Industry Questions-Responses_Part III.pdf

1 | P a g e

1-Feb-23

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

1) CLIN 0029 establishes rates for ECOs and impacts the total number of revisions. Though priced as an hourly rate, ECOs impact revisions and updates in other FFP pricing elements. How many ECOs does the Government anticipate during the Base contract and each Option Year?

The SOW includes these requirements:

a. “The contractor must develop and maintain the TMSSR through the period of performance for all TO development and change activities associated with this order for the life of the contract.”

b. “Contractors must maintain accuracy, currency, and configuration of TO source data, to include GFI, throughout the contract period of performance.”

c. “The contractor will provide a minimum of annual updates throughout the life of the contract as directed by the PCO.”

Response: Regarding the ECO process SOW 3.12 Configuration Control and Data

Management (Aircraft and ATDs) “If changes are required, the Contractor shall submit a Class 1 and Class 2 Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) to document changes in performance or design from the baseline approved at PRR for aircraft and ATDs IAW CDRL A035, DI-SESS-80776B/T, Technical Data Package (TDP). The Contractor shall submit a Notice of Revision describing the proposal change to a document being requested by an ECP IAW CDRL A009, DI-SESS-80642E, Notice of Revision. Upon approval of ECP submitted in CDRL A009, DI-SESS-80642E, Notice of Revision, the Contractor shall update CDRL A035,DI-SESS-80776B/T, Technical Data Package (TDP) with Engineering Change Orders (ECO) and/or revision as necessary.”

2) CLIN 0028AV is an FFP CLIN. Based on SOW requirements, what are the current

TCTO quantities per year? In order to determine the level of effort for this FFP CLIN, can the Government provide an estimated number of revisions that will be required during Base and for each Option Year?

Response: CLIN 0028AV is dependent upon the contractor’s Government approved IMS in accordance with A117. Please refer to SOW Para 10, Technical Orders and Appendix C.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

TINKER AIR FORCE BASE OKLAHOMA

2 | P a g e

3) Reference: Randolph AFB site survey, are there any other modifications that are not represented within the data provided within the bidder’s library that need to be considered?

Response: Government has no other modifications nor any additional information to be released at this time. An amendment to the Solicitation will be issued should the Government determine that additional data is required for the Bidder’s Library.

Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

4) Reference: Solicitation Section B: Due to the scope and magnitude of this program, knowing a realistic quantity of items to actually be delivered is a critical part of forward pricing a program that will span over eight years. The contractors’ proposed G&A/OH rates must be calculated using the expected quantities to be performed and not the additional evaluated quantities required to be submitted. Will the Government please confirm that the “Required Delivery” and “Proposed Delivery” quantities in Section B of the solicitation are accurate?

Response: The required delivery in Section B is the delivery rate required by the

Government, however, is not necessarily reflective of the full quantities per CLIN. Please refer to Attachment 2 – SOW and Attachment 4 – Pricing Matrix for the Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs). Please note that this effort is an IDIQ contract, therefore, exact quantities are unknown.

5) Reference: Solicitation Section B: The total combined quantity of Aircraft Spares in CLIN 0032 and CLIN 1032 is 88 which would represent spares for approximately 20% of the USAF T-6A fleet. Can the Government confirm that they intend to have spare kits on hand for 20% of the fleet?

Response: Per Attachment 4 - Pricing Matrix, The Government requests pricing for 44 each in the base period and 44 each in the option period. Please note these numbers are BEQs.

6) 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: No, the production installations for ATD assets are scheduled to meet modification requirements to support ARP modified aircraft training, while still meeting the USAF pilot production mission.

7) SRD 3.5.7 Adaption Requirements states, “The installed system shall be configurable via a data configuration file (Data Dictionary) to support the configuration variations

3 | P a g e determined by Government…. The data configuration file shall be uploaded/downloaded through the T-6 Ground Support Maintenance Computer (GSMC) interface.”, as threshold requirements.

a. Is it acceptable to upload/download the data configuration file via a flash memory card that is an existing FAA TSOA component solution in lieu of the

GSMC?

Response: In accordance with SRD 3.5.7 Adaption Requirements, the data configuration file shall be uploaded/downloaded through the T-6 Ground Support Maintenance Computer (GSMC) interface. The GSMC has a flash drive port; therefore, a flash memory card may be acceptable, provided all cybersecurity requirements are accounted for and documented.

b. Is there additional information and data regarding the GSMC such as an operator’s manual, interface cable from the GSMC to the aircraft disconnect, or other adapter between the GSMC and the aircraft?

Response: No. All available information has been provided.

c. Is the contractor expected to modify the existing GSMC hardware/software or interface cable in addition to providing any required support software?

Response: The Contractor is not expected to modify the existing GSMC hardware and/or existing interface cables; however, the Contractor is expected to provide the required software/configuration data files/interface cables/hardware to support their solution.

8) Reference: SRD, 3.5.4.3 Cooling, “The installed system shall generate heat at a rate no greater than the replaced system.” What data will the Government provide to establish the baseline, or the current rate of heat generated by the replaced system?

Response: The Government will not provide data. Controlling heat is an important requirement of this solution and is the responsibility of the offeror to provide and prove a solution that will not generate excess heat.

9) SRD 3.5.6.2 Cockpit Zones. The SRD has a Threshold requirement to meet Solar Radiation to MIL-STD-810H method 505.7, procedure II (actinic). The Engineering Table SF2a says you can "exceed" this requirement, but it is unclear how to exceed a pass/fail solar radiation test. QUESTION: Can the Government clarify how to "exceed" a pass/fail Solar Radiation Test or can it be changed from a Threshold to an Objective requirement?

4 | P a g e

Response: The requirement can be exceeded by passing a more stringent Solar Radiation Test.

10) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_3.1_Program_Management. Question: Does the ACA/LOI list encompass all T-6A current and planned upgrades and modifications vendors during the course of this contract?

Response: Government has no other modifications nor any additional information to be released at this time. An amendment to the Solicitation will be issued should the Government determine that additional data is required for the Bidder’s Library. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

11) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_5.1.3_MBSE. Question: Space Systems Command (SSC) Model-Based Systems Engineering Style Guide- What is the latest version and where may we find it?

Response: The Government is reviewing this request. A solicitation amendment may be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

12) Reference: Attachment_2_SOW_5.1.3_MBSE. Question: Space Systems Command

(SSC) Model-Based Systems Engineering Style Guide- The style guide provides a link to a Wiki on DI2E. Is there an active link available to access the Wiki and if yes what is the new link?

may be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

13) Reference: Attachment_8_T-6A_ARP_SRD_3.6.7.5. Question: What is the threshold requirement for traffic advisory system?

Response: The threshold requirement for the traffic advisory system and any other system requirements not detailed in the SRD are described in the PIPFS.

SOW Section 3.3, Legacy Requirements states, “The installed system shall comply with the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) Aircraft Prime Item Product Function Specification (PIPFS), except where this SRD supersedes.”

Therefore, the threshold requirement of the traffic advisory system is to match the capability of the current system in the PIPFS. Additional details of the current traffic advisory system can be further identified in the T-6A Flight Manual (1T- 6A-1).

5 | P a g e

14) Reference: T-6A SRD Table 1 Component Replacement List & 3.6.7.5 Traffic Advisory

System. Question: The existing Traffic Advisory System is listed as “Shall be removed” per Table 1. There is no Threshold requirement in the SRD for a replacement Traffic Advisory System. Section 3.6.7.5 specifies TCAS II as an Objective requirement with no mention of a Threshold. Is a new Traffic Advisory System a Threshold Requirement to replace the obsolete/removed existing Traffic System as listed in Table 1?

Response: The threshold requirement for the traffic advisory system and any other system requirements not detailed in the SRD are described in the PIPFS.

SOW section 3.3 Legacy Requirements states, “The installed system shall comply with the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) Aircraft Prime Item Product Function Specification (PIPFS), except where this SRD supersedes.”

Therefore, the threshold requirement of the traffic advisory system is to match the capability of the current system in the PIPFS. Additional details of the current traffic advisory system can be further identified in the T-6A Flight Manual (1T- 6A-1).

15) IPC Part 1, 23-10-05 Page 3 & SRD Page 12. According to the IPC, the aircraft is equipped with an upper UHF-Only Antenna, DM C7-8/A, and a lower combo UHF/VHF Antenna, DM C144-5-1. Table 1 of the SRD states the UHF Antenna needs to be replaced but lists the combo UHF/VHF Antenna part number, DMC144-5-1.

Respectfully request clarification.

may be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

16) CDRL A008 covers the Integrated Management Schedule (IMS) and uses DI-MGMT- 81861C without providing tailoring instructions. This DID includes all the reporting requirements for earned value management, which is not a requirement of this program. We request the Government please provide the tailoring instructions for this CDRL to help contractors properly scope the reporting and deliverable requirements for the IMS.

6 | P a g e

17) SOW, Section 3.1. In the context of the requirement for the T-6A Avionics Replacement Program (“ARP”) solicitation that bidders provide signed Letter of Intent (LOIs) or Associate Contractor Agreements (“ACAs”) in their bids establishing either a vendor relationships or subcontracting arrangements with a listing of various Government specified Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”) and component vendors. Given the highly competitive nature of this procurement, uncertainties pertaining to OEM and component vendor teaming arrangements with bidders and the imposition of fees at potentially differing rates by OEMs and component vendors for required data in the context of different vendor or subcontracting teaming arrangements with different bidders, will the Government consider removing from the price evaluation the amount that OEMs or component vendors charge a prospective bidder seeking data to eliminate the possibility of an advantage gained where an OEM or component vendor is teamed with one bidder and not another?

Response: The Government will not remove requirements for the Pricing

Evaluation as stated in Section L&M.

18) SOW 3.21.4. Is the Government requiring the contractor to gain a DSS approved ATO for a securing coding environment? What is meant by a US Government ATO and how does it differ from the DSS ATO?

Response: No, the Government will gain an ATO through USAF PIT Process

IAW the AFLCMC Standard Process for PIT A&A, dated 15 June 2017, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53 Rev. 4, and Committee on National Security Systems Instruction (CNSSI) 1253, dated 27 March 2014 that will be approved by USAF designated Aircraft AO. The Government PIT Process will gain an ATO through its AFLCMC/Technical Engineering Services Directorate (EZ) and Aircraft Authorizing Official (AO) determination. DSS will assess and authorize Special Access Program (SAP) systems in accordance with the DoD Joint Special Access Program (SAP) Implementation Guide (JSIG) Revision 4.

19) SOW 3.21.4. Contractors having both an SPRS score (with or without a POAM) and a System Security Plan (SSP) identify DFARs compliance. What other ‘support’ is required?

Response: A Crew Station Working Group (CSWG) will provide additional support to engineering analysis.

20) SOW 3.21.4. Is it the Government’s understanding that the contractors be required to purchase static code analysis tool licenses such as Fortify for vulnerability testing or will the Government supply licenses?

Response: No, the Government will not supply any licenses.

7 | P a g e

21) SOW Rev1 Page 48. 3.18.1. The SOW Rev 1 states in Item 3.18.1 Contractor

Manpower Reporting (Aircraft and ATDs) that manpower reporting is a requirement, however the draft contract does not include FAR Clause 52.204-14 Service Contract Reporting Requirements. Will the Government please advise if this reporting is required?

22) For TEP non-production CLINS, it is not clear what each year's column represents. (A) Does each year represent the total costs that will be fully obligated in only one of those given years? or (B) Does each year represent the costs for that year only?

