Rround_2Q A16May14.pdf

WSS&A RFP Questions & Answers (16 May 2014) ** Government Responses are in red

PWS 3.3.2

- LCSP – “Draft” LCSP on 15 May 14 GFI disc.

- A-10 Connectivity: available on 15 May 14 Architecture Disc at WSSA EICD HTML

05-09-2014 A007\05.09.14\External Files\Connectivity CDD.

- Architectural HTML Users guide: this is a deliverable under the current 1-yr contract, and is not available at this time; will be provided to awardee.

- Initial Capabilities Document: date should be 7 Dec 12; document provided as GFI on

15 May 14 GFI disc.

- EICD: EICD is in the May 2014 architecture (disc provided after 15 May) and in the

Architecture update description document (provided as an attachment in RFP amendment)

PWS 3.10.1 Non-volatile Removable Mass Memory Device OUE, Test, Validation &

Verification last sentence in the first paragraph reads “The preferred solution is a COTS based solution that provides a growth path which exploits ongoing commercial technology (versus using government funding) for memory and bandwidth growth per the SV-8 and SV-9 roadmaps over the life of the A-10.”

PWS item 3.10.1 (a) reads “Analyze, compare, evaluate and recommend which COTS Non-volatile Mass Memory Removable device technologies would most cost effectively meet current and anticipated future A-10 mission requirements as a preferred solution.”

Questions:

1. A-10 Avionics System Architecture Plan (AvSAP) Document No. 08-A10DOC-1084

Rev C, Vol III dated 13 November 2009 was located on the Government Furnished

Information (GFI) DVD. Figures 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3 on pages 541, 546, and 551 and depict three proposed architectures that show functionality not currently fielded on the A-

10C. But, the PWS only requires consolidation of the DVADR and the UDTU yet several of the architectures include the TEMS/ADR incorporated into the new single recorder. It is our understanding that the TEMS/ADR functionality will not be required for incorporation into this new memory device. Is this assumption correct?

Yes.

2. Is “Technically Acceptable” in Section M the same as the Threshold Requirements of

Document No. 08-A10DOC-1084 Rev C, Vol III Table 9-5?

Yes (with changes noted below)

In this same table, ID DRMS-57c requires the inclusion of Crash Survivable Memory

Unit (CSMU) yet the PWS does not directly request this capability.

Does a CSMU need to be incorporated in the recommended solution?

No. CSMU is not a threshold requirement for the OUE. See SV-9, DRMS, 2014 and

Crash Survivable Recorder, 2030. The SV-8 and SV-9 are the most current roadmap.

Therefore, DRMS_57 is not a threshold requirement. The latest versions of the SV-9s will be provided with the newest version of the architecture.

There are also several concerns about whether all the Threshold requirements are applicable to this OUE or a follow-on EMD development program. For example ID

DRMS_79c in Table 9-5 requires the recorder to store weather data and wind tables which will require OFP modification to the EGI and the CDU. Is the intent of the

Government for the Contractor to either update both of these LRUs as part of this effort or to only provide a specification document to the 309 th for their software engineers to update since both of these OFPs are being supported organically by the 309th?

There will be no follow on EMD. The OUE must accomplish all tasks including integration, validation, and verification of all technical and test data. The engineering data generated including OFP related code and test programs shall be sufficient for the government to implement the resulting preferred solution onto the aircraft including the migration of the code into an OFP using limited OFP funding and NGREA for the hardware. NGREA funding allows for very limited integration. The vendor shall either work with the 309 th or come up with a viable way to accomplish all required tasks on their own. The technical challenge is the timing between the targeting algorithms, etc. in the IFFCC and the DTED code in the UDTU as the government does not own all of the data for the either.

There are several other examples where the threshold requirements will drive other

Aircraft and OFP impacts. Contractor request clarification on whether all Threshold

Requirements are to be addressed for this OUE. This Table 9-5 was originally generated by Lockheed to support a full Suite development program. Based on Governments current requirements and expected OFP impacts and addition of aircraft sensor, which

Threshold Requirements are to be taken through integration and test and all documentation?

Table 9-3

Threshold -Mission Data Transfer System Upgrade/Replace/Rehost

Not required -Add IEPU to Avionics Bus 3

Threshold -Combine Flight Recording (RMM) & Mission DTC

Threshold -In-flight Video Playback

Objective -Crash Survivable Memory Unit

Threshold -EW Bus Recording

Table 9-4 values are valid except for the increases stated below under table 9-5.

Table 9-5

DRMS_44-46, as written

DMRS_47, Storage capacity growth: Threshold: shall provide allow for 500%, Objective

1000%.

DRMS_49-52, as written

DRMS_53, threshold: The A-10 DRMS will provide the capability to store audible voice warning messages up to 2GB, objective 4GB

DRMS_54, threshold: The A-10 DRMS shall provide the capability to store all audio signals received from the communication system up to 2 hours of flight or 25GB, whichever is greater. Objective: 4 hours of flight or 50GB, whichever is greater

DRMS_55, as written

DRMS_56, threshold: The A-10 DRMS will provide the capability to store 3,000 positions and tracks. Objective: The A-10 DRMS will provide the capability to store

4,000 positions and tracks.

DRMS_57, threshold: none, objective: include a crash survivable memory capability fully compatible with AIR FORCE POLICY DIRECTIVE 63-14, 6 FEBRUARY 2001 and AIR FORCE HANDBOOK 63-1402, 19 MARCH 2001.

DRMS_58, as written

DRMS_59, threshold, The A-10 DRMS shall provide the capability to store all HMIT video display/signals synchronously and simultaneously with other display data

(DRMS_67) up to 2 hours of flight or 30GB, whichever is greater, objective: 4 hours of flight or 60GB, whichever is greater

DRMS_60-61, as written

DRMS_62-63, threshold, none, objective, none

DRMS_64-65, as written

DRMS_66, threshold, The A-10 DRMS shall provide the ability to record all avionics digital interfaces to include all current 1553, 1760 and Ethernet data busses up to 2 hours of flight or 100GB, whichever is greater, objective: growth for recording an additional four 1553 busses and two Ethernet connections and 4 hours of flight or 200GB, whichever is greater.

DRMS_67, threshold, the A-10 DRMS shall provide the capability to record all MFCDs, CDU, HUD, TGP HD, Mav, EFIS, and HUD camera video channel displays camera video channel displays synchronously and simultaneously. up to 2 hours of flight or

100GB, whichever is greater, objective: growth for recording an additional four 1553 busses and two Ethernet connections and 4 hours of flight or 200GB, whichever is greater.

DRMS_68-71, as written

DRMS_72, threshold, DRMS_72-76 as written

DRMS_77, as written

DRMS_78-84, as written

Additional requirements:

All UDTU functions implemented in software shall be Future Airborne Capabilities

Environment (FACE) 2.0 or greater compliant. The contractor shall:

1. Survey the FACE vendors to determine what UDTU functions are already available.

2. Maximize the reuse of existing FACE compliant modules to minimize the cost of the software development for this effort.

3. Assume that the A-10 platform has a FACE compliant processor (This will likely be installed as part of the cockpit sustainment effort.)

4. Use a FACE compliant processor to successfully demonstrate this effort

5. Add JDAM GPS key storage/transfer capability to the new RMMD cartridge in accordance with the NSA approved CONOPS

Address required activities in section 7.1 of the A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle

Program Support Upgraded Data Transfer Unit (UDTU) Re-Host Operational Utility

Evaluation (OUE) Final Report (Provided on GFI disc, 15 May 14))

Address the recommended activities in the A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program

Support Upgraded Data Transfer Unit (UDTU) Re-Host Operational Utility

Evaluation (OUE) Final Report (Provided on GFI disc, 15 May 14)

Is the Government considering Objective Requirements given “Technical Acceptable”?

The contractor shall analyze, evaluate, design and present a technically viable path for objective requirements. There is no requirement for actual implementation.

