Vendor Questions- Industry Day Answered 6 Mar 25.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- C-17 Data Recorder
- Solicitation number
- FA8526-24-R-DR
About this file
The file is a Vendor Questions and Answers document from an Industry Day for the C-17 Data Recorder (DR) pre-solicitation opportunity. The document reveals key technical and procurement details for a Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) databus recorder system for the C-17 aircraft. Key technical specifications include a data recording capability of 4TB or 1,000 flight hours, rear panel connectors, standalone operation, power constraints of 6A at 28 VDC, and an Ethernet connection with webpage interface. The system will integrate in Oklahoma City and must comply with Air Force cybersecurity standards.
The solicitation (FA8526-24-R-DR) is being managed by the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center, with funding secured through the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and backed by SAF/IE. The government has clarified several important points, including that the project does not require a SECRET clearance, is not tied to Condition Based Maintenance+ efforts, and is unlikely to be standardized across other aircraft platforms. While open standards are appreciated, they are not expected to significantly impact the commercial item. The government is currently seeking potential sources with expertise in developing and qualifying the databus recorder system.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DBRS SRD_RFI.docx | DOCX document | |
| SRD Key Requirements_RFI.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT DBRS SOW v3.3.docx | DOCX document | |
| Required Technical -Value Added Elements Combined 12.19.24.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Industry Day RFI.pdf | ||
| Required Technical -Value Added Elements-Subfactors 1 and 2 Combined 12.17.24.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Technical Subfactor RFI submission form 21 Oct.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFI Technical Subfactors.docx | DOCX document | |
| Warranty RFI.docx | DOCX document | |
| C-17 DR SSS 27 Feb 24 FINAL to Post.docx | DOCX document |
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
| Question | USG Response | |
| 1. Has it been determined where the integration will take place? | Integration will take place in Oklahoma City via SIL | |
| 2. Will all integration happen at one location, or is it possible that integration will happen across several locations? | Integration will be conducted at one location | |
| 3. We really don’t need a lot of processing for this application. Do you anticipate other things the processor could be doing besides archiving the data? | ||
| a. | Data Rate is 9 Megabits * 2 = 18 Megabits for 1553 interfaces assuming you are recording both the primary and redundant link. | |
| b. | The data rate for 8 channels of ARINC 429 is 800Kbit. | |
| c. | The D-2700 processor may be overkill for this application. | We do not anticipate that the DBRS LRU will perform any other function other than recording data. |
| 4. Is there any power constraint for this application if so, what is the maximum available. | The maximum power is 6A at 28 VDC (168 W) | |
| 5. What price point do they want for this unit? (VPX based cards cost more)? | We have to refrain from answering this question | |
| 6. Do the connectors need to be in the front or the rear of the unit. | Rear Panel | |
| 7. Does the unit need to operate standalone from the rest of the Aircraft System. | Standalone; Record only | |
| 8. Does the unit need any type of Graphical User Interface for the maintenance. | Unspecified at this time | |
| 9. Would an Ethernet Connection with a Webpage be Sufficient for the crew to interact with the Unit. | Yes. No specific interface is defined. | |
| 10. The contractor/institution shall provide a form, fit, function LRU hardware solution designed to follow current Air Force cybersecurity standards. Is the utilization of commercial standards acceptable. (Ie. NSA encryption is not required?) | No High Assurance encryption required | |
| 11. Will you be providing thermal model during the RFQ phase to support vendor analysis? | Not planning to provide a thermal model | |
| 12. Will the government be providing access to their integration facility during the development. | Access to be provided as required | |
| 13. Does C-17 have budget secured (POM? GovFY26?)? If not, where do they hope it will come from (existing Program of Record? O&M? Sustainment?) | We have POM'd for the funding. Additionally, the program is backed by SAF/IE. | |
| 14. Is this still tied to the Condition Based Maintenance+ (CBM+) effort? If yes, what office is managing the CBM+ software and is there risk of any delays that would affect the LRU acquisition? Is the budget combined/dependent? | The CBM+ effort is not tied to/have no bearing on the DBRS acquisiton. | |
| 15. Will this LRU have potential to be a standard for other platforms (C-5/C-130/F-15)? | Unlikely. No coordination between C-17 and other platforms. | |
| 16. Does C-17 see future need/growth for higher security/encryption of the recorded data? | We do not anticipate needing higher security/encryption in the future. | |
| 17. How important are open standards? FACE? OMS? SOSA? | Any opportunity to implement open standards is appreciated. However, we anticipate that these standards will not have much impact on DBRS as it is a commercial item. | |
| 18. Please provide additional clarification for SRD item 5-12, “The system shall segregate classified information on any new code or functions interacted with by new design elements.” | This requirement will be removed from the SRD. Handling of classified information will not be necessary. | |
| 19. Is any aspect of the project expected to require a SECRET clearance? (ref. SRD-5-12) | We do not antcipate the requirement of a SECRET clearance. This requirement will be revised. | |
| 20. We respectfully request that the page limit of the Technical Volume be at least 50 pages. | This request will be taken into consideration. | |
| 21. Please provide a case study demonstrating the maximum peak data transmission rates for each of the busses and a comparable average data rate. | Please see the attached spreadsheet for an example of typical loading data rates. We assume that the bus loading is kept below about 77%. | |
| 22. SRD 1-6: Please verify the “4TB or 1,000 flight hours, whichever is greater” statement in light of the peak vs. average data rate in relation to question (2) above. | This requirement will be verified and any changes can be noted when the SRD is released. |
Sample Data Rates
| Type | Bus ID | Uncompressed Data (bytes per minute) |
| MIL-STD-1553B | 1 | 4641920 |
| 2 | 4218624 | |
| 3 | 6995968 | |
| 4 | 7028736 | |
| 5 | 7028736 | |
| 6 | 6995968 | |
| 7 | 23818752 | |
| 8 | 28355200 | |
| 9 | 25952896 | |
| ARINC 429 | 1A | 236544 |
| 1B | 236544 | |
| 2A | 236544 | |
| 2B | 236544 | |
| 3A | 236544 | |
| 3B | 236544 | |
| 4A | 236544 | |
| 4B | 236544 | |
| TIA/EIA 422 | 422-1 | 42630 |
| 422-2 | 42630 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .