FA823220R3006 Q and A 17NOV2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FA823220R3006-ALR-69A-Diplexers-RFP
- Solicitation number
- FA823220R3006
About this file
This request for proposal solicits offers to provide low-cost and rapid delivery of ALR-69A diplexers for the F-16 fleet. The Air Force seeks a single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract to procure up to 2,640 diplexers over five years to support upgrades to the F-16's radar warning receiver system. Offerors must submit proposals by November 13, 2020 addressing specifications in attachment OO-G719769, including weight not exceeding six ounces and TNC connectors meeting MIL-PRF-39012. The solicitation includes a questions and answers document providing clarification on technical requirements and processes for accessing classified specifications. The Air Force Material Command Lifecycle Management Center at Hill Air Force Base will evaluate proposals and make award.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions | Response |
| 28 September 2020 Questions | |
| In the original synopsis for the program it stated the following: “4.The Government will release Technical Data Package (TDP) IAW U.S. Requirements. The solicitation contains CLASSIFIED information that will need to be requested by potential offerors as soon as possible. |
a. The requesting Contractor shall provide a CAGE code, and a DD Form 2345. The contractor will be verified and screened through the Industrial Security Facility Database (ISFD) and the Joint Certification Program (JCP) to verify the Contractor’s ability to handle SECRET information.
b. The Contractor shall provide a CLASSIFIED shipping address to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist listed below.
c. Once the SECRET portion of the TDP is shipped on a CD, the Contractor shall sign an AF Form 310 to acknowledge shipment. The Contractor shall destroy the CD and all copies after a response to this solicitation is given to the Government or immediately after a determination to not provide a response is made.”
| This year with beta.SAM many chagnes have occurred regarding the process for release of Technical data. With the release of this solicitation, we requested access to all of the associated technical data wich was justified by our interest in submitting a proposal to this solicitation, coupled with our currently approved DD2345 (attached). Within a day we received “approval” to access the controlled information on beta.SAM which was Attachment 7. Attachment 7 was CUI but does not match the expectation created by the statement in the synopsis (above) regarding the release of classified Technical Data. Our question is whether there is actually classified technical data as described in the synopsis; and if so, do we need to resubmit our DD2345 directly to you for release of it or will you be confirming with JCP directly? | There is a classified portion of the specification that will be provided upon request and verification. The Government will follow the process outlined in the Synopsis for the classified portion of the specification. The request through beta.SAM.gov is for the unclassified portion of the specification posted with the RFP (FA823220R3006). A separate, written request (via e-mail), for the classified portion of the specification is expected from each potential offeror. Emails should include a current DD2345 and Classified Shipping Address to receive the technical data. | |
| Paragraph 4.1.1 of the SOW references a diagram in Appendix 1 of the RFP. We have not been able to locate that drawing. Could you please let us know which file contains the drawing, if there is a drawing? | This SOW reference has been amended as a result of replacing OO-G719769, Rev C with OO-G719769, Diplexer attachment to the solicitation. | |
| On a related topic, paragraph 3.2.2.1 of OO-G719769 Rev C indicates that the package size and mounting configuration is to be proposed by the vendor. Is this correct? | Please use Solicitation attachment OO-G719769, Diplexer in place of OO-G719769, Rev C for proposal preparations. The updated OO-G719769 specifies in Figure 2 the Preliminary Outline Diagram of the Unit, as referenced in paragraph 3.2.2.1. | |
| Paragraph 3.2.2.1 of OO-G719769 Rev C does not appear to define connector location. Are all connectors required to be on the same surface of the diplexer or is it allowable for one connector to be on the opposite surface from the other two connectors? | See Figure 2 of the updated solicitation attachment OO-G719769, Diplexer for connector locations. | |
| Paragraph 3.2.2.1 of OO-G719769 Rev C also indicates that preferred mounting is either mounting studs or through holes. Between these two options is there a preference? | The preferred mounting method is to mount through studs, per OO-G719769, Diplexer Figure 2 | |
