CRM_C-HOBS_25_Jan_2018.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- C-HOBS FA8213-18-R-3015 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8213-17-R-DSU33
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a federal solicitation for a Common High-altitude Orbital Bomb Scoring (C-HOBS) sensor system. Key details include:
-
The solicitation is issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center and seeks responses to questions that arose during an industry day event and request for information process. Questions cover topics such as testing requirements, pricing terms, security procedures and technical specifications.
-
Offerors are required to complete both qualification testing and First Article Acceptance Testing to prove production line capabilities. A minimum of 100 sensor units must be tested for qualification and 70 units are required for initial First Article testing. Pricing must be provided through Ordering Period 5 in July 2024.
-
The document indicates travel costs will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price but must still be priced separately. Security controls outlined in the DD254 will apply to proposed solutions, with classified appendices accepted if required.
-
Technical requirements specified in the Statement of Requirements demand capabilities such as terrain discrimination in various conditions. The government provides clarification on terms and scenarios as requested.
Comment Resolution Matrix dated 25 Jan 2018.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
C-HOBS FA8213-18-R-3015 has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Response | |
| Contract line items for Travel have not been included in the Total Evaluated Price spreadsheet. Does this the Solicitation need to be updated to include this? | Travel must be separately priced per the solicitation, however the price of the travel CLINs will not be part of the TEP. | |
| Statement of Objectives (SOO) paragraph 2.7 requires a Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) to be performed after First Article Acceptance Testing. Should contractors include the cost of PCA in the ordering period 2 production pricing? | PCA pricing will need to be priced out in ordering period 2 production pricing. | |
| SOO paragraph 3.7 requires a quantity of thirty (30) units to be used for Operational Test and Evaluation. Are these the same units that will be used to satisfy the SOO paragraph 2.1.2 requirement to complete Government flight certification testing? | Development testing for flight certification is not the same as OT&E so they are not the same units. | |
| Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) Number **32 Block 10 refers to Block 16 for frequency, but Block 16 does not identify submittal requirements. Can the CDRL form be updated to address submittal requirements? | CDRL has been changed to reflect the correct submittal requirements. | |
| Boeing has indicated that it is not currently in a position to provide a quote for the JDAM cable kits until they work out requirement issues. Can the Government identify how a contractor is to comply with the Solicitation if a directed source will not provide a quotation for a material portion of the Solicitation requirements? | Boeing will be providing the quote on the Cable Kits to the AF; this price will not be included in the TEP, the TEP is corrected. | |
| In regards to Attachment 3, Table 1-Ordering Periods. The formal RFP release changed this section, such that the period of performance for five (5) production years is extended from CY 2025 to CY 2031 | It needs to be priced out through 2026 not 2031. The orders will overlap each other as described in section 1 of attachment 3. | |
| USG Authorization to BoeingRequest for USG to authorize Boeing to quote Cable Kits to Contractor. | Boeing will be providing the quote on the Cable Kits to the AF; this price will not be included in the TEP, the TEP is corrected. | |
| With respect to Appendix IV-Working BOE file for CLINS 1001 and 1001, noted in Section 6.2.11, can this be submitted in the contractor’s format, as long as it provides the data requested within Appendix IV? | CLINS 1000 and 1001 as noted in Section L 6.2.1.1. states that “offerors can adjust the BOE worksheet to capture different labor categories, subcontractor costs, etc.” | |
| Under Section L, paragraph 6.1 noted below, the request is to provide other than certified cost and pricing data for Cost Reimbursable CLINs. The CLINs noted in Section L, paragraph 6.1 call out CLINs 2002, 3010, 4009, 5009, 6009 and 7010 “Travel.” These CLINs are listed in the solicitation document; however, these CLINs are not listed in the TEP matrix. | ||
| a. Should these CLINs be listed in the TEP matrix? The instructions indicate as though these CLINs have to be priced separately, but the TEP matrix is not consistent with that request. | Travel CLINS will not be evaluated in the TEP; however offerors must adhere to 2.4.4 of Section M and meet the requirements of (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Balance and (4) Realism as further defined in Section M 2.4.4.1, 2.4.4.2, 2.4.4.3, and 2.4.4.4. |
a) No. Travel must be separately priced per the solicitation, however the price of the travel CLINs will not be part of the TEP.
TEP Matrix has a column labeled “Price”. Can you please clarify that this means “Unit Price within each range” for the Cable Kits and the C-HOB units as opposed to “Total Price”. Boeing will be providing USG price of cable kits.
C-HOB Units, Trainers and First Article Required will be proposed to at the unit price and TEP has been revised for clarity.
| The TEP Matrix has pre-established formulas to add all Totals of all Ordering Periods to sum to a Grand Total at the bottom. Since the RFP is silent on Weightings, the TEP model will not be able to be fully completed and at the time of submission the “Total” Rows will be blank. Is this the USG’s intention? | Yes. Government will apply weightings to determine the total evaluated price. |
| The current copies we have of Attachment 5 (ICD) and Attachment 6 (SRD) documents do not identify a part number for the Boeing Cable Kit. The SRD paragraph 2.2 and the ICD paragraph 3.3 identify the cable part number as TBD. | Part number is still TBD |
| Attachment 3 seems to have errors in the tables, which are as follows: |
a. In Table 2 shouldn’t rows for Order Periods 3, 4, 5, and 6 be deleted?
b. In Table 3 shouldn’t rows for Order Periods 3, 4, 5, and 6 be deleted?
c. In Table 4 shouldn’t row for Order Period 2 be deleted?
d. In Table 5 shouldn’t row for Order Period 2 be deleted? a) Correct. Identified rows will be deleted since table 2 is specific to just Ordering Period 2.
b) Correct. Identified rows will be deleted since table 3 is specific to ordering period 2.
c) Correct. Order Period 2 will be deleted since it is captured in its own separate table.
d) Correct. Order Period 2 will be deleted since it is captured in its own separate table.
| What is the intent for Attachment 7? It seems to have a different contract number in the heading. There does not appear to be a reference in the rest of the document as to the applicability of Attachment 7. | The intent for Attachment 7 is to have prices for spares. Spares are a requirement as found in the SOO. Section L has been modified to include section 6.2.1.3 that instructs offerors to submit a copy of the completed attachment 7 “Incremental Spares.” |
| The Industry Day Grouped Q&A document stated that the requirement to perform low altitude drop testing prior to PDR was going to be removed. The current Statement Of Objectives (SOO) Para 2.1.1 requires it to be performed prior to Preliminary Design Review (PDR). Can the Government provide clarification? | Pre-PDR low altitude drop testing will be removed from the SOO |
| Does the Government have a minimum amount of units that need to be assumed for each low altitude drop test? | There is no minimum. The number of tests will depend on the contractor design (to include what objective requirements the design meets), and modeling and simulation efforts. |
| Solicitation Number FA8213-18-R3015 CLIN 1001 requires low altitude drop testing to be priced separately and assumes a quantity of 1 to 20 units. Should the contractors assume that each quantity price point is an individual C-HOB test unit or that each quantity price point is a test series with a minimum amount of C-HOBS units to be tested? | Each quantity price point is per individual C-HOB test. |
| Section M paragraph 2.4.1 states that Spares will be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) but the TEP worksheet does not include Spares. Can the Government clarify if Spares will be included in the TEP? | Spares should be included in the TEP. |
| Has the Government determined the minimum number of units that will be required to go through C-HOBS Qualification testing? | Minimum number for qualification testing including environmental, modeling & simulation, and flight testing is 100 units. |
| SOO Para 3.5 requires a total of 70 C-HOBS to conduct the initial First Article Acceptance Testing (FAAT). SOO Para 3.5 also states that flight tests would be required for subsequent FAATs. |
a. Is the initial FAAT also being referred to as Qualification testing or is Qualification a separate test?
b. The current DSU-33 FAAT plan requires a total of 46 units (20 environments + 26 flight test). Can the Government provide more details on what is driving the quantity increase?
c. Does the quantity of 70 units include flight test units that will be required on subsequent FAATs? a) Qualification and FAAT are separate test programs.
b) The C-HOBS is a new sensor with new requirements which will drive an increase in FAAT rigor compared to the DSU-33.
c) No, subsequent FAAT will be driven by such things as a break in manufacturing for more than 90 days or a significant manufacturing change.
| There are a number of objective requirements that are listed in the SRD but they are not identified in the Section L and M documents. How should contractors handle these requirements if they are not being evaluated | Higher proposal scores cannot be given for objective requirements not evaluated in L & M, therefore higher cost and risk for these objectives should be carefully evaluated before including them in proposals. |
| Contractor believes it will need to submit a classified document in order to provide a basis of estimate for the effort requested in SOO Para 2.10.5. Will this be allowed? | If necessary the AF will allow classified submissions. Explanation and justification for the need to submit classified documents will be needed as well as the documents being submitted as classified data is required to be submitted. |
| Section 6: TDP and NORs, releasable to DoD contractors, in which all restrictive markings have been removed and are available. Please provide any additional data that may not have been released. | There is no additional data which has not been released |
| Section 11: P-HOBS deliverables releasable to industry, in which the USG will provide to all interested parties upon request. Please provide any additional data that may not have been released. | There is no additional data which has not been released |
| Would the Government provide further definition of the following terms as they relate to the objective requirement for Terrain Discrimination as it applies to SRD requirement 3.2.1.8.4. Specific terms used that are which additional quantifiable clarification is being requested include: “true ground”, “urban clutter”, “foliage”, “buildings”, and “trees”. | (2) True ground: A bare earth surface free from either man-made obstructions or naturally occurring plant material. |
The remaining requested definitions are examples of man-made (urban clutter, buildings) and naturally occurring plant life (foliage, trees) that obscure the true ground surface and could prevent the C-HOBS from detecting true ground.
Therefore any object obscuring the true ground, whether man-made, (urban clutter, buildings) or naturally occurring, (foliage, trees) which is large enough to introduce a HOB error larger than the operational C-HOBS HOB tolerance (defined as a threshold of 10 feet and an objective of 6 feet – see SRD 3.2.1.8.2.2) must be counted as quantifiable.
We would also like to know any situations where size or density of objects, or other limitations prevent the C-HOBS from finding true ground, such as these (hypothetical) or other situations:
1. If a C-HOBS equipped weapon falls into the center of a fifty foot wide road between two thirty story tall buildings an error of X feet with respect to true ground will be introduced.
2. If a C-HOBS equipped weapon falls onto Boeing’s 98 acre Everett Washington factory the sensor will sense the building roof as the ground and will therefore not detect true ground.
3. If a C-HOBS equipped weapon falls over a dense forest canopy the sensor radar cannot penetrate the canopy, and will therefore not detect true ground.
4. If a C-HOBS equipped weapon falls into a forest where no-one is there to hear it an error of Y feet with respect to true ground will be introduced.
| Please give a quantifiable clarification of the jungle “triple canopy”. | “Triple canopy” does not appear in any C-HOBS solicitation material. However, triple canopy is a jungle structure of trees containg: a sparse emergent layer of trees that extend above the jungle canopy, a think canopy layer that blocks ~95% of light and an understory layer of shorter trees that don't reach the canopy layer.If this presents a situation as above that could prevent the sensor from finding true ground, please annotate in the proposal. |
| The current DD254 supplied with the program references a Security Classification Guide for protection of classified DSU-33 information. Our interpretation of the DD254 is that it does not apply the security classification guide to our proposed solutions. Does the Government prefer that we treat our proposed solutions according to the DD254 referenced security classification guide which may require us to provide a classified appendix to our proposal, or are our proposed solutions not considered classified until they get selected as the winner and become a DSU-33 Government classified item? | Treat proposed solutions in accordance with the DD254 and DSU-33 Security Classification Guide. You can reasonably expect, just as with the legacy DSU-33, anything that could reveal potential vulnerabilities with the C-HOBS and lead to defeating the sensor mission will be classified. If proposals must include this kind of detail, classified submissions will be accepted. |
Also, the DD254 will be updated to include a second SCG "Fuze Component Technology Security Classification Guide", which is written by AFRL to give guidance on fuze/sensor development programs.
Section L Appendix 1, Page 19:
a. When will the PPI Tool be added to Fed Biz Ops?
b. Are the printed pages generated by the PPI Tool and included in the Past Performance volume considered to be in addition to the 12 pages allocated for the Past Performance Volume? The PPI tool will be added to Fed Biz Ops in Amendment 3.
Yes the pages generated by the PPI tool are included in the 12 page limit.
| Section L 4.3.4 and Section M 2.2.7(a) both reference a Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW). The CSOW requirement is not detailed in the solicitation or the SOO. Please provide clarification on the CSOW reference. | A DID will be added to the SOO. A CDRL for the CSOW will also be added. The CSOW is intended to describe how a contractor will comply with contract requirements. This will be done in amendment 3. |
| The latest Comment Resolution Matrix states that spares should be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), but the spares are not currently identified in the TEP worksheet. Will this be updated? | The TEP will be updated in the worksheet to have Spares in amendment 3. |
| Does the Jam Nut still need to be provided in the C-HOBS production unit pricing? If not, will the Attachment 7 spreadsheet be updated to remove the Jam Nut from the pricing requirements? | Please include pricing for the jam nut. |
| DSU-33 packaging drawing 20065121 requires a quantity of twelve (12) Desiccant Packs in accordance with MIL-D-3464, Type I or II. MIL-D-3464 paragraph 3.14 allows Type I and II desiccants to be provided in different unit sizes. Can the Government provide the desiccant pack unit size that is currently used on DSU-33? | The DSU-33 uses 4 unit size packs |
| 1) One of the Government responses indicated that the period of performance should be priced out to 2026 but we are having trouble identifying how it extends beyond July 2025 with the lead time requirements identified in the contract. Are the dates below the correct assumptions that contractors should be making for period of performance? |
a. Contract award date: 7/31/18
b. Ordering Period 1 (24 months): Aug-18 thru Jul-20
c. Ordering Period 2 (24 months): Feb 20 thru Jan 22
d. Ordering Period 3 (18 months): Feb 21 thru Jul 22
e. Ordering Period 4 (18 months):: Feb 22 thru Jul 23
f. Ordering Period 5 (18 months):: Feb 23 thru Jul 24
| g. Ordering Period 6 (18 months):: Feb 24 thru Jul 25 | Contract Award it anticipated the end of August 2018. Other than that the dates are correct. | |
| For ordering period 2, is submitting the FAAT report 6 months ARO a hard requirement if the contractor can still meet the requirement to deliver all ordering period 2 production units within 24 months ARO? | This requirement will be changed to within 30 days of FAAT completion, but no later than 12 months ARO in amendment 3. | |
| Will the C-HOBS Security Classification Guide (SCG) incorporate other class guide clauses, such as the AF Fuze Component Technology SCG, to account for the different technology baselines or should the contractors assume that all DSU-33D/B requirements within the DSU-33 SCG will be the same for C-HOBS? | The C-HOBS SCG will incorporate other class glauses including those from the AFRL Fuze Component Technology SCG, as applicable. |
Also the DD254 will be updated to incorporate the AFRL "Fuze Component Technology Security Classification Guide"
| FAAT is required for any production facility that has not previously qualified to manufacture the sensor system major components or a previously qualified production facility that has had a break in production of 180 days or more, or process changes have been made, or the quality of the product has become questionable. Unless otherwise directed by the contracting activity, the Government does not authorize regular production until the first article sample has been tested and the results accepted as satisfactory. | |
| For the first ordering period of 24 months, are both qualification and FAAT programs expected to be complete in that time frame. Could these programs be combined if the sensors are produced on the production line and require no changes after qualification testing? | FAAT and qualification are two different sets of tests, both will be required separately. FAAT will follow after successful qualification testing. |
Qualification testing will ensure that the sensor design can satisfy all requirements. It is likely that small changes to the design will need to be made during qualification testing.
After the design is qualified FAAT will prove that the production line can consistently make sensors in accordance with the qualified design.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .