ACA. This implies that the USG Development Testing and the FAA Certification “Company” and “For Score” testing would take place at the same time over an 84-calendar day period. The FAA Certification process requires the following steps: Ground and flight test plan approvals, FAA Conformity of the test article to show it is built to the design, Company ground testing, Company flight testing, TIA, Certification ground testing, Certification flight testing, Certification reports, FAA review of reports, STC Issuance. QUESTIONS: 1) Experience show that for a modification of this size a nine (9) month time period is typical. Is the SOW schedule of approximately three (3) months the USG intent for this FAA process? 2) As a minimally disruptive alternative, since the STC is not “required” until kit production and installation, would the USG consider realigning the STC delivery timeline with kit installation?

3 | P a g e

Response: 1) No, it is the Government’s intent that the STC be delivered per the notional schedule in Appendix E. 2) No, the STC is required prior to Government ordering production kits.

8) SOW 3.14.4 & Appendix E. 3.14.4 states "The Contractor shall conduct CDR IAW IEEE 15288.2-2014 to help ensure that the detailed design for the system under review is adequate to proceed into fabrication, system integration, demonstration and test".

Appendix E has the Physical Prototype and PT-406 Fuselage Mock-Up A&B Kits Deliveries scheduled to deliver 32 days prior to CDR which conflicts with 3.14.4. The Contractor-proposed design will not be complete or approved prior to CDR. The fabrication data must also be approved by the FAA and the prototype kit inspected by an FAA-DAR prior to prototype installation. This schedule is not executable in its current form. Will the USG accept a revised Events and Milestones table that is executed within the Basic Period of the RFP?

Response: It is the Government’s intent for the contractor to have the Physical Prototype and PT-406 Fuselage Mock-Up A&B Kits available to the Government at least 32 days prior to CDR for Government review and any required follow-up at the contractor’s facility. This would allow the Government the ability to review and comment prior to holding CDR. The Government understands that the Physical Prototype and PT-406 Fuselage Mock-Up A&B Kits will not be approved until after CDR and will not have FAA approval at that time.

9) SOW 4.7. Ref: "The USG intends to provide... an IFR-6000 or updated replacement."

Will the USG also provide an IFR-4000 or equivalent NAV/COM test set?

Response: It is the intent of the Government to provide AVX-10K test sets (currently being qualified at Textron), which combine the capabilities of the IFR-4000 and IFR-6000.

10) SOW 4.7. Do the hangar spaces have GPS repeater coverage required to perform operational checks in the hangar?

Response: The hangers currently do not have GPS repeater coverage. It will be required for the Contractor to provide equipment necessary to perform this function.

11) SOW 4.15. Ref: "The Contractor shall be responsible for repair and inventories of all equipment at the Contractor's facility and USAF sites during ARP installation at all times. The Contractor shall return all equipment that supports integration and qualification testing throughout the development and production process to the USG upon contract completion in fully serviceable condition." Is the Contractor responsible to repair GFP at its expense for failures not caused by the Contractor? Example would be internal circuit board failure of an aging IFR-6000 test set?

4 | P a g e

Response: The test sets provided to the ARP Contractor will be a New IFR-6000 or equivalent test set and New Pitot Static test set. As such any internal failures should be covered by warranty or repaired through the Government COMBS contract. The Contractor will be responsible for neglect or misuse of the testing equipment which resulted in damage. Additionally, please reference FAR Clauses 52.245-1 and 52.245-9 and DFARS Clauses 252.245-7001 – 7004.

12) SOW 5.12.2. Ref: "The ASIL will be used as an engineering tool to validate proof-of-concept analysis for the T-6A ARP design and to support maturity assessment before CDR by providing a more tactile feel than the virtual crew station for the stakeholders."

When should the ASIL be delivered prior to CDR to help accomplish the published goal?

The deliverable date is not included in the Government's schedule.

Response: The ASIL shall be delivered in accordance with CLIN 0012.

13) SOW 5.14. Ref: "The Contractor shall produce two (2) Physical Prototype aircraft A-kits and B-kits (to be referred to as the Physical Prototype and the PT-406 fuselage from this point forward). The PT-406 fuselage prototype A-kit and B-kit shall be installed without modification in PT-406 fuselage for dimensional and proximity representation of aircraft.

The physical prototype A-Kit and B-Kit will be used for the first aircraft installation known as the Prototype installation." The A-Kits and B-Kits are manufactured using FAA approved data and FAA approval occurs after CDR. Is the Government asking offerors to provide the FAA cert plan and obtain FAA approved design data, produce A-kits according to this data, and then provide the data and A-Kits to the Government before CDR?

at least 32 days prior to CDR for Government review and any required follow-up at the contractor’s facility. This would allow the Government the ability to review and comment prior to holding CDR. The Government understands that the

14) SOW 5.14. Ref: "The Contractor shall produce two (2) Physical Prototype aircraft A-kits and B-kits (to be referred to as the Physical Prototype and the PT-406 fuselage from this point forward). The PT-406 fuselage prototype A-kit and B-kit shall be installed without modification in PT-406 fuselage for dimensional and proximity representation of aircraft.

The physical prototype A-Kit and B-Kit will be used for the first aircraft installation known as the Prototype installation." The A-Kits and B-Kits are manufactured using FAA approved data and FAA approval occurs after CDR. How does the Government expect these kits to be provided before the approved design is set, and what approval are offerors expected to use as the basis of manufacture? Are the offerors expected to produce the kits at risk since the data will not be approved until CDR?

5 | P a g e at least 32 days prior to CDR for Government review and any required follow-up at the contractor’s facility. This would allow the Government the ability to review and comment prior to holding CDR. The Government understands that the

15) SOW 5.16.1. Ref: "The USG expects T-6A ARP STC to comply with FAA Code of Federal Regulations 14 CFR 25.1701-1733". The airworthiness standards included within 14 CFR 25.1701-1733 apply to Transport category aircraft. The T-6A is not a Transport category aircraft. The FAA will not certify a Part 25 requirement for a Part 23 aircraft. We recommend the Government remove this requirement.

to remove this requirement, a solicitation amendment would be processed. Please

16) SOW 6.1/6.2. Will transfer of the aircraft/ATD to the Contractor via DD-1149 occur before the acceptance inspection is completed or after a successful (acceptable condition for ARP modification) acceptance inspection?

Response: Transfer of the aircraft/ATD to the Contractor via DD-1149 would occur after successful completion of acceptance inspection of the aircraft prior to the ARP modification.

17) Appendix B. Production installations are scheduled to start in the last 18 months of the Base Contract. There is also 18 months of unused time at the end of the Option Period.

Would the Government allow offerors to propose an alternative schedule which utilizes all 8 years effectively to ensure that all aircraft are modified in the time allotted?

Response: No, the current install schedule meets the Government’s requirement to address DMSMS issues with the current T-6A federated avionics system. The production installations for aircraft and ATD assets are scheduled to meet modification requirements while still meeting the USAF pilot production mission.

18) Appendix B. The current schedule has Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) and System Verification Review (SVR) occurring 228 days prior to the PRR, which is ahead of the Test Readiness Review and prior to Protype installation. Traditionally, the FCA and SVR occur after the testing period to ensure that the final configuration is tested and ready for the Production Readiness Review (PRR). Currently, the schedule has FCA and SVR occurring 228 days prior to the PRR, ahead of the Test Readiness Review (TRR) and prior to Prototype Installation. If the Government's intention that the Prototype Installation support both the FCA and SVR, should Offerors propose a schedule that allows for the audit and review to occur after Prototype Installation?

6 | P a g e to amend the SOW, a solicitation amendment would be processed. Please

19) Appendix C, Table 2. Previous Questions and Responses Part II, item 88 response stated, "Technical Orders with Illustrated Parts Catalogue will be provided". Attachment 2, SOW, Appendix C, Table 2, page 122-123 of the SOW includes TO A1-T6AAA-4, Illustrated Parts Catalog, T-6ABD Aircraft, 1T-6ABD-3, Structural Repair Manual, T- 6ABD Aircraft which are not included in the bidder’s library. Also, only partial maintenance manuals have been provided. Please add these aircraft maintenance, illustrated parts, and structural repair manuals to the bidders' library. The information contained within these manuals affects the data that is needed to provide offeror proposals and will enable bidders to determine what is needed from OEMs such as Textron and Pratt & Whitney?

to include these documents and can release, a solicitation amendment would be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

20) Controlled Attachment 18a, SOW Appendix C, Table 2. Please confirm the Contractor will have access to all of the data listed in Technical Manual 1T-6ABD-01, List of Applicable Publications, T-6ABD Aircraft?

21) Controlled Attachment 18a, SOW Appendix C, Table 2. Ref: Technical Manual 1T- 6ABD-01, List of Applicable Publications, we request TO A1-T6AAA-NFM-100, Flight Manual, T-6A Aircraft be added to the Bidder's Library.

22) Please advise where the Illustrated Parts Catalog is located on www.SAM.gov?

Response: Due to file size constraints on www.SAM.gov, the Illustrated Parts Catalog is located in the attachments to Notice ID: FA8106-23-R-0001, under Attachment 18e and 18f. Please reference 19 December 2022 update.

23) The PPI Tool Download Instruction Word document is not on the solicitation posting.

Will the Government be providing this document?

7 | P a g e

24) Can the Government please provide the following per the T-6A ARP Solicitation

FA8106-23-R-0001, Attachment 16? Government Furnished Information: Avionics Replacement Program Crew Station Working Group Charter, Version 1, dated 25 August 2021.

Response: Government Furnished Information (GFI) is furnished to the awardee during contract performance at the time specified in the GFI Attachment.

25) In FA810623R0001 SRD, the Basic Period is identified as 2 Nov 2023 – 1 Nov 2027.

However, Attachment 4 – Pricing Matrix indicates the Basic Period is 1 Sep 23 – 31 Aug

25. Please confirm the correct Basic Period.

to edit this document, a solicitation amendment would be processed. Please

26) Attachment 4 - Pricing Matrix, 'CLINs 0022, 1022, 0024, and 1024. Quantities for CLINs 0022, 1022, 0024, and 1024 do not match proposed quantities and notional schedule referenced on page 108 of the SOW. Will the government please amend Attachment 4- Pricing Matrix to reflect the actual quantities and notional schedule for Aircraft Production Kit Buys and Aircraft Production Kit Installations?

Response: The quantities listed in Attachment 4 – Pricing Matrix are Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) for evaluation purposes only. The Government has provided quantities in the optimal years based on the expected schedule.

However, for some CLINs the total evaluation quantity may exceed the BEQ to ensure a price is proposed in all years for evaluation purposes and in case the expected schedule should change.

27) Attachment 4 - Pricing Matrix 'CLINs 0023, 1023, 0025, & 1025. Quantities for CLINs 0023, 1023, 0025, and 1025 do not match proposed quantities and notional schedule referenced on page 108 of the SOW. Will the government please amend Attachment 4- Pricing Matrix to reflect the actual quantities and notional schedule for ATD Production Kit Buys and ATD Kit Installations?

provided quantities in the optimal years based on the expected schedule.

However, for some CLINs the total evaluation quantity may exceed the BEQ to

8 | P a g e

28) Attachment 4 - Pricing Matrix 'CLINs 0032, 1032, 0033, & 1033. Quantities for CLINs 0032, 1032, 0033, and 1033 do not match proposed quantities and notional schedule referenced on page 108 of the SOW. Will the government please amend Attachment 4- Pricing Matrix to reflect the actual quantities and notional schedule for Aircraft Spare Kits and ATD Spare Kits?

provided quantities in the optimal years based on the expected schedule.

However, for some CLINs the total evaluation quantity may exceed the BEQ to

29) SRD 3.1, 3.5.10.2, 3.5.19, 3.5.21.2, 3.5.22, 3.5.25, 3.6.7.2, 3.8. There are several SRD threshold requirements that have been removed from the Section L Engineering Tables (example, 3.1, The design and installation of the Avionics System shall meet Title 14 CFR FAA Part 23 and Part 91 regulations.). As these are Thresholds and not Exceedances or Objectives are they still minimum requirements? If so, why were they removed from the SF1 Threshold Compliance tab? Or will they be removed from the

SRD?

Response: The Contractor must meet all the requirements of the anticipated contract, which include but are not limited to all the requirements listed in the SOW and the SRD. For source selection purposes, only a subset of the SRD Threshold requirements and Objectives are being evaluated.

30) SRD, Table 1. The T-6A ARP Industry Day Brief slides from 7 MAR 22 lists the existing Accelerometer Indicator / G meter as a DMSMS item on slide Instrument Panel Replacement Candidates, item 35. This item is not listed in Table 1 of the SRD. Is this item to be replaced?

Response: If it is not listed in the SRD then there is not a requirement to replace it.

31) Attachment 6 – ITO Attachment 1.1, Past Performance Information (PPI), page 30, #6, Figure 4, indicates that we have two options to submit Past Performance (PP) data. Those options are, (1) the Offeror submits all PPI, or (2) the Offeror and Individual Subcontractors will each submit their own. Can the Prime submit their own PP data along with some of the teammate’s PP data, and those teammates who treat their PP data as sensitive information submit their own PP data directly?

9 | P a g e

Response: Offerors will need to select either option (1) the Offeror Prime will be entering Past Performance data for all subcontractors or option (2) the Prime and individual subcontractors will each enter their own Past Performance data.

32) Please clarify that Factor 1 Subfactor 1, 2, 4, and 5 are not included in the 50-page count, but Subfactor 3 and Factor 2 Technical Risk are included in the 50-page count.

Response: Attachment 6 – Section L, Table 2.1, pages 3-5 delineate the Proposal Organization and page limitations. On page 4, this table states that Factor 1, Subfactors 1 - 5 are included in the 50-page limit. The asterisks (*) represent portions of these subfactors that are not included in the 50-page limit. For example, Section L EN Tables, IMP/IMS, Airworthiness Plan, etc.

33) Reference Section L, 2.6, Electronic Offers, page 9: “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 365 Word, MS Office 365 Excel, MS Office 365 Power Point, and Adobe PDF. Note PDF files must be searchable and able to copy and paste.” CDRL A008 directs Contractors to deliver the IMS in both Microsoft Project and PDF formats. May Offerors provide the draft IMS required by Section L 4.a) in Microsoft Project?

Response: CDRL A008 delivery requirements are effective after the anticipated contract award. Please provide electronic copies of the proposal, including the IMS, in the formats stated in Section L, 2.6.

34) Instructions To Offerors (Section L) 2.3.3, Names. Should Offerors include their name in the file name (ex: Volume I - Technical - Offeror XXX.doc or docx, Volume II - Past Performance - Offeror XXX.doc or docx, Volume III - Price - Offeror XXX.doc or docx, and Volume IV - Contract - Offeror XXX.doc or docx)?

Response: No, please follow the naming convention stated in Attachment 6 – Section L, 2.3.3.

35) Instructions To Offerors (Section L) 2.3.3, Names. Should Offerors add "Original" to the file name to allow the Government to easily identify the electronic files (ref: 2.6)?

Response: No, please follow the naming convention stated in Attachment 6 – Section L, 2.3.3. Per Attachment 6 – Section L, 2.6, “Original” proposal information shall be clearly identified for amendment purposes to the proposal.

36) Instructions To Offerors (Section L) Table 2.1, ITO Paragraph 3.2.6. "Subfactor 4 Schedule *IMP/IMS, Airworthiness Plan, Associate Contractor Agreements/Letters of Intent, technical approach and previous examples without ACAs, and installation plans unlimited (not included in 50 Page limit)." Please confirm that all aspects of ITO 3.2.6 are subject to the 50-page limit except for a) IMP/IMS (3.2.6 a)), b) Draft Airworthiness Plan (3.2.6 d)), c) Associate Contractor Agreements, Letters of Intent, Technical

10 | P a g e

Approach and Previous Examples Without ACAs (3.2.6 e)), d) Aircraft and ATD Installation Plans (3.2.6 g)?

Subfactors 1 - 5 are included in the 50-page limit. The asterisks (*) represent

37) Instructions To Offerors (Section L) '2.3.4, Page Limitations. The last sentence of this section references a Proposal Organization Chart, but there is no clarifying information or reference for the placement of this chart. What is the Government requesting, and which volume and section should the chart be placed in?

Response: The Proposal Organization Chart referenced in Attachment 6 – Section L, 2.3.4 is in reference to Table 2.1 Proposal Organization located in Attachment 6 – Section L, Table 2.1, pages 3-5.

38) Instructions To Offerors (Section L) 'Table 2.1, Subfactors 1, 2 and 5, EN Tables.

Should Offerors provide (i) the applicable tabs from the Controlled Section L EN tables within the specified sections; (ii) provide the tables as an appendix in MS Word or Adobe at the end of the Technical Volume; or (iii) should the Excel file be submitted as an accompanying artifact with the Technical Volume?

Response: Please reference Attachment 6 – Section L, Table 2.1 Proposal Organization for instructions on proposal organization. The EN Tables can be provided in acceptable formats stated in Section L, 2.6. The EN Tables can be provided as an appendix or as an artifact.

39) Instructions To Offerors (Section L) '6.3.4, Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes and Applicable Designations. Section 6.3.4 specifies that Offers should provide DUNS codes, not Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) codes. Is this correct, or should the UEI be provided instead of, or in addition to, DUNS?

40) Instructions To Offerors (Section L), 'ITO Attachment 1.1. Steps 14 and 15 of the instructions identify a requirement to provide DUNS Numbers. Will Offerors be required to enter DUNS or has the tool been modified to reflect UEI codes?

11 | P a g e

41) Instructions To Offerors (Section L) 'ITO Attachment 2.0, Proposed Team List. The template on page 48 specifies DUNS Numbers for Offerors and Subs/Teaming Contractors. Should Offerors replace DUNS Numbers with UEI Numbers or add UEI numbers to the list?

42) Section L EN Tables - SF1 tab, line 7. The SOW and SF1 EN Table states "...FAA Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) components shall be utilized to support the Avionics Replacement Program (ARP) effort if available." What is the meaning of "if available", as this is a Y/N threshold compliance item?

Response: The Government expects a proven solution made up of existing components, and therefore expects a majority of these components to have already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component is not required, it is understood that the contractor's effort to adapt existing solutions to the T-6A aircraft may require some components to be modified.

43) Section L EN Tables - SF1 tab, line 7. Does this mean the Government prefers a solution that uses already TSOA items?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

44) Section L EN Tables - SF1 tab, line 7. Does it mean the items should be able to be TSOA approved?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

12 | P a g e

45) Section L EN Tables - SF1 tab, line 7. Does it mean TSOA should be obtained if there is a TSOA that applies to each LRU?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

46) Section L EN Tables - SF1 tab, line 7. Does the Offeror need to propose a solution with all existing TSOA components to mark this as "Y" for Full Compliance?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

47) Section M, '2.2.4(a) The Bidder does not believe that the Notional Production Planning Schedule in SOW Appendix B and the number of days after contract award for Events and Milestones in Appendix E are executable. Will the Government accept an optimized IMS and Events and Milestones with different days after contract award for Events and Milestones as long as the events and milestones are completed within the respective base and option order periods?

48) Section M, Evaluation Factors '2.2.4(a). Ref: answer to Pre-Solicitation Conference Industry Questions-Responses Part VII, Question 17: "See response to Question 10 a. in RFI II Section I, posted 19 Nov 2021 to SAM.gov. It has been the USGs intent for a TMRR/EMD phase completing within 18 to 24 months after contract award. It remains the Government’s intent to continue with this strategy.” The reference to RFI II Section I was a question the Government asked industry to propose during the RFI stage. It does not provide any insight into the question 17. Would the Government consider a more optimized milestone schedule within the proposed Base and Option contract periods of performance?

