Industry Questions-Responses_Part II.pdf

1 | P a g e

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

26-Jan-23

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

1) SRD Objective Requirements and Government Q&A Part VI Question 4 and 5. The previous responses to the questions create more confusion about Objective Requirements that remained in the SRD but are not in the Engineering Tables. The Answer to Question 4 and 5 (Part VI Sect L/M Questions) says Objectives in the SRD but not in the Engineering Tables are "Desirable" but then Question 5 response says they will not be part of evaluation of SF2b. Since SF2b is the only scored subfactor it is impossible for the evaluator to give an offeror any Strength (credit, benefit, higher score) for providing those desirable requirements. For example, providing "space for a HUD" is a huge benefit to the Government for future upgradeability to add a HUD but providing this space and the cost of the interfaces to the offer seems like a waste of time and cost because the Government cannot score that benefit in any way. QUESTION: Will the Government please reconsider modifying the Engineering Tables for Objectives to match all Objectives in the SRD so they can be scored in SF2b and achieve the "desirable" results?

Response: The Engineering Table in Section L will be used for evaluation purposes but does not include all SRD Objectives. The SRD Objectives not evaluated in Section L will not be deleted from the SRD because they are desirable. Some of the SRD requirements which been removed from the Section L EN Tables, tab SF2b Objective Compliance, will not be considered as part of the evaluation of SF2b Objective Compliance.

Please see Section M, Section 1.8, Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions): “Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, System Requirements Documents (SRD), and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, other than those identified as factors and subfactors. Requirements included in the factors and subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with the process described for each factor and subfactor. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. 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.”

2 | P a g e

2) Pricing Tables and Q&A Part VII Dated Nov 21 – Contracting Questions #18. In order to be absolutely clear and make sure all bidders bid the same scope for each CLIN, can the Government clarify one more time that CLINs with recurring quantities in multiple years must have the total amount required bid for each Qty in each year? Using CLIN 011 EMD as an example, if the bid for the multi-year EMD CLIN 011 is $X, then cells E20 should have $X, F20 should have $X, and G20 should have $X (plus any minor inflation impacts for F20 and G20). QUESTION: Is that correct?

Response: Government requires offerors price the entire price for efforts that occur once per the SOW and not spread the cost out across periods. For example, EMD 1 for Aircraft (CLIN 0011) may be ordered when PDR is complete, but the timing on when CLIN 0011 is ordered is dependent to when PDR is completed.

Therefore, CLIN 0011 could be ordered in Base Year 1, Base Year 2, or Base Year 3.

3) Pricing Tables and Q&A Part VII Dated Nov 21 – Contracting Questions #17 and #18 – CLIN 011 for EMD. CLIN 011 for EMD has a quantity 1 in Basic Period 1, Period 2, and Period 3. The Government says the reason for this is “…the schedule is notional and may change due to funding, aircraft availability, or other reasons at the Government’s convenience.” Using CLIN 011 EMD as an example, this pricing structure allows the start of EMD to be delayed by more than 18 months after TMRR. QUESTION: If the Government has a funding issue, does the contractor need to have a plan to stand down our entire engineering team after we complete TMRR 2 (PDR) in the planned 7 months for 18 months before we can expect EMD to be funded at which time we have to re-stand up the entire team?

Response: EMD 1 for Aircraft (CLIN 0011) may be ordered when PDR is complete, but the timing on when CLIN 0011 is ordered is dependent to when PDR is completed. Therefore, CLIN 0011 could be ordered in Base Year 1, Base Year 2, or Base Year 3 based on the contractor’s PDR completion. As this effort is an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract, orders may be placed as required by the Government and subject to the availability of funding.

4) SOW Appendix B – Schedule. The ATD Monthly Install Schedule does match the stated goals stated in Section 7.3 ATD Installation Program; “As such, the Contractor’s ATD ARP retrofit strategy and schedule shall be required to match the aircraft retrofit schedule such that the ratio between ARP retrofitted aircraft and ARP retrofitted ATDs will allow students training in ARP equipped aircraft to also train in ARP equipped ATDs so that students will not have to train in dissimilar legacy aircraft and ATDs during the period of retrofit. To meet this requirement, the Contractor shall retrofit ATDs at more than one (1) base at a time.” The monthly schedule in Appendix B shows Laughlin, Vance and Columbus being done first in the first 2 years and Sheppard, Randolph, and Pensacola

3 | P a g e being done in the last 2 years but that does not match the Aircraft installs which are 2 per month equal at all bases over the course of 4 years. QUESTION: Is it correct to assume the ATD Monthly install schedule should be modified to show all six locations being installed with an equal spread over the entire 4 years to match aircraft upgrades?

Response: No, it is incorrect to assume that the ATD Monthly install schedule will be modified. The Government’s schedule identifies the requirement to execute this effort and to meet Government’s specific mission requirements.

5) SOW, SRD and Engineering Tables. The Government recently added the SOW 3.22

Heads-Up Display (HUD) as a potential addition in the future to be negotiated later. The SRD and Engineering Tables deleted the Objective requirement to leave space (high up) and interfaces for a HUD. In order to minimize the cost of this future upgrade, it should be put back in as an Objective Requirement into the Engineering Tables so it can be scored as a benefit to the offer. Otherwise, the Government has no way to give an offer a strength (benefit or credit) who puts in the interfaces and space to make the future HUD upgrade a reasonable upgrade. QUESTION: Will the Government put back the Objective requirement for space and interfaces for a HUD.

Response: The Government does not have a requirement for HUD at this time.

6) Subfactor 3 Digital Engineering. The current (b) calls out SOW Section 5.1 for the SEMP description but the SEMP requirements in the SOW is Section 5.2. QUESTION: Did the Government really mean to call out Section 5.2 instead of 5.1?

Response: The description of the SEMP is in SOW Section 5.2, but the SEMP is required to meet the requirements in SOW Section 5.1, Digital Engineering per Section M, 2.2.3 (b).

7) SRD 3.6.3 CFIT-P. During the Q&A the Air Force released an additional RFI for

Configurable TAWS based on the training mission set. This is a critical capability and safety feature needed on the T-6A. However, the final SRD requires TSOd C-151C TAWS which does not allow Configurability so it cannot be offered. QUESTION: Can the Government add an Objective Requirement for Configurable TAWS?

Response: The Government does not have a requirement for a

Configurable TAWS at this time.

8) SOW Section 5.14 PT-406 Fuselage Modification (Aircraft Only). SOW 5.14 refers to a Gap Analysis for the PT-406 but the Bidders Library does not seem to have this document. QUESTION: Can the Government provide this document. "The state of the remains of T-6A serial number PT-406 is described in "Gap Analysis for JPATS T-6 Texan II" Rev 000 dated 14 September 2020."

4 | P a g e

Response: Gap Analysis was incorporated into the RFP under amendment FA8106-23-R-0001-0002 posted 27 December 2022 to www.SAM.gov. Please refer to RFP Attachment 18g_Bidders_Library_Aircraft_CONTROLLED.

9) Concerning CNS ATM Certification, which matrices have been identified to be applicable and required to be complied with for the T-6 upgrade?

Response: ARP will be FAA certified in accordance with the SRD.

10) SOW Section 5.5 Reliability. QUESTION: In order to properly complete our Reliability

Analysis, can the Government please provide the standard Flying hours in a year for a T- 6A? We have heard two different numbers of 400 hours and 600 hours but not sure which one the Air Force would like us to use for this proposal.

Response: The Government suggests utilizing 500 flying hours per year as the goal.

11) SOW Section 5.1.3. SOW 5.1.3 says the contractor shall design, incorporate, and maintain a style guide based on SSC MBSE Style Guide and the model shall have “validation rule sets” to enable automated System Engineering Technical Reviews and Audits, Milestones, Certifications, and Integrity Programs. QUESTION: Will the customer provide a MBSE model containing a validation rule set that accompanies the SSC Style guide?

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

12) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_6.2_Aircraft_Induction. Question: Is the contractor required to perform an aircraft pressurization check? If yes, at what phase?

Response: The Government will run a pressurization check prior to delivery of aircraft to the contractor with the canopy and ejection seats removed. The contractor will be invited to have a representative witness the pressurization check. The Government will not delay the pressurization check if the contractor cannot have a representative available but will provide the completed pressurization test results to the contractor.

13) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_6.2_Aircraft_Induction. Question: Will the Government describe the induction/handover procedure between Government and Contractor?

Response: Induction/handover procedure between Government and Contractor will be completed via DD Form 1149 IAW DoDI 4161.02.

5 | P a g e

14) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_4.14_Calibration_&_4.7_Base_Site_Survery. Question:

Will the Government provide the full list of GFP and GFE made available to the Contractor during installation?

Response: The full list of GFP is listed in Attachment 5. The Government may add to this list, if necessary, but it is not the Government’s intent at this time.

15) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_4.7_Base_Site_Survey. Question: Is storage provided on site for both parts to be installed and parts pulled from the aircraft during installation?

What is the turnover process for parts that are permanently removed?

Response: Yes, storage is provided in accordance with SOW Para 3.9, “no less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to commencement of aircraft installations, the Government will provide disposition instructions for the specifically named LRUs to be returned. The Contractor shall make a delivery to the COMBS contractor at the end of each day the LRUs that have been removed during the modification that day.”

16) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_3.9_Property_Management. Question: Will the

Government provide the disposition instruction for parts pulled from aircraft during installation?

Response: Yes, storage is provided in accordance with SOW Para 3.9, “no less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to commencement of aircraft installations, the Government will provide disposition instructions for the specifically named LRUs to be returned. The Contractor shall make a delivery to the COMBS contractor at the end of each day the LRUs that have been removed during the modification that day.”

17) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_6.4_Aircraft_Modification. Question: Will the

Government describe the process and procedures for submittal of electrical/structural issues identified during installation?

Response: For existing electrical/structural issues, in accordance with SOW

Para 6.4, “The Contractor shall report any identified damage to the Government. The Contractor shall provide a list of affected aircraft installation areas. The Contractor shall only gain access to areas of the aircraft required to complete this modification.”

18) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_4.3_Support_Tools. Question: Will the Government provide a list of all special or peculiar tools made available during installation?

Response: There are no special or peculiar tools required for the legacy systems for the T-6A. The Government is providing test sets as Government furnished property (GFP). Please refer to Attachment 5 - GFP.

6 | P a g e

19) Reference: FA8106-23-R-0001_Part_1. Question: Section B, Item 2, Page 11 says 1 each, but the price worksheet says 2 each for CLIN 0012; will the Government clarify?

Response: Please refer to Page 4 of the RFP (e) “Proposal prices are NOT to be provided in Schedule B. Please include proposed prices for all Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINS) on the CLIN Pricing Matrix, Attachment 4.”

The quantities listed in the 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.

20) Reference: FA8106-23-R-0001_Part_1_Section_B_Item_30_Page_36. Question: Does the shipping plug for CLIN 0030 include ship to and from point of origin as well as UTD ship costs?

Response: CLIN 0030 is for shipping and transportation for PT-406 & ATD 003.

21) Reference: FA8106-23-R-0001. Question: Government Ombudsman- can the

Government issue a name vice just a phone number?

Response: The number provided is for an office and not an individual, therefore, a name cannot be provided.

22) Reference: Attachment_6_Section_L. Question: When will the PPI Tool be made available?

Response: The PPI Tool Download Instructions are an attachment to the RFP.

Please see Amendment FA8106-23-R-0001-0002, Attachment 20.

23) FA8106-23-R-0001, Statement of Work, Appendix C. What type of coordination needs to be accomplished with NAVAIR on Joint Technical Order? Examples of Joint Technical Orders are TO1T-6A-1CL-1, TO 1T-6A-2-110, TO 1T6ABD-2-5.

Response: Coordination will not be required with NAVAIR. All Maintenance

Technical Orders are joint manuals (Navy T6A & T6B, Army T6D, and US Air Force T6A). At this time ARP will only apply to USAF T-6A Aircraft. The Contractor must create new Technical Orders (TOs) in accordance with TMCR to support the T-6A ARP requirements for the following:

T-6A Flight Manual T-6A Pilot's Abbreviated Flight Crew Checklist T-6A Aircraft T-6A Acceptance and Functional Check Flight Procedures Manual T-6A Acceptance and/or Functional Check Flight Checklist

7 | P a g e

T-6A Operators Instructions for hand-held flight computers also known as an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB)

T-6A Wiring diagram

24) SOW 8.5. Will all development facilities handling critical information per SOW 8.5 Operations Security need a DD-254, DOD Contract Security Classification?

Response: There is no DD-254 requirement for this contract.

25) Section B and SOW. Is it the intent of the US Government to use the dates in section B of the solicitation for evaluation purposes as they differ slightly from delivery dates defined in the SOW?

Response: The dates in Section B will be contractual to the winning bidder. The

Government is not aware of any differences in dates between Section B and the SOW. The dates provided in the SOW are notional.

26) 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 Government 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 Government intent for this FAA process? 2) As a minimally disruptive alternative, since the STC is not “required” until kit production and installation, would the Government consider realigning the STC delivery timeline with kit installation?

Response: 1) No, it is the Government’s intent that the STC be delivered per the notional schedule in Appendix E. 2) No, Government will not consider realigning the STC delivery timeline with kit installation. The STC is required prior to Government ordering production kits.

This is exactly the type of Q&A that needs to be discussed in person at an Industry Day so that we (Industry) can understand why the Government feels that in their experience a 90-day STC certification can be possible? How is it that Industry, from our experience, can deviate and make the FAA move faster than is what traditionally offered to us?

QUESTION: Does the Government have a relationship with the FAA that will facilitate a 90-day STC? If not, how do you expect this not to be an immense risk to program execution?

8 | P a g e

Response: The Government is reviewing the schedule. If the Government decides to update the schedule, a solicitation amendment will be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates. Also, please note that the schedule in the SOW is notional but if, for example, the contractor’s proposed schedule can expedite the events leading to aircraft ground test, then ground test can start earlier.

27) 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 Government 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.

Here is another item that needs to be discussed and question answered in depth.

QUESTION: Is it the Government’s intent for the contractor to build an A kit (physical) at risk waiting for further changes after the CDR? Or is it the intent to have a complete set of drawings for review prior to the CDR? Those are 2 very different levels of effort from our view that hasn’t been clearly stated in the above response.

Response: A-kit (physical) and complete drawings are deliverables for entrance into CDR. Any changes required after CDR would occur if the proposed solution experiences Deficiency Reports requiring engineering changes.

28) As the FAA MCO will be involved with this program to obtain the STC, has the USAF and the MCO agreed that the schedule in Appendix E accounts for both organizations' required process timelines?

Response: The Program Office and the FAA MCO have had discussions on the schedule timing. Each solution offered by industry could require more or less time than the notional schedule depicts.

29) SOW 4.7 A/C Pressurization test kit

9 | P a g e

Reference: MM section 21-30-00 and 21-00-00 table 1 Issue: Definition of Test kit Question: Can the Government define what is contained in the Pressurization test kit?

TM 1T-6ABD-2-21 section 21-30-00 calls out a test set item 9. However, there is a safety net required and called out as item 11 table 1, section 21-00-00. Is the safety net part of the kit as referenced in SOW 4.7?

Response: The GFP list contains the Pitot static test set. The contractor will not be able to run a cabin pressurization test due to the canopy being removed prior to delivery from the Government.

30) SOW 6.0 Aircraft Modification Requirements

Issue: SOW 6.0 states the aircraft will have ejection seats and canopy removed prior to delivering it to the ARP Contractor.

Question: Will the Government be responsible for installing and functional testing of the Canopy prior to the ARP contractor performing the Cabin pressure testing? Or will USAF engineering be developing an alternate Cabin Pressure Test procedure (e.g., configuration with seats removed), since this procedure does not appear to be in the MM

1T-6ABD-2-21?

Response: The Government will run a pressurization check prior to delivery of aircraft to the contractor with the canopy and ejection seats removed. The contractor will be invited to have a representative witness the pressurization check. The Government will not delay the pressurization check if the contractor cannot have a representative available but will provide the completed pressurization test results to the contractor.

31) Ref. SOW Appendix I, CSDR, some of the information is incomplete (for example, page 208, box 15 states “Additional Data Fields #1-#12 (FlexFile): If applicable, the Reporting Entity shall utilize a “Tag”, or the “Additional Data Field” referenced in” without a completion to the sentence. The next line appears to be a heading for “FAC vs EAC”. On page 209, the first paragraph states “Examples of Prime Mission Product Software activities include Procurement of stand-alone or bundled COTS software licenses used in an operational system and installation and checkout of developed software into production units. Examples of Systems Engineering activities include Sustaining engineering, logistics support, planning, organizing, monitoring and reporting activities, document maintenance. Examples of Program Management activities include programmatic, financial, contractual, schedule, planning, organizing, and monitoring (quality information assurance, configuration management) activities in support of production unit fabrication, assembly and check out; meetings & efforts in support of supplier, manufacturing &” and then moves on to the next topic.

Will a complete CSDR be provided?

10 | P a g e

Response: The Government is reviewing this request and the Government may add this as a separate attachment to the RFP. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

32) Reference the answer to question 19 (released 12/19/22) requesting access to all of the data listed in Technical Manual 1T-6ABD-01, List of Applicable Publications, T-6ABD Aircraft. The Government’s response was: “The Government is reviewing this request. If the Government decides to include these documents and can release, a solicitation amendment will be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.”

Will the Government be providing the technical data identified in the List of Applicable Publications, T-6ABD Aircraft, Technical Manual 1T-6ABD-01?

• 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.

33) 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 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, 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.

• Response: The Illustrated Parts Catalog has been provided as part of the bidder’s library under RFP attachments 18e-f. Regarding the other documentation listed above, the Government is reviewing this request. If the Government decides to include this document, a solicitation amendment will be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

34) SOW 4.7 Attachment 5 (GFP)

In an effort to reduce the logistics footprint and maximize the use of existing support equipment; if additional GFP other than what is listed in SOW 4.7 and Attachment 5 (GFP) is required for ARP installation and testing, can additional GFP be requested from the Government and provided in a timely manner? SOW Para 4.7 states, “The Contractor shall perform an initial site survey of the proposed base CFT installation areas no later than sixty (60) calendar days After Receipt of Task Order to determine the requirements necessary are met for successful performance of ARP CFT installations IAW CDRL A086, DIMISC-82104/T, Site Survey Report (SSR)”. Waiting

11 | P a g e until after contract award does not afford vendors the capability of pricing and bidding needed GFP if not provided by the Government at a specific MOB.

Response: The Government anticipates providing the GFP listed in attachment

5. If additional GFP is identified and required, the Government reserves the right to add to the GFP list.

35) Reference: SOW, paragraph 4.7 Question: Will the Government confirm it will provide the storage necessary for items removed from the aircraft during production (i.e., panels, instruments, etc.)?

• Response: The Government will provide ~ 200ft2 of lockable storage space at each of the bases. The on-site storage is to be utilized for Contractor tools, GFP/GFE and Legacy parts removed from the aircraft as needed. The Contractor shall make a delivery to the COMBS contractor at the end of each day identifying the LRUs that have been removed during the modification that day.

36) Is there any opportunity for offerors to accelerate the ATD modifications to save the

Government costs associated with repeatedly traveling to the same site at different times?

• Response: The production installation for ATD assets is scheduled to meet modification requirements to support ARP modified aircraft training, while still meeting the USAF pilot production mission.

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