PWS item 3.10.1 (c) reads: “Determine, document, analyze, and evaluate the functional requirements...for combination into another existing or planned A-10 processor or as part of the preferred non-volatile removable memory solution. (CDRL A004, A008)”

PWS item 3.10.1 (d) reads: “Design (to include generation of all applicable technical data such as,engineering drawings, Technical Orders, test, TPSs and related repair procedures, etc.), integrate, validate and test the preferred solution and the technical data from a.- c. above. (CDRL

A004, A008, A012, A013)”

Any proposed solution that replaces or consolidates or transfers UDTU and DVADR functionality as stated in 3.10.1(c) has significant impact on the A-10 weapon system and its support equipment. Design, integration, validation, and test of the solution must be accomplished within the 18-month period of performance.

Questions:

3. What type of TPS is desired? Is this the depot level test program set for the newly introduced LRU?

The contractor shall analyze test requirements, recommend Field TPSs and draft Depot level TPS and design, integrate and validate them upon government approval

If so what test stand does the Government prefer this TPS to be developed on?

The contractor shall consider the PATS-70 as the primary candidate for the field TPSs.

The contractor shall also consider the PATS-70 for the depot TPSs but shall consider other depot testers and make recommendation to the government for approval.

If the solution results in impact is to the CICU, is the Government providing this TPS or is the Contractor expected to deliver?

Contractor shall design, integrate, and validate all required TPSs required for the successful implement and support of the preferred solution. Contractor shall team with th or other vendors, as required. See similar comments above.

Does engineering drawings apply to the Interface Test Adapter for the TPS?

Yes

4. Are the related repair procedures restricted to Organizational Level Technical Orders?

Not necessarily. The contractor shall consider the best and complete options in their proposal. The contractor shall design, integrate and validate all technical data required to validate and verify the preferred solution will function and can be supported properly.

5. What are the target platform(s) for integration and test?

Since this is not scheduled until late FY 15, early FY16, or as late as FY17 this is still

TBD at this point but will probably be the test jets at AATC.

Does integration include lab tests, SIL, tail no. 138 (the 309 th owned A-10), ground tests, and flight tests at Eglin AFB and Nellis AFB?

Integration shall include some sort of SIL testing or equivalent. Tail no. 138 is an option.

The contractor shall make such viable considerations as part of their proposal. The contractor shall propose ground and flight test support but assume that the gov’t is responsible for actual flight test costs. If proposal includes the 309 th

, their costs shall be shown independent of the vendor costs. See similar comments above.

Is the Contractor expected to propose funding of integration of new Non-voliatile

Removable Mass Memory Device into the 309ths SIL facilities?

The contractor shall make such viable considerations as part of their proposal. It is not required but may be the best solution. If proposal includes the 309 th

, their labor costs shall be shown independent of the vendor costs. The government would then fund their efforts separately.

If flight test is required, how many flight test jets will the contractor be required to modify?

If flight test is required, the contractor shall modify at least one test jet. A second is recommended as a backup platform.

Are common Safety of Flight environmental tests required for CCB approval prior to start of flight test?

Yes

If jets are required to be modified, the PWS does not identify a requirement for the

Contractor to provide a T-2 package.

Is the Government going to develop the T-2 package for incorporation of the new Mass

Memory Device onto the flight test jets?

If flight test is required, the contractor shall prepare the appropriate T-2 package for government approval.

Has the Government determined with the flight test community the number of sorties and the duration of flight test that will be required to verify the new system is operational and meets both Threshold and Objective requirements?

No. Since this is not scheduled until late FY 15 or early FY16 the Government has not yet determined with the flight test community the number of sorties and the duration of flight test that will be required. The contractor shall make the appropriate recommendations based on complexity of testing and risk as part of their proposal.

Does test include environmental and EMI/EMC testing or is analysis of OEM specifications adequate?

The contractor shall perform the appropriate environmental and EMI/EMC testing per the

A10- specifications.

6. What is the Government intention for validation and what agency that will perform this validation?

The contractor shall perform the validation with A-10 SPO engineering and ESs present who will sign off on the validation. The test results shall be made available to the government for any required agency approval. Since this is not scheduled until late FY

15 or early FY16 the approval agency is still TBD. (The associated technical data review must proceed before the on aircraft validation.)

Does validation apply to both technical requirements and technical order source data?

Yes. The contractor shall validate both technical requirements and technical order source data. This shall be done together as much as possible.

7. If a T-2 is required, does the Government only require engineering drawings for the installation and for figures in technical orders?

If a T-2 is required, the contractor shall develop the T-2 for installation that is sufficient but for the Validation and Verification of functionality and all engineering data.

Installation would include structural modification, mechanical plates and brackets, electrical harnesses, and overall installation drawings.

Does the Government require drawings supporting removal of the UDTU and DVADR?

Yes.

Does the Government want the contractor to purchase maintenance data and drawings from the OEM of the selected solution?

The contractor shall perform an analysis for support of the preferred solution to include support tradeoffs to purchase maintenance data and drawings from the OEM.

8. The Government is missing a TM86-01 which defines all the TOs which are required to be modified as well as defining requirements for only TO source data versus full SGML.

Will the Government be providing an updated RFP package that includes the TM86-01?

TM86-01 data will be required; Gov’t incorporating this into next set of questions.

9. The selected solution will likely impact support equipment such as the PATS -70 and the

Mission Planning/Debrief Flight Planning Software used by the pilots. Depending on the format of the recording media for the selected Mass Memory Device, both the PATS -70

Hardware and Software as well the Mission Planning/Debrief flight planning hardware and software will require modification. Will the Government initiate these efforts through other contracting such as with the 309th?

The contractor shall consider the best options in their proposal for the preferred solution.

If the proposal requires a teaming arrangement with the 309 th

, the contractor shall identify their tasks and the associated costs. The 309 th related costs shall be shown independent of the vendor costs in the proposal. Upon award of the delivery order for this task, the government would then fund the labor for the 309 th efforts separately. If teaming arrangements are required with other non-government vendors, they are the sole responsibility of the contractor. The associated non-government vendor costs shall be included in the proposal. The contractor shall manage all the teaming arrangement.

Is Contractor required to bid updates and testing to both the PATS -70 and the Mission

Planning/Debrief systems to include development, updates and testing through ground/flight test?

Yes. If the preferred solution is incompatible the current PATS testing or Mission

Planning/Debrief systems, the contractor shall design, integrate, and validate updates and testing through ground/flight test for both the PATS -70 and the Mission

Planning/Debrief systems. If these tasks or any other tasks in the proposal require a teaming arrangement with the 309 th

, the contractor shall identify the associated tasks and costs shall be shown independent of the vendor costs. Upon award of the delivery order for this task, the government would then fund the labor for the 309 th efforts separately.

The contractor shall manage all required teaming arrangement. The contractor shall coordinate with the government the scheduling of government test assets.

Is SIL testing at the 309 th facility required? If so who will be funding updates to the SIL at the 309 th

The contractor shall consider the best options in their proposal. If those options include updates to the SIL those costs shall be identified and included in the proposal. Upon award of the delivery order for this task, the government would then fund the labor for the 309 th efforts separately. The contractor shall include the costs of any required parts and supplies required to update the SIL or any other required activities under this task in their proposal (i.e. the 309 th labor costs are for labor and overhead only).

10. Is rehosting PGCAS part of this effort?

Yes. All functions of the DTSAS software in the UDTU are included in this task.

PGCAC should be included in the previous OA/OUE software. Some teaming arrangement may be required with the vendor who owns the rights to PGCAS. See section 71 c in the A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program Support Upgraded Data

Transfer Unit (UDTU) Re-Host Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) Final Report for related discussion and recommendations.

Has Department of State permission been granted for work related PGCAS rehosting?

DOS permission is not required for the rehosting. What is required is permission to exchange technical information with a foreign company (the vendor who owns the rights to PGCAS). This will be obtained when this delivery order is contracted if necessary.

Is the Government providing the contractor with the PGCAS software rehosted onto the new platform?

During the previous OA and OUE all functions of the UDTU were transferred to the

DVADR.

11. The A-10 SPO conduct two TLPS SERP task for an effort similar to this related to rehosting all recording to the DVADR. The Contractor respectfully request electronic copies of all briefing, CDRL deliverables, and reports associated with both of these efforts to determine if any of their efforts can be reused for this effort.

The following reports are on the GFI disc (15 May14):

File name: A001 A211 UDTU Final Report Update 30 Dec 2010

Report Title: A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program Support, Upgraded Data Transfer

Unit (UDTU) Analysis of Alternatives and Operational Assessment, Final Report –

Update, Contract FA8202-09-D-0001_0003, CLIN 0054, CDRL A001, A211, December

20, 2010, A10-TLPS-10-0030 Revision A

File name: A126_UDTU_re-host_OUE_final_report.doc

Report Title: A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program Support Upgraded Data Transfer

Unit (UDTU) Re-Host Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) Final Report, Contract

FA8202-09-D-0001-0009, CLIN 0054, CDRL A126, A10-TLPS-11-0068, Original, December 20, 2012

12. Normally for OUEs, the Contractor is required to support various design meetings to include System Requirements Review, either a TIM or Engineering Design Review

(EDR), Test Readiness Review (TRR) as well as various Technical Order (TO) meetings such as a Technical Order Guidance Conference (TOGC) as well as In Process Review

(IPR) meetings for review of the TO source data. Will these meetings be required for the

OUEs?

Yes. The contractor shall support various design meetings to include System

Requirements Review, either a TIM or Engineering Design Review (EDR), Test

Readiness Review (TRR) as well as various Technical Order (TO) meetings such as a

Technical Order Guidance Conference (TOGC) as well as In Process Review (IPR.)

Support includes but not limited to scheduling and running the meetings, generating agendas, briefing slides, taking and tracking action items, etc.

13. Please provide a list of all the CPIN software currently supporting the DVADR and the

UDTU along with any supporting software documentation. Is it the intent of the

Government to provide this software and any source code to the contractor to support this

OUE?

The UDTU CPIN is 81H-A10/UDTU-F001-00A, (Rev 000)

**There is no CPIN for the DVADR.

PWS 3.10.2 (b) reads: “Analyze, compare, evaluate and recommend the COTS AHRS technology technical readiness level, which one would most cost effectively meet current and anticipated future A-10 mission requirements as a preferred solution as determined in the HARS

OA. The analysis must include the implementation and support costs over the life of the A-10 as a preferred solution. (CDRL A004, A008)”

To include:

All AHRS functions implemented in software (outside of the AHRS unit) shall be Future

Airborne Capabilities Environment (FACE) 2.0 or greater compliant. The contractor shall:

1. Survey the FACE vendors to determine what AHRS functions are already available.

2. Maximize the reuse of existing FACE compliant modules to minimize the cost of the software development for this effort.

3. Assume that the A-10 platform has a FACE compliant processor (This will likely be installed as part of the cockpit sustainment effort.)

4. Use a FACE compliant processor to successfully demonstrate this effort

Questions:

5. Where are the AvSATA_II HARS_Replacement OA Final_Presentation and Doc. 11-

A10DOC-1421, Heading Attitude Reference System (HARS) Replacement

Operational Assessment (OA) Final Report, 31 January 2011 that are referenced in

3.10.2? Will this information be provided as part of an updated GFI DVD?

Yes. It is on the GFI DVD.

6. Will the Government provide a preferred cost model to implement?

No. The contractor shall use similar models and data as found in the AVSAP/AVSATA reports and submit for government approval. (Some minor improvements should be expected)

PWS item 3.10.2 (d) reads: “As the culmination of the OUE, design (to include generation of all applicable technical data such as, engineering drawings, Technical Orders, test, TPSs and related repair procedures, etc.), integrate, validate and test the AHRS as the preferred solution and the technical data from a.- b. above. (CDRL A004, A008, A012, A013)”

Questions:

7. What type of TPS is desired?

The contractor shall consider the best options in their proposal. The contractor shall design, integrate, and validate Field Level and draft Depot level TPSs (using PATS-70 for the field tests). The PATS-70 is a likely candidate for the depot. The contractor shall analyze viable options and make recommendation for depot test stand.

Is this the depot level test program set for the newly introduced LRU? If so what test stand does the Government prefer this TPS to be developed on?

See above answer.

Does engineering drawings apply to the Interface Test Adapter for the TPS?

Yes

8. Are the related repair procedures restricted to Organizational Level Technical Orders?

Not necessarily. The contractor shall consider the best and complete options in their proposal. The contractor shall design, integrate and validate all technical data required to validate and verify the preferred solution will function and can be supported properly.

9. What are the target platform(s) for integration and test?

Since this is not scheduled until late FY 15 or early FY16 this is still TBD at this point but will probably be the test jets at AATC.

Does integration include lab tests, SIL, tail no. 138 (the 309 th owned A-10), ground tests, and flight tests at Eglin AFB and Nellis AFB?

The contractor shall consider the best and complete options in their proposal. Initial integration and test shall include some sort of SIL testing and validation to give the government enough confidence for progressing to ground and flight test. Tail no. 138 is an option. The contractor shall make such viable considerations as part of their proposal.

The contractor shall propose and provide ground and flight test support. The government is responsible for actual flight test costs. If the proposed options include updates to the

SIL those costs shall be identified and included in the proposal. Upon award of the delivery order for this task, the government would then fund the labor for the 309 th efforts separately. The contractor shall include the costs of any required parts and supplies required to update the SIL or any other required activities under this task in their proposal

(i.e. the 309 th labor costs are for labor and overhead only).

Is the Contractor expected to propose funding of integration of AHRS into the 309ths SIL facilities?

The contractor shall make such viable considerations as part of their proposal. The 309 th

SIL integration is not required but may be the most cost effective solution for validation and support of the preferred solution.

If flight test is required, how many flight test jets will the contractor be required to modify?

If flight test is required, the contractor shall modify at least one test jet. A second is recommended as a backup platform.

If jets are required to be modified, the PWS does not identify a requirement for the

Contractor to provide a T-2 package.

Is the Government going to develop the T-2 package for incorporation of the new AHRS onto the flight test jets?

The contractor shall prepare the T-2 package for incorporation and removal of the new

AHRS onto the flight test jets for government approval.

Has the Government determined with the flight test community the number of sorties and the duration of flight test that will be required to verify the new system is operational and meets both Threshold and Objective requirements?

No. The contractor shall make recommendations of and support the number of sorties and the duration of flight test that will be required to verify the new system is operational and meets both Threshold and Objective requirements based on complexity of testing and risk as part of their proposal.

Does test include environmental and EMI/EMC testing or is analysis of OEM specifications adequate?

The contractor shall perform on aircraft environmental and EMI/EMC testing.

10. What is the Government intention for validation and what agency that will perform this validation?

The contractor shall perform the validation with A-10 SPO engineering and ESs present who will sign off on the validation. The test results shall be made available to the government for any required other agency approval. Since this is not scheduled until late

FY 15 or early FY16 the approval agency is still TBD. (The associated technical data review must proceed before the on aircraft validation.)

Does validation apply to both technical requirements and technical order source data?

Yes. The contractor shall validate both technical requirements and technical order source data. This shall be done together as much as possible.

11. If a T-2 is required, does the Government only require engineering drawings as required for the installation and for figures in technical orders?

If a T-2 is required, the contractor shall develop the T-2 for installation and removal that is sufficient for the Validation and Verification of functionality and all engineering data.

Installation would include structural modification, mechanical plates and brackets, electrical harnesses, and overall installation drawings. Does the Government require drawings supporting removal of the legacy HARS?

Yes. The contractor shall design drawings and procedures for supporting removal of the legacy HARS for government approval.

Does the Government want the contractor to purchase maintenance data and drawings

The contractor shall perform an analysis for support of the preferred solution to include support tradeoffs to purchase maintenance data and drawings from the OEM.

12. The Government is missing a TM86-01 which defines all the TOs which are required to be modified as well as defining requirements for only TO source data versus full

SGML. Will the Government be providing an updated RFP package that includes the

TM86-01?

TM86-01 data will be required; Gov’t incorporating this into next set of questions.

13. The selected solutions will likely impact support equipment. Will the Government initiate these efforts through other contracting such as with the 309th?

The contractor shall consider the best options here in their proposal. If it includes working with the 309 th

, the costs shall be determined and presented independent of vendor costs in their proposal. If the proposed options include parts or supplies for updates to the support equipment those costs shall be identified and included in the proposal. Upon award of the delivery order for this task, the government would then fund the labor for the 309 th efforts separately. The contractor shall include the costs of any required parts and supplies required to update the support equipment or any other required activities under this task in their proposal (i.e. the 309 th labor costs are for labor and overhead only).

Is Contractor going to be required to bid updates and testing for support equipment to include development, updates and testing through ground/flight test?

Yes. The contractor shall perform updates and testing for support equipment to include design, integration, validation, updates and testing through ground/flight test. If 309 th or other vendor support is required see similar comments above.

Is SIL testing at the 309 th facility required in which case who will be funding updates to the SIL at the 309 th

The contractor shall consider the best options here in their proposal. If it includes updates to the SIL those costs shall be included in the proposal. See similar comments as stated above about the SIL and the 309 th support.

14. Normally for OUEs, the Contractor is required to support various design meetings to include System Requirements Review, either a TIM or Engineering Design Review

(EDR), Test Readiness Review (TRR) as well as various Technical Order (TO) meetings such as a Technical Order Guidance Conference (TOGC) as well as In

Process Review (IPR) meetings for review of the TO source data. Will these meetings be required for the OUEs?

Yes. The contractor shall support various design meetings to include System

Requirements Review, either a TIM or Engineering Design Review (EDR), Test

Readiness Review (TRR) as well as various Technical Order (TO) meetings such as a

Technical Order Guidance Conference (TOGC) as well as In Process Review (IPR) meetings for review of the TO source data. Support includes but not limited to scheduling and running the meetings, generating agendas, briefing slides, taking and tracking action items, etc..

PWS item 3.10.2 (e) reads: “As the culmination of the OUE, design (to include generation of all applicable technical data such as, engineering drawings, Technical Orders, test, TPSs and related repair procedures, etc.), integrate, validate and test the uPNT technology as the preferred solution and the technical data from a.+ c. above. (CDRL A004, A008, A012, A013)”

Questions:

15. See questions 19 through 26 from 3.10.2 (d).

Same answers as above.

16. The DARPA uPNT technology may not be complete and available for system testing by the time required in the period of performance. How would this situation be handled contractually?

This is intended for the out years of the contract. If the technology is not available during the contract POP no delivery order will be issued for this task. The contractor must gain an in-depth understanding of the technology, analyze how it would be integrated on the

A-10, assume it will be ready in year 4 or 5 of the contract POP, identify risks and include this in their proposal

PWS item 3.10.3 (a) reads: “Analyze the fuel quantity indicating system for both the new and the old wings using circuit simulation modelling of the fuel probe, the dynamic fuel impedance, the wiring impedance, etc. to determine the detailed functionality of the fuel quantity indicating system. (CDRL A004, A008, A012, A013, A014)”

Questions:

17. Why are the CDRLs A008 System Architecture and CDRL A012 Technical Order

Improvement Report and Reply included when this is analysis of existing systems?

That is an error. They are not required here. However, they are included as deliverables in

3.10.3 (b) & (c). Gov’t removed A008 and A012 from PWS 3.10.3 (a).

18. Has the Government set aside time on a few A-10 to measure parameters for the models?

The contractor shall identify all parameters required to be measured for model development and any other required activity for this task, what, where, and how much time is required. The contractor shall work with the government to schedule aircraft availability for the measurements.

If so is the technical report A004 the data item that will contain the test procedures?

The A004 CDRL can be used for a test procedure. Another A004 CDRL would be the final report.

Is the Government or Contractor expected to provide manpower for aircraft actions necessary to access the test points and make these measurements?

The contractor shall work with the government to schedule access time and needed government access support.

Is a T-2 required for any actions such panel removal to access test points?

The contractor shall analyze and design a recommended procedure for accessing and measuring model parameter test points for government approval. If any changes to the aircraft wiring are necessary then a simple T-2 shall be required.

PWS item 3.10.3 (b) reads: “Analyze the fuel quantity indicating system for both the new and the old wings using circuit simulation modeling to determine an optimal routing of the wiring that will be the most reliable and least difficult and time consuming to maintain. (CDRL A004, A008, A012, A013, A014)”

Question:

19. Does most reliable pertain to the quality of the measurement and not the MTBF?

Both. We see failures (MTBF) based on poor quality of measurement, wire damage, contact corrosion, etc.

PWS item 3.10.3 (c) reads: “As a culmination of the OUE, design (to include generation of all applicable technical data such as, engineering drawings, Technical Orders, test, TPSs and related repair procedures, etc.), integrate, validate and test the most optimal wiring of the preferred solution and the technical data from b. above. (CDRL A004, A008, A012, A013, A014)”

Questions:

20. What type of TPS is desired?

The contractor shall consider the best options in their proposal. The contractor shall design, integrate, and validate Field Level using PATS-70 for the field tests.

.Are the related repair procedures restricted to Organizational Level Technical Orders?

Not necessarily. The contractor shall consider the best and complete options in their proposal. The contractor shall design, integrate and validate all technical data required to validate and verify the preferred solution will function and can be supported properly.

21. What are the target platform(s) for integration and test?

Since this is not scheduled until late FY 15 or early FY16 this is still TBD at this point but will probably be the test jets at AATC.

Does integration include lab tests, SIL, tail no. 138 (the 309 th owned A-10), ground tests, and flight tests?

The integration shall include some sort of modelling and/or simulation. Existing SIL testing may not be possible since the SILs do not include the fuel measurement wiring.

Tail no. 138 may an option. The contractor shall make such viable considerations as part of their proposal. The contractor shall support ground and flight test. The gov’t is responsible for actual flight test costs. If proposal includes the 309 th

, their costs shall be shown independent of the vendor costs. The government would then fund their efforts separately. (See similar 309 th related comments above) The contractor shall work with the government to schedule aircraft access and needed support personnel.

Is the Contractor expected to propose funding of integration facilities or sortie requirements or T-2 modifications?

We don’t anticipate any integration into any Lab facilities. However, if required, the contractor shall propose costs for any required facilities integration. The contractor shall provide support for sorties but the government will cover the costs of the sorties themselves. (See similar comments on 309 th above)

The contractor shall prepare the T-2 package for government approval as required.

22. What is the Government intention for validation and what agency that will perform this validation? Does validation apply to both technical requirements and technical order source data?

The contractor shall perform the verification and validation with A-10 SPO engineering and ESs present who will sign off on the validation. The test results shall be made available to the government for any required agency approval. If required and since this is not scheduled until late FY 15 or early FY16 the approval agency is still TBD. (The associated technical data review must proceed before the on aircraft validation.)

Does the Government only require engineering drawings as required for the installation and for figures in Technical Orders?

The contractor shall develop the T-2 for installation and removal that is sufficient for the

Validation and Verification of functionality and all engineering data for the preferred solution install and support.

Installation would include electrical harnesses and overall installation drawings. Does the Government require drawings supporting removal of the wiring?

Yes

23. The selected solution could impact support equipment including the use of PATS and

PSD-60. Will the Government initiate these efforts? Is Contractor test to include testing these support equipment?

The contractor shall consider the best options here in their proposal. If it includes working with the 309 th

, the costs shall be determined and presented with their proposal.

The government would then fund those efforts separately. (See similar comments above)

24. Normally for OUEs, the Contractor is required to support various design meetings to include System Requirements Review, either a TIM or Engineering Design Review

(EDR), Test Readiness Review (TRR) as well as various Technical Order (TO) meetings such as a Technical Order Guidance Conference (TOGC) as well as In

Process Review (IPR) meetings for review of the TO source data. Will these meetings be required for this OUE?

Yes. The contractor shall support various design meetings to include System

Requirements Review, either a TIM or Engineering Design Review (EDR), Test

Readiness Review (TRR) as well as various Technical Order (TO) meetings such as a

Technical Order Guidance Conference (TOGC) as well as In Process Review (IPR) meetings for review of the TO source data. Support includes but not limited to scheduling and running the meetings, generating agendas, briefing slides, taking and tracking action items, etc.