DRAFT_RW_Section_M.docx

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) - SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

MACM Rotary Wing Section M HH-60G Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Data Link

1. General: Each offeror's written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the Subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the HH-60G Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Data Link Sample Task and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following Subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution.

This subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal provides an adequately detailed narrative and supporting documentation that comprehensively illustrates the offeror’s sound, thorough understanding of, visible approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Engineering Analysis to produce the Technical “Design Output” associated with the proposed technical solution that utilizes the seven (7) factors listed in “Table 1: Technical Factors” Table 1: Technical Factors

margin

2. A detailed narrative of the proposed technical solution to include, but not limited to:

a. Overall Design: Assumptions, engineering approaches/methodologies used, tradeoffs considered, modeling information, and hand calculations (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13) (HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.17, 3.20);

b. Engineering analysis required to produce each proposed “Design Output” for Table 1;

c. Component/Material selection (HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.4, 3.1, 3.8);

d. Cyber Assessment (MACM SOW 3.8) (HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.22);

e. Technical Risk Assessment (MACM SOW 3.29);

f. Installation Plan (MACM SOW 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.25)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.18);

g. Technical Data Development (MACM SOW 3.9.1)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.19);

h. Configuration Control (MACM SOW 3.18, 3.19, 3.9.2, 3.9.10.9)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.2), and;

i. Provisioning (MACM SOW 3.26.5)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.21)

j. Joint Interoperability Test Command (MACM SOW 3.16)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.2) Subfactor Two, Airworthiness.

This Subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal provides an adequately detailed narrative and supporting documentation that comprehensively illustrates the offeror’s sound, thorough understanding of, visible approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Identification of Modification Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) Sections affected (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.16) Table 2: Airworthiness

Section 4: Systems Engineering

Section 5: Structures

Section 6: Flight technology

Section 7: Propulsion & Propulsion Inst'l

Section 8: Air Vehicle Subsystems

Section 9: Crew Systems

Section 10: Diagnostic Systems

Section 11: Avionics

Section 12: Electrical Systems

Section 13: Electromagnetic Environ Effects

Section 14: System Safety

Section 15: Computer Systems & Software

Section 16: Maintenance

Section 17: Armament /Stores Integration

Section 18: Passenger Safety

Section 19: Materials

Section 20: Air Transportability, etc.

2. The detailed narrative shall include rationale for Airworthiness selections and the criteria used in assessing each individual MACC Section’s affectability rating (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.16) Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise.

This Subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed narrative, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Within your technical experience as a prime contractor who either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work, illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the DRAFT SOW within the past 10 years that demonstrates aircraft modifications that in summation included at least three (3) of the four (4) following elements:

a. Design – Developing the technical approach, drawings, and data utilizing set requirements to produce an operationally effective capability. (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)( HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.16, 3.20);

b. Integration – Implementing a design within the existing framework of the overall system and existing sub-systems. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11)( HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.22.1);

c. Installation – The act of implementing a technical design on a designated system in the form of a modification trial kit, kit proof, and production manufactured kits. (MACM SOW 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.11, 3.30)( HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.22.1), or;

d. Test – Measure the overall ability of a modification, in a lead or supporting role, utilizing ground procedures, operational checkout, and/or aircraft flights via a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) or similar plans. (MACM SOW 3.9.6, 3.9.9)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.1-4.3)

2. To support the expertise related to Subfactor three, number one, supporting documentation shall include, but is not limited to:

a. contract numbers;

b. test procedures/reports;

c. period of performance;

d. agency/organization supported;

e. individual point of contact (Contracting Officer or Program Manager);

f. Brief description of the work performed (e.g., performance based work statements, statement of work, statement of objectives, contractual engineering task; SEP; TEMP);

g. Weapon system;

h. Government Customer or requirements holder;

i. Applicable Government testing agencies interaction (where applicable);

j. Program name, and;

k. Describe your company's capabilities and experience in generating technical data (i.e., CAD/hand-sketched drawings, installation plan etc.) and engineering drawings/product level TDPs. Identify what software programs are utilized to generate these data products and what formats are available for delivered items.

NOTE: This Subfactor is for verification of expertise purposes only.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the Subfactors. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical Subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "acceptable"' rating in every Subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO) – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104