CRM_C-HOBS.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 14 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 C-HOBS sensor system. Key details include:
-
The solicitation requests pricing for travel costs, production testing including physical configuration audits, operational testing, and flight certification. It also requires pricing for low altitude drop testing of 1 to 20 units and a minimum of 100 units for qualification testing.
-
Responses clarify that travel costs will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price, physical configuration audits and operational testing evaluate different requirements, and qualification testing is separate from first article acceptance testing.
-
The statement of objectives requires 70 units for initial first article testing and subsequent first articles may require additional flight tests. Minimums for qualification testing and drop tests are not specified.
-
Questions regarding attachment details, order periods, and pricing instructions are addressed to ensure the solicitation clearly conveys requirements for pricing, testing, and proposal responses. Classified responses are allowed if needed.
Questions and Answers
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. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .