Questions and Answers 19 August 2024.pdf

Questions and answers #3

FA8523-24-R-0007

19 August 2024

1. Would you be able to share what the contract funding ceiling is?

Govt response: The maximum estimated quantities are addressed in FAR 52.216-19 of the draft solicitation and in RFP Attachment 4 – Price Matrix

2. Is funding expected to be level / equal across the entire period of performance?

Govt response: Requirement need will drive funding allocation as individual orders are placed

3. What do you anticipate the length of the RFP response period to be (from RFP release to response deadline)?

Govt response: We anticipate a 45-day response period

4. Does the USG intend to incorporate an economic adjustment clause in the ALE-47 CMDS final award contract?

Govt response: No

5. General Observation: The TDP that was released as the “Production TDP” for Solicitation

Number FA8523-24-R-0007 is poorly structured when compared to the TDP that was issued for the earlier solicitation number FA8523-14-R-30058. Is there a reason for this change?

Govt response: It was a result of the process used to pull the drawings.

6. The TDP for Solicitation Number FA8523-24-R-0007 contains some inaccuracies and/or lacks the latest documentation from recent production, such as:

a. Sequencer Signal Conditioner, 177425-0005, had been updated with assembly

201218584-10, to replace the obsolete U4, XC3042, 5962-8971303MXX, device. This replacement was part of ECP E0001-008R2 under contract FA8523-16-D-0002. The drawing 201218584 is in the TDP, but has no tie to the Sequencer Signal Conditioner by

PL. The last XC3042 devices were purchased by Extant Aerospace.

Govt response: In the updated TDP file which will be available at official solicitation release.

b. The Programmer MUX BUX, 179735-0005, U4, 5962-8864501XA was replaced by an

ASIC built by Cobham/Aeroflex and was used on MUX BUS CCAs. There is no supporting documentation in the TDP.

Govt response: In the updated TDP file which will be available at official solicitation release.

c. There are no Environmental Stress Screening Procedures in the TDP.

Govt response: In the updated TDP file which will be available at official solicitation

d. There is a combined Programmer CPU/Discrete I/O CCA, why is it not included in the current TDP?

Govt response: This SRU will not be procured on this contract.

i. 5998-01-439-9525 PGMR 1750 CPU CCA, 8448454_30003_E.

e. There is a new Programmer, but it is hard to discern the difference between the -005, -

006, and -010 Programmer. More information is requested.

Govt response: -0005 Programmer has bolts for mounting hardware, whereas -0006 has dzus rail bolts for mounting hardware. -0010 is a -0006 with a different Bit/Bootloader software load from the -0005 and -0006. In all other ways, the 3 units are identical.

f. There are only 9 ECP/NORs in the ECP zip file, there are estimated to be in excess of 24

ECP/NORs that were approved by the USG that are missing or have not incorporated into the drawings. Will these be provided with the release of the final solicitation?

Govt response: In the updated TDP zip file which will be available at official solicitation

g. U1, U2, U3, and U4 on the 177444-0004 Fire Select CCA are obsolete, an interposer was developed with a Variance, will that data be incorporated into the final TDP?

Govt response: In the updated TDP zip file which will be available at official solicitation

h. All of the Test Procedures that use the CIRRIS CH+ were updated to use the CH2, but none of the TP3427-XX test procedures are in the TDP. Will that be provided with the final solicitation?

Govt response: In the updated TDP file which will be available at official solicitation

7. There is a mix of documentation from other programs that was included in the TDP that was provided (i.e. NOT ALE-47 documentation). Is there a reason to include the following?:

Govt response: TDP file edited. Will be available at official solicitation release.

a. In imageidz1.htm, 176075, CAGE 62983, a Teflon sealing ring unrelated to ALE-47.

i. 176075 is the CDU CPU PWB.

b. In imageidz1.htm, 176094, CAGE 92003, a housing unrelated to ALE-47.

i. 176094 is a CDU module enclosure assembly.

c. In imageidz1.htm, 176096, CAGE 66503, a BOM for an engine overhaul kit

i. 176096 is the CDU Discrete I/O module.

d. In imageidz1.htm, 176097 has several unassociated CAGE codes and drawings in the

TDP.

i. 176097 is the CDU rear Module Assembly.

e. In imageidz1.htm, 176145, CAGE 50222, is a plexiglass shield unrelated to ALE-47.

i. 176145 is the CDU faceplate gasket.

f. In imageidz1.htm, also the following unassociated drawings:

i. 176150

ii. 177278

iii. 177478

iv. 25567

v. 26474

g. In imageidz3.htm

i. 103159

ii. 103239

iii. 103240

iv. 179730

v. 174327

vi. 103145

vii. 174428

viii. 174229

ix. 29002

x. 29000

xi. 29001

xii. 29007

xiii. 29003

xiv. 29004

h. In imageidz4.htm

i. 179662

ii. 103242

iii. 26580

iv. 174396

v. 26592

i. In imageidz5.htm

i. 135881

ii. 176517

iii. 135913

iv. 137555

v. 103142

vi. 135889

vii. 179652

viii. 179750

ix. 135933

x. 24909

xi. 179754

xii. 176525

xiii. 141219

xiv. 165533

xv. 103162

xvi. 179655

xvii. 179250

xviii. 177417

xix. 177423

xx. 177442

j. In imageidz6.htm

i. 177418

ii. 177449

iii. 177466

iv. 177450

v. 177451

vi. 177452

vii. 177424

viii. 27516

ix. 103245

x. 103247

xi. 103246

xii. 177443

xiii. 177459

xiv. 177458

xv. 177457

k. In imageidz7.htm

i. 103153

8. The following questions apply to the Statement of Work (SOW) that was provided with

Solicitation Number FA8523-24-R-0007:

a. The SOW makes several references to a “see 0”. Which document is that directing the potential offeror toward?

Govt response: SOW edited. Will be available at official solicitation release.

b. Paragraph 2.1.2 requires the SRU ATP to be performed on each SRU prior to integration in an LRU and subsequent LRU ATP. Is it the intent of the SOW to gate the LRU production by implementation of the SRU ATPs prior to the LRU ATPs?

Govt response: Yes

c. The SRU ATPs will take longer to implement than the LRU ATPs is this reflected in the

CLIN LRU delivery requirements?

Govt response: FA proposed schedule allows for SRU and LRU ATP development with

SRUs building up to the LRUs deliveries

d. Within Paragraph 2.1.2, it states “…Government Inspection And Test of a First Article may evaluate contract, Statement Of Work, or Technical Data Package requirements that are not included in the Contractor's ATP.” Would it not be prudent to supply these implied requirements in the SOW?

Govt response: Some of the requirements vary by LRU/SRU and are therefore in the

TDP/EDL FAR documents.

e. Programmer PN 8448453-1 is referenced in paragraph 2.1.3, but not Attachment 1 or the TDP; therefore will the Programmer PN 8448453-1 be built under this contract?

Govt response: No, PN 8448453-1 will not be included in the contact. Reference removed from SOW. Updated SOW will be available at official RFP release

f. Paragraph 2.1.4 of the SOW states “The First Article and its SRUs must have no approved but unincorporated Class I Engineering Change Proposals and associated Notice Of

Revisions”; This is not possible with the current TDP as there are approved ECPs that are not currently in the provided TDP or linked to the parts lists, specifically ECP E0001-

008R2 for the Sequencer Signal Conditioner and the ECP for the new MUX BUS

Cobham/Aeroflex ASIC. Will the TDP be updated prior to the solicitation release?

Govt response: ATP folder will be updated and available at official solicitation release.

g. Paragraph 2.1.3

i. Could the interchangeability be clarified as to the intention of “and then returning each LRU to its original configuration before the next SRU swap.”?

Govt response: LRU is to be maintained with known good SRUs to ensure baseline configuration is maintain as SRU swap testing is done.

ii. The interchangeability test had been conducted as follows:

1. Swap a vendor SRU one at a time into a GFE LRU, perform ATP and then swap in the next SRU, perform ATP, etc., until all vendor SRUs are now in the GFE LRU chassis and all GFE LRU ATPs have passed.

2. Now swap a GFE SRUs into the vendor LRU as described above until all

GFE SRUs are now in the vendor LRU chassis and all vendor LRU ATPs have passed.

h. Paragraph 2.1.1 and 2.2.1

i. It is known that the Programmer CIPFS 64325 Part II requires the following tests:

1. Enhanced CPU and Memory

2. Enhanced Serial I/O

3. MIL-STD-1553 I/O

4. Backplane Bus test

5. PBIT (power-up BIT)

ii. It is also known that the above test stimuli and responses cannot be defined and that PBIT only has been run during thermal cycling, will this be the approach that may be used for ESS approval?

Govt response: TP10414 Reliability Test Plan provided in TDP zip file.

iii. Will all SRUs supplied against this contract be subjected to ESS in an associated

LRU?

Govt response: Yes they can be, or the contractor may develop a test fixture that simulates the LRU environment. The test fixture will approved as part of the ATP approval process.

1. If so, will the Government supply additional GFE assets for this testing?

Govt response: No

i. Paragraph 2.3:

i. Will a AN/USQ-131B or CAPRE System Software Loader be supplied as GFE?

Govt response: No

ii. Will the Programmer PBIT and Test Loads be supplied in the correct format for loading by the AN/USQ-131B or CAPRE System Software Loader?

Govt response: LRU OFPs and test MDFs will be provided as GFS after contract award.