Response: Government requires offerors to price the entire price for efforts that occur once per the SOW and not spread the cost out across periods. For example, EMD 2 for Aircraft (CLIN 0016) may be ordered after successful completion of CDR and ASIL Test, but the timing on when CLIN 0016 is ordered is dependent to when CDR and ASIL Test is completed. Therefore, CLIN 0016 could be ordered in Base Year 1, Base Year 2, Base Year 3, or Base Year 4. Consequently, the pricing for EMD 2 in the pricing matrix would need to be fully priced for each year.

23) SOW 6.0, 8.0, GGR/GFR approval of procedures ref. DCMA 8210.1

Reference: SOW 6.0 and 8.0 read, "The Contractor shall ensure that only authorized personnel have access to the aircraft and ATDs, such as, but not limited to: approved installers, PCO, Contract Officer Representative (COR), specified Government employees, Program Managers (PMs), engineers, and personnel identified by the Program Office (PO). This list will be annotated and can be updated by the PO, or the COR as required." DCMA 8210.1C Ch1: para 5.3.3, reads: "Specific FOD procedures shall address at a minimum: 5.3.3.4 Designation of FOD zones/areas (as appropriate), and controls governing each zone/area (e.g., increased restrictions/vigilance). Zones may be differentiated based on the level of risk."

Issue: Control of FOD critical zones SOW 6.0, Risk acceptance 6.0, Authorized personnel access, Security 8.0, CUI data control 8.3

Question: With regard Sheppard AFB site survey: It is apparent that other

Government Contractors will have access to the Government provided ARP Maintenance/Modification area. With DCMA 8210.1 being applicable to this contract, will the Government assume the risk of security, FOD Control, CUI data control, HAZMAT storage, issue and disposal, facility fire protection, etc.?

When there are multiple contractors operating in the same hangar space and the

8 | P a g e safe-for-maintenance status (e.g., fuel status, explosives, etc.) is not known by the ARP contractor, will the Government waive the requirement to comply with DCMA 8210.1 and NAS 3306?

Response: No, the Government will not waive this requirement. It is the intent of the Government to have the ARP installation area roped off and only accessible by ARP contractor employees and specified Government employees. The ARP Contractor is still required to have their own FOD procedures that need to be approved by GFR/GGFR prior to any work in hangars. The ARP Contractor will not be provided a sterile hangar. USAF personnel and/or members of the Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) maintenance team for the T-6A shall assess the safe-for-maintenance status of the aircraft in their possession.

24) SOW 6 GGR/GFR approval of procedures

Reference: DCMA 8210.1C Ch1: para 6.16.1 Requirements: Aircraft facilities (all buildings, structures, etc.) shall meet at least the minimum requirements of NAS 3306.

DCMA 8210.1C Ch1: Para. 6.16.2. Contractors at Government Owned Facilities.

Contractors located at Government owned facilities are exempt from paragraph

6.16.1 however, they shall assess the existing facilities based on the requirements of paragraph 6.16.1 and document any shortfalls. Documented shortfalls shall be provided to the applicable aircraft Program Office(s), facility owners (specific Service POC), and Waiver Authority(s) for this Instruction so that the shortfalls may be addressed if the contracting organization chooses.

NAS 3306, Facility Requirements for Aircraft Operations, para 6.3.2.4: Aircraft hangars classified by NFPA 409 as Group III and used for housing defueled and/or unfueled aircraft shall be protected by at least an automatic sprinkler system designed for Extra Hazard Group 1 occupancy, installed, and supervised according to NFPA 13.

Issue: Facility Fire protection

Question: Can the Government provide the facility fire protection systems installed in each facility being proposed for the T-6 ARP program? To obtain the GGR/GFR approval of contractor procedures, the procedures must include a risk assessment and mitigation plan for each facility. This is required for the contractor to take possession of the aircraft IAW DFARS 252.228-7001 and DCMA 8210.1.

Response: This is a requirement for the winning bidder after contract award and prior to ARP installations on the identified bases.

25) SOW 6 Aircraft Configuration

9 | P a g e

Reference: DCMA 8210.1C Ch1: para 6.17 Contractor Evaluation of ARFF, Aircraft Facilities, and Protection of Aircraft on the Ground. Prior to arrival of first aircraft and/or beginning contractual operations, the contractor shall evaluate and provide a report to the GFR for the following capabilities at all proposed operating locations: airfields/heliports, ARFF and structural firefighting services, hangars/facilities, and protection methods for aircraft on the ground. The report shall identify any conditions failing to meet the minimums of NAS 3306. For hangars/facilities, the report shall identify the specific construction and fire protection capabilities, to include the NFPA 409 Edition with which the facility is compliant and fuel status of aircraft to be placed in the hangar(s).

Issue: Aircraft fuel status

Question: Will the aircraft be defueled, drained and/or purged prior to hangar entry? If the aircraft will not be defueled, please define the fuel load that will be onboard at time of hangar entry.

Response: For hangar entry, the Government or Contractor Logistics Support

(CLS) maintenance team will perform a standard safe for maintenance check prior to hangar entry. There has been no standard fuel load identified at this time for delivery to the ARP contractor.

26) SOW 6 Government provided installation facilities

Reference: DCMA 8210.1C Ch1: para 5.28 Hangaring of Aircraft. Procedures shall address rules for full, partially full, or empty fuel tanks, fuel system purging, and LEL procedures. Hangars shall meet the requirements of Paragraph 6.16.1. (see above for requirements of para 6.16.1)

Issue: Aircraft possession status

Question: The facilities proposed by the Government at Sheppard will have additional contractors working in the Hangar in addition to the ARP supplier.

Will the aircraft that are not in the possession of the ARP contractor be certified as Hangar entry safe IAW DCMA 8210.1 for items such as but not limited to; Fuel, Oxygen, CADS/PADS, Batteries, etc.?

Response: For hangar entry, the Government or Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) maintenance team will perform a standard safe for maintenance check prior to hangar entry. All hangars that will or could be utilized for ARP installations will or could have other contractors working or performing aircraft maintenance within the hangar. The aircraft not in the possession of the ARP contractor fall under the requirements and polices of the United States Air Force and the Government or CLS maintenance to meet those requirements.

10 | P a g e

27) Reference the answer to questions 32 and 36 (released 12/19/22) regarding the items that are not page limited, “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.” Page 4, Table 2.1 includes the following: “*IMS/IMP, Airworthiness Plan, Associate Contractor Agreements/Letters of Intent, technical approach and previous examples without ACAs, and installation plans unlimited”.

Please confirm the asterisk prior to the IMS/IMP includes the Airworthiness Plan, Associate Contractor Agreements/Letters of Intent, technical approach and previous examples without ACAs, and installation plans are all unlimited.

Response: The IMS/IMP, Airworthiness Plan, Associate Contractor

Agreements/Letters of Intent, technical approach and previous examples without ACAs, and installation plans are not included in the 50-page limit as stated in Section L.

28) Reference: Appendix F, above the 2nd table, “ASIL - This list assumes ABOS

Controller, Pitot-Static System, Signal Conditioning Unit, Control Sticks, and Power Quadrant / PCL are simulated.” and following tables, pages 174-177. Please define what the ASIL referenced in Appendix F is?

Response: Please reference SOW Para 5.13, Avionics System Integration Lab

(Aircraft). The ASIL referenced in Appendix F is the Avionics System Integration Lab (ASIL) mentioned in the SOW. The list referenced is a list of components that will likely need to be simulated for ASIL operation.

29) Reference: Appendix F, above the 2nd table, “ASIL - This list assumes ABOS

Controller, Pitot-Static System, Signal Conditioning Unit, Control Sticks, and Power Quadrant / PCL are simulated.” and following tables, pages 174-177. Are the components provided intended to be in addition to the PT-406?

Response: Yes, the Government’s intent is that the PT-406 will include its own components.

30) There are three documents below are all mentioned in the SRD and SOW, however, they cannot be found in the Bidder’s Library. Would it be possible to have them added to the Bidders Library so that offerors can retrieve them?

11 | P a g e

BS25301 Rev 3 Flight Training Device (FTD) Program Unique Specification Document (PUSD) dated 1 July 1997 revised 15

June 2010 (T-6A)

BS25302 Systems Specification, JPATS GBTS, Revision B dated 22 April 2008

BS25507 A Procedural Training Device (PTD) Program Unique Specification Document (PUSD) dated 15 March 2008 (T-6A)

• Response: The Government has shared what it has the rights to share. The BS25507 PUSD, dated 10 August 1999 is currently in the Bidder’s Library.

31) Reference: Part I, Section B, The Schedule.

Question: Will the Government provide the narrative description of supplies and services for CLINS 0001 through 0008?

• Response: CLINS 0001 through 0008 include descriptions referencing applicable SOW requirements.

32) Reference: Part I, Section B, The Schedule.

Narrative: CLIN 0001 is titled “Technology Maturation Risk Reduction (TMRR) 1: Aircraft System Functional Review (SFR) and SOW Table 3-1 says “ System Requirements Review (SRR) / System Functional Review (SFR)” and “SRR/SFR combined, 1 for aircraft/ 1 for ATDs”.

Question: Will the Government confirm CLIN 0001 includes the Aircraft SRR?

• Response: CLIN 0001 includes Aircraft SRR, however, this does not include the ATD SRR. ATD SRR requirement is included in CLIN 0007(ATD TMRR).

33) Reference: SOW, Paragraph 3.1

Narrative: The paragraph says “The Contractor shall provide Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) or subcontracting arrangements for OEMs Textron Aviation Defense and Flight Safety International, and component vendors: Pratt and Whitney, Chelton, Extant Aerospace, Cobham, Honeywell, L3 Harris, General Electric (GE), Scientific Research Corporation (SRC) and ATD CLS contractor: Delaware Resource Group (DRG) as needed for successful performance through final aircraft and ATD installation, and to meet scheduled contract deliveries/milestones.”

12 | P a g e

Question: Some OEMs listed by the Government claim their intellectual property or the applicable line of business has been sold. Will the Government confirm the list of OEMS for this anomaly and correct the paragraph 3.1 narrative?

• Response: The Government does not have information on whether OEM intellectual property or if the applicable line of business has been sold. The Government will not change Para 3.1.

34) Reference: SOW, Paragraph 3.1

Question: At least one OEM has declined executing an ACA, LOI or like document for business reasons. What is the Government’s guidance when an OEM declines to execute an agreement outright (not tied to costs, terms and conditions or any contractual arrangements)?

• Response: The Government does not dictate the terms of a business arrangement to obtain the data required. Please note that Attachment 6 – Section L, 3.2.6. Subfactor Four: Schedule (e) “The Offeror shall provide, based on their proposed approach in regard to data requirements (SOW Section 3.1),: (i-iii)” allows for different approaches.

35) Reference: SOW, Paragraph 3.1

Question: Will and OEM declining to provide an ACA or LOI result in a negative proposal evaluation?

• Response: The Government has provided allowances for different approaches.

Please refer to Attachment 6 – Section L, 3.2.6. Subfactor Four: Schedule (e).

36) Reference: SOW, Paragraph 3.1

Narrative: Some offerors require all the ACAs and LOIs stated in the solicitation in order to propose.

Question: What steps will the Government take to ensure that all offerors are enabled to fairly bid?

• Response: The Government has provided allowances for different approaches.

Please refer to Attachment 6 – Section L, 3.2.6. Subfactor Four: Schedule (e).

37) Reference: Section L, Attachment 1.1

13 | P a g e

Question: The instructions for submittal say to put the PPI Tool file on a CD. Being that 2.2.6 states that physical delivery of proposal packages will not be accepted, does that mean we will submit the file via DoDSAFE?

• Response: The instructions do not require CDs. CDs are provided as an example in Attachment 1.1. Per Attachment 6 - Section L, 2.2.6, packages shall be submitted via DODSAFE.

38) Reference: Section L, 6.3

Question: We have reached out several times and left messages for the Ombudsman, but they don't call back. Will the Government share who the Ombudsman actually is and advocate for a response?

• Response: Please reference RFP FA8106-23-R-0001 AFFARS Clause 5352.201- 9101 for Ombudsman contact information.

39) Reference: Section L, 4.3

Question: Are vendors that are simply supplying products considered to be subcontractors or teaming partners and do we need to submit PPIF on these types of relationships?

• Response: Per Section L 4.3, PPIFs are only requested to be submitted for significant subcontractors/teaming partners.

40) Reference: Section L, Question: For the PPI Tool, should UEIDs be placed in the space that asks specifically for the DUNS?

• Response: Yes, UEIDs have replaced DUNS.

41) Reference: Section L, 3.2.3

Narrative: Section L requires an approach to meet the threshold requirements of the SRD for Subfactor 1. It does not define Subfactor 1 as a technical approach. The only reference to technical approach is at subfactor 4, paragraph 3.2.6, e. ii, 1 and tied to explaining the use or non-use of directed ACAs/LOIs.

Question: Are Subfactor 1 and the technical approach listed at 3.2.6 the same thing?

Will the Government elaborate on where and how technical information is represented

14 | P a g e in the proposal, including but not limited to site stand up, site occupation, kit installation/aircraft production, etc.?

• Response: The technical requirements listed in Subfactor 1 and the technical approach dealing with ACA/LOI agreements in Subfactor 4 all describe the same solution but assess different parts of that solution.

Each proposal will consist of a submitted package following the organization detailed in the Section L. There are no requirements for package organization beyond what is stated.

42) DISCUSSION: CLIN 0032 and 1032 for Aircraft Spares content is still unclear.

SOW 4.10 says, "The Contractor shall support all provisioning efforts to ensure initial spares kits are ordered upon receipt of funded action." This is the typical sparing process and typically results in provisioning of a quantity one for the primary LRUs and does not include mechanical brackets, panels, or cables.

However, in Q&A Part VI dated 21 Oct 2022 Question #5, the Government stated that "the A&B Kits are expected to be in the same configuration for the spares as they are for each aircraft A&B Kit purchase." The Government never modified the SOW or the CLIN Description to make sure all bidders put every A-Kit bracket, metalwork, panels, cables, and other items that are not typically spared through provisioning into the cost of CLINS 032 and 1032. The SOW also does not say that if the B-Kit contains multiple displays for the tandem cockpits and that multiple displays need to be in the spares kit cost. Again, typical provisioning per the SOW would not include that requirement.

Will the Government please modify the SOW 4.10 to state exactly what spares must be included in the cost for all Spares CLINS?

Response: Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) for spares can be found in the Pricing Matrix and Section B of the RFP.

43) In Revision 1 of the T-6A ARP SOW, dated 20 December 2022, Appendix I - a CSDR Plan was added. That CSDR plan contains a Work Breakdown Structure.

a. Question - is it necessary for the WBS, on our submitted Integrated Master

Schedule (IMS), to match exactly the WBS in the CSDR Plan? Meaning that the Government has in essence provided an IMS that we are supposed to match with our proposal response, or is it acceptable that we reconcile/map these upon Contract Award?

15 | P a g e

Section M is silent on the WBS structure required.

Response: There is no requirement that the IMS WBS match the CSDR WBS. The Contractor may map and reconcile upon Contract Award. The Contractor is only required to use the CSDR WBS for the CSDR deliverable submittals.

44) In the SRD, page 29, and Attachment 9, Section L EN Tables, Subfactor 1, Threshold

Compliance, Section 3.6.3.1 states "The integrated computer system shall be specified, developed, and verified per guidance in RTCA DO-297". And EN Tables Subfactor 2b Objective Compliance, Section 3.6.3.2 states that "The integrated computer system shall be designed in compliance to ARINC 653".

Question - ARINC 653 is the key enabler for DO-297. Would the Government consider that these requirements are coupled, and should either be both Threshold or both Objective? And if so, which?

Response: These requirements will remain as they are. Many system requirements are directly or indirectly related to each other. The Government intends to assess these requirements separately under the criteria spelled out for their respective subfactor sections.

45) Can the Government please clarify where the Airborne Uninhabited Fighter (AUF) environment is incorporated in HDBK-217Plus? If AUF is not incorporated in 217Plus, please clarify how objective credit will be evaluated for the requirement to assess reliability using the AUF environment via HDBK-217Plus."

Response: Airborne Uninhabited Fighter (AUF) environment is defined in

MIL-HDBK-217F. Please use this environment to modify the HDBK-217Plus default values for environmental stresses and operational profiles.

46) Is it possible to get the tables identified in Appendix H of the SOW in Excel form?

Response: The Government does not have Appendix H in Excel format.

47) Ref. CDRL A008, DI-MGMT-81861C, 1.3.2, “Data reported shall reflect the output of the contractor's Earned Value Management System (EVMS).” We have reviewed the documents provided with the solicitation, including amendments 0001 and 0002, and we do not find DFARS 252.234-7001, Notice of Earned Value Management System. Since the EVMS is not a requirement of the solicitation, we request the cited statement (“Data reported shall reflect the output of the contractor’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS)”) be removed from DI-MGMT-81861C.

16 | P a g e

Response: The Government is reviewing this request. A solicitation amendment may be processed. Please continue to monitor this notice ID on www.SAM.gov for any updates.

48) Attachment 4, Pricing Matrix The Pricing Matrix for most of the NRE tasks (PDR, CDR, etc.) have pricing input cells spread over multiple base periods, in some cases more periods than the required period of performance. It is unclear if the task pricing is intended to be spread across these periods as required to complete the task. Or is the intent that the entire task be proposed in a single period (even if the PoP exceeds 12 months), and repriced in total in subsequent periods with applicable inflation? For example, CLIN 0003 PDR covers two periods even though the POP is 128 days. Should the PDR pricing be spread between Period 1 and 2? Or should the total PDR effort be priced in Period 1 and again in Period 2?

Response: Government requires offerors to price the entire price for efforts that occur once per the SOW and not spread the cost out across periods. For example, TMRR 2 for Aircraft (CLIN 0003) may be ordered after successful completion of SFR, but the timing on when CLIN 0003 is ordered is dependent to when SFR is completed. Therefore, CLIN 0003 could be ordered in Base Year 1 or Base Year 2. Consequently, the pricing for TMRR 2 in the pricing matrix would need to be fully priced for each year.

49) Do subcontractors wishing to provide a proprietary pricing package directly to the Government need to request a DoD SAFE link, or does the prime need to request it for them?

Response: The Prime can request a DODSAFE link for the subcontractor pricing information or the subcontractor may request a DODSAFE link.

50) Section L, Paragraph 6.3.3 Government Offices. The paragraph asks for the contact details (name, address, facility code, phone, and fax numbers) for the DCAA Office, the Government Paying Office and the Contract Administration Office.

We think the cognizant Contract Administration Office is the same information in block 7 of page 1 of the solicitation. Please confirm.

Response: The cognizant Contract Administration Office requested in Section L 6.3.3 is determined by the bidder’s location.

51) For the “Government Paying Office” we believe this is generally determined by the procuring organization and is normally found in block 14 of the solicitation. This block is blank on the solicitation.

Can you provide details on which Paying Office will be assigned to this program so we can include it in our proposal response?

Response: The cognizant Paying Office requested in Section L 6.3.3 is determined by the bidder’s location.

17 | P a g e

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