Q&A_from_Pre-Solicitation_Conference.docx

Questions & Answers Q1. When does USAF anticipate releasing the formal RFP? What is the anticipated proposal turnaround timeframe? When do you anticipate awarding contract?

A1. We cannot give you an exact date for the release of the formal RFP, but look at FedBizOpps (FBO) for official RFP release. The RFP will be left out for 60 days once the RFP has been released. The anticipated award date is third quarter FY19.

Q2. When would the drawings, detailed spec references, etc., be made available to potential bidders?

A2. Those items will be released at the same time as RFP and not before.

Q3. SRD, Paragraph 3.2.7, “Aircraft Software”, states that the BRU-56 modification program shall modify aircraft SW & mission data. The BRU-56 is not SW specific, is this intended to be a requirement at the aircraft integrator level or will EDO/Harris be required to modify SW?

A3. No software for this effort, hardware only.

Q4. Will the BRU-56 Modification effort require access to classified data? If so, what data will be deemed classified? What classification levels, if any would apply, and need to be supported?

A4. No, there will be no classified data for this effort.

Q5. BRU-56 upgrade plan in-terms of schedule/delivery to contractor for modification (i.e. attrition, forced upgrade plan etc.), will a definitive schedule be provided for execution?

A5. Per SOW, contractor to provide a notional schedule they can work to. Plan for production to modify 40 racks/month. For EMD, will need to provide 40 prototypes for flight test (these will also be part of production lot total)

Q6. S/N traceability for removed and reinstalled components: will reinstalled components be interchangeable between BRU-56 or regulated to the specific unit?

A6. Parts will be interchangeable.

Q7. Air Crew (AC) training responsibilities: to what extent will the contractor be involved with AC training?

A7. A simple PowerPoint presentation to let the aircrew know that the rack has been modified and they will be seeing 500 lb weapons in addition to the 2000 lb weapons, and might show them what it looks like so they are aware of the added capability.

Q8. The current BRU-56 shipping crate is categorized as non-reusable, the subject RFP has a reusable shipping crate specification: Is the plan to upgrade the current shipping arrangements?

A8. All the shipping requirements are located in SPIRES and will all be shipped per their packaging requirements from Main Operating Bases (MOB’s)

Q9. What will be the contractor’s involvement with the JMPS requirement?

A9. No JMPS requirement.

Q10. The Statement of Work, Section 1.2.2.8 describes the period of performance as “approximately three years” for EMD Phase and “approximately three years” for Production Phase. Attachment 6 (Section L), Section 1.1, describes the period of performance as “a two-year [EMD] Phase” and “two and a half years for Production.” Please clarify.

A10. For this effort, the EMD phase will be 2 years and Production phase will be 2 1/2 years. The 3rd year for EMD was including the software effort that got started.

Q11. Will there be any export/controlled information a company outside the United States couldn’t get that everyone else could?

A.11 No, everything will be on FBO.

Q12. The SRD states, "3.2.4 Profile: The BRU-56 Modification shall not move the position within the bay for which weapons currently sit. The modification shall not result in a change to weapon spacing and fit. The modification shall remain inside the existing BRU-56 envelope."

By what documentation is the existing BRU-56 envelope currently defined? If the envelope is currently defined by the current envelope of the existing BRU-56, is there any capability for incremental changes to that envelope?

As a specific example: the current breech assembly is in a location that will almost certainly need to be occupied by hardware associated with 14" hook capability. Is it acceptable to adjust the breech position fore-aft to accommodate 14" capability? Will questions regarding such adjustments be entertained by the Government during the proposal preparation phase? If so, by what mechanism? If not, how will any variances from the defined envelope be addressed in the technical evaluation?

A12. Envelope Definition: The envelope will be constrained to between the sway braces, and the cartridge (breech) on either side of the rack. Nothing shall protrude above or below the rack surface as it currently sits as it can interfere with how the weapons sit in the bay. Nothing shall protrude past the length in which the sway braces sit, for interference reasons as well. The cartridge measures 4 1/16" from the indented part of the rack, and can be used as a reference to not exceed that dimension on either side of the rack. The indented part of the rack measures 3 9/16" across, providing a total of 11 11/16" total length across the rack, and constrained between the sway braces.

Statements made by Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) during the Pre-Solicitation teleconference on 23 May 18:

· Asking for all questions to be submitted by 1600 CST on 6/1/2018.