Industry Day Notes.pdf

ARRAKIS Industry Day Open Questions and Answers

AEWS PMO Hill AFB, Utah 11/20/2024

Government Attendance:

Included various personnel from the AEWS staff. Program Management, Contracting Officer, Engineering, Logistics

Contractors in Attendance:

• Select Engineering Services

• Decryptor

• TSS Solutions

• SRC Incorporated

• Kihomac

Discussions below took place in an open setting at Hill AFB with all contractors and Government personnel in the same room. As part of the Governments market research, one on one sessions were held separately with each contractor independently at the same event/day. The Questions and Answers below do not reflect these sessions. The Q&A notes were taken by a designated Government employee. This event was designed to provide all interested contractors the opportunity to attend, tour the engineering facility, and discuss the opportunity in person. This industry day was for informational purposes only. The remarks of the USG officials involved in the ARRAKIS program, shall not be considered a guarantee of the USG’s course of action in proceeding with the program. It does not constitute an invitation for bid or request for proposal and is not to be construed as a commitment by the USG.

Industry Day Purpose:

• Conduct market research

• Open exchanges of ideas with industry partners

• Enhance the USG’s ability to obtain quality services and products

• Ensure strategy promotes a robust and fair competition

• Increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, negotiation, and contract award

• Address industry questions and concerns

Open Questions and Answers

Q: Is this system considered Dew-line?

A: Yes Dew-line is now considered the North Warning System in Canada as part of the FPS-117 upgrade.

Q: Is there a requirement to use Canadian services?

A: Yes, each theater is overseen by the operations & maintenance contractors as care, custodian and control of each radar site. At minimum coordination will involve these contractors when services are needed at the sites. There are different procedures for each theater.

Q: Is that a separate contract responsibility?

A: No, but in Alaska there is opportunity to subcontract the O&M contractor.

Government: Communication is very important to manage this weapon system by all entities.

Q: Who owns the TDP?

A: The USG for what applies to this contract.

Q: Why don’t short range go into Alaska A: The mission doesn’t require them.

Q: Is the C2 separate?

A: Yes.

Q: Give us scope of what we are looking for?

A: We will go into it later into the meeting.

Q: Do they (FAA) use it as primary radar?

A: Yes, FAA uses data from the radar feed.

Q: 117 ATCAL certified?

A: Yes, but it isn’t relevant for the technicians as the radar serves a military purpose. FAA simply uses the feed.

Q: What do you envision the service life to be?

A: 2035 however awaiting a possible extension. Could include design changes, studies are ongoing.

Q: What’s LM’s position on this?

A: It’s not relevant given the purpose.

Q: Is the contract primarily hardware?

A: Yes, with some software opportunities as well.

Q: No secret clearance required?

A: Not at this time, though some sites you may need an escort. It’s still up for debate.

Q: Any tasks you foresee on the short-term horizon coming up?

A: We have a 5 year spend plan. Many issues and efforts not fulfilled led the program to change strategies that led to this contract effort.

Q: Product roadmap? To go with the spend plan, are there upgrades A: There are always tech refreshes. 2-3 projects would need immediate attention/support.

Q: Urgency? Within a year or two?

A: Nothing that wouldn’t be negotiable.

Q: Do we have an inventory of GFP that would require storage?

A: There is going to be inventory and part of the contract is to have oversight of spares to be located and disseminated by this contractor. The use of Stock Control or ILS would be critical to have oversight of all GFP spares in order to develop a successful DMS and Technical Refresh strategy.

Q: Is there an operational system to see how well transmitter power is doing? Are you testing system test for the range?

A: From the MCS they can see which have overpower. Techs are on site, and onboard fault detection is picked up in the software. 84 RADES does optimization and testing. The radar system was developed for graceful degradation.

Q: Is MCS data something we get access to?

A: No, not usually. The perf can possibly be supplied if needed.

Q: Can you talk a bit about model and sim and analysis that may already exist? What docs come with TDP?

A: For model and sim there isn’t any right now. We are highly interested in it. It’s a gap needing to be fulfilled.

Q: Do you have paper drawings from the original design to specification?

A: Yes, we have hard copies and digital files.

EFAC Tour 0900-1000

Q: Do you have a schedule of task orders?

A: We have an idea, but everything Is subject to change. We know where our funding is. We have a task list. We internally manage what we need to have done and when.

Q: When do you intend to drop an RFP?

A: Within the next year.

Q: What is the relationship between this vendor and LM?

A: We would strive to have openness between them. The intent is to continue with LM on specific things. You can expect for the Government to separate any requirement impacted by their proprietary designs. If they cannot fulfill sustainment of a proprietary component or design, we would look to this contract to develop a new solution if it is possible.

Q: Working with Tobyhanna, would they be working on the repairs, or would the work be carried over to this contract?

A: No, they fulfill some of Supply Chain’s repairs, however, if for some reason they could not continue due to as obsolete component or could not meet the throughput necessary for any reason, this contract could fill that gap.

Q: LM still responsible for their DMSMS?

A: Yes, but if there’s a COTS solution that the new contract can find, that’s an option. The Government has the right to seek other solutions as needed to sustain the system.

Q: So, you generate task, and the contractor goes and makes it happen?

A: We want both. If you identify a new design solution, we will decide how and when to execute through a task order. We don’t want to just come to the contractor for every solution, the contract is designed for the contractor to oversee all assemblies of the radar. Even if its currently a proprietary LM design, we want to see alternate solutions.

Q: Existing O&M, do you envision those contractors being brought into this contract?

A: No, they are among our stakeholders. They are in a way our customer. Care, custodian and control of the sites.

Q: This contract will be sending people up there if there’s something the O&M can’t handle?

A: Yes, you will do field services where the O&M contractors are unable to perform.

Q: What is an example of an emergency call?

A: A Single point of failure, if radar ever is shut down due to technical failure. Having an emergency service is essential. For example: Any reason the Radar stops rotating, techs may not have the tools to figure out what exactly is the problem, that’s when contractor would be called upon. Down time can only be less than a designated number of hours per year.

When radars go down the 4 star of NORAD is immediately notified.

Contractors Open Discussion

Q: Air national guard EDLM. What does that mean? What do they provide?

A: It’s the Air National Guard of Hawaii, they are blue suiters. They act as the O&M in Hawaii

Q: Is there any way to make this strictly FFP? We don’t want to have DCAA come audit us, we avoid that like the plague. If you can structure anything like that to make it not go through DCAA because we don’t see it beneficial. It is preferred as a cost per head.

Q: Do you have an historical frequency on emergencies?

A: It’s different from year to year. The maximum number we’ve seen is 4-5. 2 last year, 3 or 4 the year before. Temperature can get to -70F or colder at the sites, that impacts the hardware

Q: What’s the typical response time between phone call and onsite?

A: 72 hours for a person to be assigned then 72 hours to be on site. Having the knowledge on hand is essential. An EDLM could be over the phone call, troubleshooting support. Government: we want to be involved, and communication needs to go through our office. Communication will involve the O&M contractors and stakeholders where necessary.

Q: There’s no money crossing lines when working with other contracts?

A: EDLM is a Cost Reimbursable CLIN.

Q: Who’s going to triage the money between LM and Contractor?

A: There is no financial triage. LM is contracted for their requirements; this contact is for the rest.

Q: The call will go through PMO first then down to the ARRAKIS contractor?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you see the contractor physically holding spares?

A: There will be GFP, around 1000 items currently, more as items are purchased

Q: For repair of LRU itself, you have some repairability, but some will fall onto contractor?

A: Yes. The company will be required to manage, disseminate, and oversee repairs.

Q: How many spares, how much warehouse space do we need A: That’s to be determined. GFP must be completely separate from non-government material, shouldn’t be too large.

Parts are also stored at forward supply locations to which the contractor will have oversite of also.

Q: You have a significant amount already are you looking to increase the pool?

A: The goal is to develop and understand how many spares we will need ahead of time. Many factors go into it.

Usage/failure rates, serviceable spares on hand, manufacturing and repair lead times all factor into a decision to repair and replace parts.

Q: All the historical data is stored? Do you have enough that we can start a model?

A: Some. Though there’s a lot that we don’t have. This contract aims to resolve that.

Q: Are you currently using DLA?

A: Supply chain does for component replacements in their repair items. Most of the assemblies managed at this level do not have DLA managed components. Most stock we oversee are LM assemblies, but again the intent is to start managing the weapon system as a whole more closely.

Q: Government: What risks do you see managing this contract?

A: Industry: Full TDP is a good start.

Statement: Industry EFAC is the only non-live copy of the system, no other lab. A contractor could spend a lot of time at the EFAC.

A: Yes, it is fully operational. Yes, there’s some opportunity for contractor to be at the EFAC. It’s a Government acceptance testing facility.

Q: Government: What kind of arrangement did you have in mind? You’re imposing we imbed a training period for your personnel?

Statement: Industry: Months or weeks to familiarize and be with the radar at the EFAC. There are many different radars, there are many differences. Government: We have a lot of training material to provide to you before you come out. We would be open, but we would want to have a good plan

Government: there should be an understanding that while there may be some opportunity to train at the EFAC, a contractor should have relevant and recent experience to sustain the entire weapon system, it is not the Governments responsibility to train the contractors. We won’t accept the risk of unqualified contractors.

Q: How do we help the contractor get integrated with the weapon system?

Government: We can look into some familiarization methods that would enable anyone to be successful.

Q: How do you envision transition of LM and ARRAKIS?

A: Again, there is not a transition. They are separate contracts.

Q: Would access to TDP be dropped with the solicitation?

A: We have TO’s, theory of ops, drawings.

Government: What is a responsible RFP period?

Industry: Maybe a pre-RFP could be necessary.

Q: What about providing sample task orders?

A: There would be initial task orders with the annual CLINs. We could possibly provide sample task orders.

Government: What risk do you see performing that we need to consider?

Industry: LM could be risky having to negotiate.

Government: We understand where the lines are drawn. Is there an opportunity to see both companies working together?

Industry: There is possibility, we have a working relationship with them on other efforts

Industry: I don’t see a financial risk, because there’s a baseline. Then there’s task orders, here is the price, you will say yes or no. They have seen that with F-16 with Northrup its more financial risk on the AF. Recommend include sample Task Order in RFP so you can see how each contractor prices and addresses things.

Industry: We are very lucky to have EFAC.

Government/Government: This program can’t fail.

Government: In the past we had experience with vendors, they said they don’t need our EFAC and they sent systems that didn’t integrate or work well with the EFAC.

Government: We envision the EFAC to be utilized to proof out designs and Tech refresh’s, maybe a component is obsolete driving the need for an ECP/ECO design change, the EFAC is there to resolve it.

Government: Any additional recommendations?

Industry: What about remote access to the facility with data would be great, that would allow for analysis without disruption.

Government: We wouldn’t go that route of remote access. The Radar is running correctly 90% of the time. We can possibly issue a log of faults/failures where necessary.

Government: Maybe a contractor could establish a mockup at their own facility. Possible for software at least.

Industry: For redesign, do you have environmental requirements shock and vibe?

A: Yes, we have some requirements and could reference those documents. Those would be incorporated in the task order.

Industry: Does the EFAC not provide a feed to the mission?

A: It does, however it is not essential to NORADs feed. So, it can be down at any time we designate

Industry: Digital engineering is great. Building the radar from the ground up would be awesome.

Government: would you build a functional or TDP model?

Industry: Somewhere in the middle. Some models developed to answer a specific question.

Government: Would you foresee a requirement on the contract?

Industry: Would need to be discussed but should be part of the base task then go from there.

Government: Model and Sim is already an as tasked requirement; it should be at the forefront, but we need to consider what the scale would be.

Government: What would make more sense from business side. Should there be separation?

Industry: Should be a separated CLIN.

Industry: Could be multi year, but would be very valuable.

Government: What would be a good warming period?

Industry: It would be valuable to take these questions and go back and respond more thoroughly.

Government: Of course, we want to ensure our requirements our equitable to all vendors