13 | P a g e

49) Section M, Evaluation Factors, '1.8; 2.1.3 and 2.2.5b) Section M, 1.8 states "For SRD requirements where the Offeror’s approach is not in full compliance with the threshold requirements, the Offeror’s approach will be evaluated as part of Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 5b. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award." This seems to conflict with 2.1.3 which states "Offerors who indicate an “N” in the Full Compliance column for any requirement will be determined as “does not meet requirements” in Subfactor 1(a). In this instance, the Government will document the deficiency in Subfactor 1(a). The Offeror will not be provided an opportunity to correct any deficiency identified in Subfactor 1(a) as part of discussions. The Offeror will be determined Unacceptable in Subfactor 1 based on any identified deficiency in Subfactor 1(a), which will thus make the Offeror also Unacceptable in Factor 1 Technical and therefore ineligible for award.

The Government will not evaluate the remainder of the Offeror’s proposal for Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Technical Risk, Factor 3 Past Performance, or Factor 4 Price. In instances where a requirement is blank and is not marked as “Y” or “N”, the Government will evaluate the blank as “N” and the same evaluation methodology described above will apply. At the conclusion of the Initial Evaluation, in the event the Government conducts an award without discussions, Offerors who are determined Unacceptable for Factor 1 Technical, based on a deficiency in Subfactor 1(a) will be unawardable. In the event the Government determines discussions are necessary, Offerors with an evaluated deficiency in Subfactor 1(a) will be excluded from the Competitive Range." Paragraph 2.2.5 b) addresses SF5, not SF1. Please clarify whether an "N" or blank for SRD thresholds will be evaluated as part of 2.2.5b, or whether Offeror proposals will be ineligible for award as stated paragraph 2.1.3.

Response: Section M, 1.8, “For SRD requirements where the Offeror’s approach is not in full-compliance with the threshold requirements, the Offeror’s approach will be evaluated as part of Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 5b.” only applies to threshold requirements of Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 5. This statement does not apply to Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 1. Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 1 will be evaluated as outlined in Section M. The requirements outlined in Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 1 and Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 5 do not overlap.

50) Ref: Section L, 2.6, Electronic Offers, page 9: "The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 365 Word, MS Office 365 Excel, MS Office 365 Power Point, and Adobe PDF. Note PDF files must be searchable and able to copy and paste." CDRL A008 directs Contractors to deliver the IMS in both Microsoft Project and PDF formats. May Offerors provide the draft IMS required by Section L 4.a) in Microsoft Project?

14 | P a g e

Response: CDRL A008 delivery requirements are effective after the anticipated contract award. Please provide electronic copies of the proposal, including the IMS, in the formats stated in Section L, 2.6.

51) Should travel costs associated with installation be included as part of the firm fixed price bid or will it be separated as a reimbursable cost?

Response: All anticipated travel costs should be bid as part of the Firm Fixed- Price contract. CLIN 0026 and 1026 is only for unforeseen travel required by the Government.

52) Will subcontractor travel requirements be treated the same as the prime under CLIN 0026 or should the travel costs be included in the firm fixed price bid?

53) How can companies obtain access to the controlled documents?

Response: Please reference instructions for controlled document access on Notice ID: FA8106-23-R-0001 description and on pages 3-4 of the solicitation FA8106- 23-R-0001.

54) The originally anticipated award date appears to have slipped from 1 Sep 23 to 1 Nov 23.

Is this to allow time for extensions?

Response: The Government has pressed and will continue to press for a Fiscal Year 2023 4th Quarter award, but this will be dependent upon proposals, evaluations, and possible discussions. No extensions are anticipated at this time.

The offerors should intend to provide their best proposal by the 1 Feb 2023 due date.

55) Section L, Paragraph 6.1.1. Solicitation/Contract form. This paragraph states “The ‘original’ copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes.” This proposal is being submitted via DODSAFE, so this requirement is not applicable. Please delete this sentence from Section L.

Response: The Government does not intend on removing this requirement as it applies to electronic submissions.

56) FA8106-23-R-0001, Travel G&A (FFP) CLIN 0026 and CLIN 1026 refer to SOW 15.0.

SOW 15.0 reads “in the event the USG requires additional travel other than what is

15 | P a g e currently included under this SOW, the USG will issue a task order directing contractor support. The contractor shall bill IAW CLIN 0026 and 1026.” SOW 3.14 Meeting Support Aircraft and UTDs, paragraph 4 reads: “The contractor shall conduct the meetings and reviews listed in Table 3-1. The contractor conducted meetings shall be held at the contractor facility or USG approved alternative (in-person, teleconference, and/or virtual).” Table 3-1 represents a notional schedule. SOW Table 3-1 (Contractor Conducted Meetings – Technical Reviews) Shows a lot of notional travel for vendors.

Will there be a CRNF CLIN for travel approved by the PCO? Travel is all throughout the SOW but the only CLIN is for Travel G&A.

15 DECEMBER 2022 INDUSTRY DAY AT SHEPPARD AFB QUESTIONS &

RESPONSES:

1) How is ground power utilized on each base in the hangers in which installations occur?

Will the awardee be competing for power resources?

Response: Yes, the Contractor will be competing with T-6 Maintenance for hanger power. Ground carts could be required at times and will be made available.

2) Are jacks and tow bars provided by each base?

Response: Yes.

3) Is there available office space in the hangers?

Response: No. Tables may be utilized in the available spots but will not be provided by the Government.

4) Will DCMA be accepting completed installs?

Response: No, Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) will be present on base to inspect and accept each aircraft after installation.

5) Will maintenance on the aircraft be going on at the same time as the ARP installation?

Response: Not on the aircraft(s) that are being worked by the ARP contractor.

6) Is each base set up the same as Sheppard AFB?

16 | P a g e

Response: A similar space will be provided at each base, but each base has a different set up. The awardee will be required to survey each base after award of the contract prior to starting of installations.

7) Are there lockable boxes available at each base?

Response: The Government is investigating the possibility of lockable storage boxes to be made available in the modification area. There is the possibility that the lockable storage boxes could be in different locations at each base.

8) Will at list of all attendees be posted to www.SAM.gov?

Response: No, any teaming arrangement is proprietary to each company.

9) Will all attendees receive a list of who the other attendees were at this Industry Day?

Response: No, any teaming arrangement is proprietary to each company.

10) Do the hangar spaces have GPS repeater coverage required to perform operational checks in the hangar?

Response: The hangers currently do not have GPS repeater coverage. It will be required for the Contractor to provide equipment necessary to perform this function.

11) What interactions were allowed during Industry Day? Was there an opportunity for questions and answers? Was there a briefing/presentation? Will offerors have a chance to view an aircraft?

Response: The Industry Day at Sheppard AFB was presented as an opportunity for offerors to view the aircraft and hanger space. Due to time constraints, nature of the facility, and the highly competitive nature of this requirement, neither the Government briefing, nor a question and answer (Q&A) session was offered at that time, but offerors were welcomed to submit any questions they may have to the PCO, Stephanie Tinnin. Ms. Tinnin will then sanitize the questions for identifying information and post the answers to www.SAM.gov. Yes, there was an opportunity to view an aircraft during the Industry Day at Sheppard AFB.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON PREVIOUS INDUSTRY QUESTIONS & RESPONSES:

1) Referencing Pre-solicitation Conference Industry Questions-Responses – Part VII released 21 November 2022, Question 15 response on page 11 in the Technical Section which states: “15) Would avionics equipment (TRL-7 or higher) that will have been flown and operated successfully on an aircraft of similar size and weight that is scheduled to begin the aircraft certification process in CY23 be considered? Response: No. The

17 | P a g e avionics suite must be FAA certified on an existing aircraft prior to submittals to the Final RFP.” The response to Questions 15 above establishes that FAA certification is required prior to proposal submission. This is a stricter requirement that conflicts with TRL-7. QUESTION: Is this an intended update to Section L Instructions to Offerors, Section 3.2.7 Subfactor 5? If not, can the Government please clarify?

Response: The avionics equipment must be TRL-7 or higher at the time the proposal is submitted, not a future date.

2) Referencing Pre-solicitation Conference Industry Questions-Responses – Part VII released 21 November 2022, Question 15 response on page 11 in the Technical Section which states: “15) Would avionics equipment (TRL-7 or higher) that will have been flown and operated successfully on an aircraft of similar size and weight that is scheduled to begin the aircraft certification process in CY23 be considered? Response: No. The avionics suite must be FAA certified on an existing aircraft prior to submittals to the Final RFP.” QUESTION: If this requirement still pertains, does this mean that each component submitted as part of the avionics suite must already be FAA certified on an existing aircraft prior to submittals to the final RFP? Or is it required for the entire Avionics Suite to be FAA certified as a complete system prior to submittals to the final

RFP?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

3) Referencing question 2 above, if the entire Avionics Suite does require FAA certification prior to proposal submission, how does this requirement reconcile with the wording in section 3.0 of the SOW “The Contractor’s proposed solution shall be FAA certified via STC for use in all USAF T-6A aircraft within twenty-two (22) months of contract award.”?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

4) Part IV of the pre-solicitation conference Q&A indicated that this was an error in the draft SOW: 57) The SOW indicates that the FCA will be conducted prior to Kit Proof. Is this the Government’s intent? Response: No, FCA should occur after Kit Proof installation. QUESTION: The pre-solicitation conference Q&A indicated that FCA/SVR should be held after Kit Proof is completed. Appendix E in the final SOW still shows FCA occurring 99 days prior to Kit Proof start. Can the Government provide an updated Appendix E that reflects the correct phasing and timeline of these events?

18 | P a g e

Response: The FCA shall be conducted after the completion of the Prototype

Developmental Testing (DT). The Government is reviewing the request for an updated Appendix E of the SOW. If the Government decides to edit this document, a solicitation amendment would be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

5) (Industry Questions-Responses_Part I Question) In "Pre-Solicitation Conference Questions & Responses - Part VII" dated 21 Nov 2022 the following response was provided to Technical Question 15: "No. The avionics suite must be FAA Certified on an existing aircraft prior to submittals to the Final RFP". If this requirement still pertains, does this mean that each component submitted as part of the avionics suite must already be FAA certified on an existing aircraft prior to submittals to the Final RFP? Or is it required for the entire Avionics Suite to be FAA certified as a complete system prior to submittals to the final RFP?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

6) (Industry Questions-Responses_Part I Question) In reference to the previous question, if the entire Avionics Suite does require FAA certification prior to proposal submission, how does this requirement reconcile with the wording in section 3.0 of the SOW "The Contractor’s proposed solution shall be FAA certified via STC for use in all USAF T-6A aircraft within twenty-two (22) months of contract award."?

already obtained a TSOA. However, a current TSOA for every single component

7) (Industry Questions-Responses_Part I Question) Please clarify that Factor 1 Subfactor 1, 2, 4 and 5 are not included in the 50-page count, but Subfactor 3 and Factor 2 Technical Risk are included in the 50-page count.

Subfactors 1 - 5 are included in the 50-page limit. The asterisks (*) represent

19 | P a g e

8) Regarding Q&A answers: “Overview Questions” #2 and “Technical Questions” #37, will the Government be able to provide Points of Contact (POCs) for the Component Vendors from whom we are to obtain LOIs/ACAs?

Response: The USG does not possess or intend to publish a list of POCs requests.

Please submit Questions to Stephanie Tinnin at stephanie.tinnin.1@us.af.mil and Gale VanDeventer at gale.vandeventer@us.af.mil.