| Paragraph 3.2.2.2 of OO-G719769 Rev C indicates a maximum weight of 5.0 ounces, three TNC connectors alone weigh approximately 1.5 ounces therefore the weight may be a risk factor. Should the vendor propose an alternate weight? | Per the updated solicitation attachment OO-G719769, Diplexer, weight of the unit shall not exceed 6.0 ounces. | |
| Paragraph 4.6.6 of OO-G719769 Rev C indicates that the low temperature storage test should be performed at -54° C while paragraph 3.2.9.1 indicates that the diplexer shall survive a low storage temperature of -62° C, which is correct? | Per the updated solicitation attachment OO-G719769, Diplexer, the low temperature storage test should be performed at -54° IAW paragraph 4.6.6. The non-operating temperature in paragraph 3.2.9.1 now states a temperature range of -62°C to +95°C | |
| Paragraph 4.6.7 of OO-G719769 Rev C indicates that the low temperature operational test should be performed at -20° C while paragraph 3.2.9.2 indicates that the diplexer shall be fully spec compliant at a temperature of -54° C, which is correct? | Per the updated solicitation attachment OO-G719769, Diplexer, the low temperature operational test should be performed at -20° IAW paragraph 4.6.7. The normal operating temperature in paragraph 3.2.9.2 now states a temperature range of -54°C to +71°C | |
| Table II of OO-G719769 Rev C, we believe that note 4 applies to step 7 in this table, is this correct? | Reference OO-G719769, Diplexer document for clarification. | |
| This is not actually a question, we noticed that in paragraph 4.4.2 508 FSG/GFFBO is referenced as performing group B testing. Should this reference be to AFLCMC/WWMPA? | Reference to a specific organization has been removed as a result of replacing OO-G719769, Rev C with OO-G719769, Diplexer. However, Group B testing shall be performed initially by the contractor up to the point of delivery. The Government will perform First Article testing on a simulated platform and provide first article approvals. | |
| Are we correct to assume that the WBS can be included as an attachment to Volume II and outside the page count limit? | The WBS can be included as an attachment to Volume II and will not be included in the page count limitations. | |
| Which quantity are we to assume for the production quantity; 2,640 units or 937 aircraft x 4 units = 3,748 units? | 2,640 units; Reference to the approximately 937 aircraft has been removed from the SOW as a result of this solicitation amendment | |
| Is the USAF able to provide a breakdown on the contractual ceiling amount? | The government cannot share additional infomration regarding the contract ceiling. | |
| Instructions for Cross Reference Matrix are included in instructions for Volume I but instruct us to include the Cross Reference Matrix in Technical Volume (II). Please confirm that the Cross Reference Matrix is to be included in the Technical Volume rather that the Executive Summary Volume. | This was an oversight in location of the Cross Reference Matrix instructions within Section L. The Cross Reference Matrix note incldued with Table 3.1 indicating placement of the cross reference matrix in Volume II Technical is correct. | |
| Can the Government clarify if the signed RFP is different from the signed copy of the Solicitation/Model Contract? If there is no difference, please clarify where the signed solicitation should be included: Volume I or Volume IV? | There is no difference. Including the signed copy of the Solicitation and all applicable amendments shall be included in Volume IV - Contract Documentation. | |
| [potential offeror] would like to request Appendix 1 so that we are able to review the diagram. | This SOW reference has been amended as a result of replacing OO-G719769, Rev C with OO-G719769, Diplexer attachment to the solicitation. | |
| We are requesting a clarification on the weight specification for the ALR-69A diplexer. There seems to be a discrepancy between what is stated in the SOW (Attachment_1_SOW_ALR69A_Diplexer_2_Sep_2020.pdf) and what is stated in the Specification (Attachment_7_SpecOO_G719769_Rev_C.pdf). Section 1.2.1 SOW: Size, Weight and Power (SWaP): Current diplexer size is approximately 4x4x1 inches, current diplexer weight is approximately 2 pounds. Full electrical performance shall be as specified in OO-G719769, Rev C, dated 21 Apr 2017. Section 3.2.2.2 Specification: WEIGHT. WEIGHT OF THE UNIT SHALL NOT EXCEED 5.0 OUNCES. Could you provide some clarification to address this discrepancy[?] | ||
| Please use Solicitation attachment OO-G719769, Diplexer in place of OO-G719769, Rev C for proposal preparations. The updated OO-G719769 provides clarity on the specifications the Diplexer is expected to meet. | ||
| 10/14/2020 Questions | ||
| First, on the weight specification for the ALR-69A diplexer. The response to a previous question regarding the weight came back with guidance that it should be less than 6 ounces. We have completed a preliminary estimate of the weight and request that this guidance be updated to 16 ounces. Our preliminary estimate is approximately 12 ounces, but until we do a detailed design, having the flexibility to go up to 16 ounces would be preferred | We were able to reach out to our technical POC for this effort and after review of your questions and concerns the Government has determined to keep the specifications the same. These specifications have been established and are currently working for what they are designed for. At this time the Government is requesting all proposals be to the specification provided. | |
| Second, on the TNC connectors. Section 3.2.2.1 OUTLINE AND DIMENSIONS – PRELIMINARY states “PRECISION TNC CONNECTORS ARE TO BE STAINLESS STEEL” and Section 3.2.2.3 COAXIAL CONNECTORS states “THE RF INPUT AND OUTPUT CONNECTORS SHALL CONFORM TO MIL-PRF-39012 AND MIL-C-87104. UNIT IS TO BE HERMETICALLY SEALED WHEN MATED WITH RF CABLES.” We are requesting that the stainless steel requirement be changed to allow for silver plated connectors. We feel finding a TNC connector supplier that has a stainless steel connector that meets MIL-PRF-39012 will be an issue, but there are silver plated connectors that meet MIL-PRF-39012. One supplier can provide a stainless steel connector, but it does not meet MIL-PRF-39012. We are concerned that we will not be able to meet the requested schedule if the requirement is not changed to allow a silver plated connector. Since this section is indicated as preliminary, we wanted to provide feedback to consider this modification before it is made final. | We were able to reach out to our technical POC for this effort and after review of your questions and concerns the Government has determined to keep the specifications the same. These specifications have been established and are currently working for what they are designed for. At this time the Government is requesting all proposals be to the specification provided. | |
| The latest SOW (section 4.2) and the requirements document OO-G719769 (section 3.2.7.1) give conflicting values to use for calculating the muzzle distance. What order of precedence should be assumed for the documents? | The OO-G719769 document contains the officical requirement. The SOW will be amended to reflect the correct requirements. | |
| The insertion loss specs (Figure 1 of both documents) have been made significantly tighter in the OO-G719769 (2004 version provided in the 28 Sept update) than they were in the original RFP which referenced OO-G719769, 2017 Rev C. As this significantly impacts the design can you confirm that the tighter specs are now required? | Yes, they are required. The F-16 has specific size and weight requirements which have to be met to fit within the requirements of the jet. | |
| The SOW (Section 1.2.1) states that the current diplexer weighs 2 lbs, and then states “Full electrical performance shall be as specified in OO-G719769, Diplexer, dated 23 Aug 2004”. OO-G719769, Diplexer, dated 23 Aug 2004, gives a weight requirement of 6.0 ounces (section 3.2.2.2). Is the 6 ounce number the correct value for maximum weight? | The OO-G719769 document contains the officical requirement. The SOW will be amended to reflect the correct requirements. | |
| 10/19/2020 Questions | ||
| Are we authorized to print documents off the classified CD? | Printing of the contents on the CD is authorized, given the information will be handled in accordance with handling procedures for the classification level of the document(s). | |
| We were of the understanding that the information would be secret. Please confirm. | This information was initially mis-marked and is confidential, as opposed to secret. | |
| Should we expect any additional information to be received other than this CD? | The CD in your possession is correct and there are no additional documents. | |
| 10/19/2020 Questions | ||
| Clarification needed: Acoustic Vibration – G719769 Sec 3.2.7.1.1 |
• Specified method (Mil-Std-810G, M5.5.1, Cat C, Figure 515.1-2) does not exist. Please provide guidance on required test method.
The information needed is in the Mil-Std-810 document, however, it is mismarked. The following is the correct reference:
MIL-Std-810G -- Method 514.6 ANNEX D Operational Tailoring Guidance for Vibration Exposure Definition, 2. OPERATIONAL SERVICE, 2.1 Category 12 – Fixed wing aircraft - jet aircraft. (31 October 2008)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .