Questions and Answers 21 April 2010.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) FA8533-10-R-22377 Common Multi-platform Boresight System (CMBS)

Questions and Answers

21 April 2010

The following questions were submitted to the Contracting Office on the above referenced RFP.

So as to provide all interested sources with information that may be helpful for the greater understanding of the CMBS program, the questions and answers are provided herein and are published on the Federal Business Opportunities.

Questions/Answers on the Solicitation Document

1. Questions: We have seen other solicitations from the USAF using the TA-PPT process where the stated requirements within the solicitation exceeded the available funding. All proposals submitted from contractors were above the available funding. The result was the proposals were not technically evaluated and the solicitation was canceled. Please provide the funding available for items 0001-0011.

Would the Government consider a Best Value evaluation process rather than TA-PPT process which would allow Technical vs. Cost tradeoffs?

Answer: These questions indicate a misunderstanding of the Technically Acceptable- Performance-Price Tradeoff (TA-PPT) evaluation methodology. The TA-PPT evaluation methodology is a type of a best value type acquisition method. Please read the evaluation provisions, “Proposal Requirements” and “Evaluation Basis for Award” which describe in detail how the Government will make a best value award decision. The Government will not “provide the funding available for items 0001-0011.”

2. Question: Please provide the funding profile for FY 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 and the Program Element numbers which this funding has been requested against. This will allow the contractors to verify and better understand that funding has been requested and approved for this requirement. With an effort of this size, the USAF generally breaks this out as a specific line item.

Answer: The RFP provides the Government’s Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) for the CMBS, F-15 adapters, and F-16 adapters in each contract period. The BEQs reflect realistic projected workload. The BEQs do not represent guaranteed firm quantities. Funding information will not be provided.

3. Question: Page 4 of 83 of RFP. Item Number 0001AA: Should Item Number 0001AA be quantity two (2) each systems instead of one (1) each as listed? This is the recurring price for

4920-01-552-5833RN.

Answer: No. Please see the note in CLIN 0001 where in it states, “The sum of Sub-CLINs 0001AA and 0001AB will equal the unit price of CLIN 0001.”

4. Question: Page 5 of 83 of RFP. Item Number 0001AB: Please explain what is to be priced in Item Number 0001AB. Is this to include all the testing and Calibration equipment for USAF PMEL facility?

Answer: While the basic principles and rules in accounting systems may be universal, each company’s system is tailored to address the unique and specific characteristics of its business.

Accordingly, each offeror shall decide what it considers to be recurring costs and non-recurring costs, and propose accordingly.

PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.3.5.1 states that, “Any special tools and calibration equipment required by the field for calibration or operation of this boresighting system shall be furnished by the contactor as part of the CMBS system common hardware. The system shall be able to be calibrated by regional PMELs.” PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.13 requires that the adapters, “…be designed to be calibrated by regional PMELs within the Government.” As PMEL facilities have an array of tools and equipment, the contractor shall furnish only those tools and calibration equipment that are unique only to its boresighting system.

Please see Amendment 0001 to the RFP which adds Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) to the Schedule for the special test/equipment.

5. Question: Page 7 of 83 of RFP. Item Number 0002AB: Should the NSN Number be 4920- 01-552-8581RN rather than 4920-01-552-5833RN?

Answer: Yes, it should. See Amendment 0001 to the RFP which corrects this error.

6. Question: Reference Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0004. Can confirmation be provided that SubCLIN 0004AC is the only SubCLIN under 0004 that is to be NSP?

Answer: SubCLIN 0004AC is NSP. Offerors shall provide proposed prices for SubCLINs 0004AA and 0004AB.

7. Questions: Page 25 of 83 of RFP. Item Number 0010: If the CMBS has been developed using contractor funding and not under this contract funding, are you requesting a price for unlimited rights to the Product Drawings/Models and Assoc List? The same question also applies to the F-15 and F-16 adapter Product Drawings/Models and Assoc List. Does the USAF plan to procure these design rights under this contract or is the USAF asking for some type of limited rights? Does the USAF have the funding in place to procure the design rights?

Reference Statement of Work, paragraph 3.7.6 Engineering data and CDRL G001 “Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists:” The USAF has performed a Market Survey and understands that potential offerors have been working on a solution for the F-15 and F-16 boresight requirements. If an offeror has a complete drawing package for the CMBS and its F- 15/F-16 boresight adapters, why is the USAF requiring a deliverable data package? Is the USAF asking for “unlimited rights”? If the USAF is asking for the data package which has been developed by the potential contractor before this effort, where should this effort be priced?

Reference ELIN G001, Block 16: Request for copies of AF drawings 9626025, 9579776, and [9579777]. These are listed as part of the CDRL requirements, and need to be reviewed by offerors to assist in formulating a response to the referenced RFP.

Answers: Regardless of whether an offeror has a CMBS already developed or intends to develop one, the CMBS and the F-15 and F-16 adapters that are designed, tested, and produced on this contract shall comply with the specifications in the two applicable Purchase Descriptions and the Statement of Work. As such, the Government requires rights to all data required by the contract, including the drawings specified in the CDRL, Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists, ELIN G001. Please see DFARS Clause 252.227-7013, and Amendment 0001 to the RFP which includes additional clauses to better clarify the Government’s intent for the drawing package.

Drawings 9626025, 9579776, and 9579777 define the proper format for AF drawings and define proper digital format for AF drawings to be loaded into AF repositories. They are available on the FBO website for the CMBS RFP.

8. Questions: Page 53 of 83 of RFP. Clause “DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS CLAUSE FOR CMBS:” This production schedule appears unrealistic for custom test equipment. While a CMBS may be stocked by a contractor, F-15 and F-16 boresight adapters are not off the shelf items. F-15 and F-16 boresight adapters would be custom built for the requirement. Under the TA-PPT evaluation process, you can be deemed unacceptable if you do not bid 100% compliant.

Can the USAF revise the solicitation to a more realistic schedule, which would be 330-360 days for the first five (5) production units?

When will the delivery order be placed for production CMBS and production adapters under the basic contract? Will it be at the same time as first article units (if so, and we are required to deliver equipment within 60 days, we would be delivering production equipment prior to first article testing completion)? Will it be at the completion and acceptance of first article testing?

Some time in-between?

Answers: The delivery schedule was developed based upon the results from the market research conducted among industry sources and the Government’s required delivery needs. A delivery schedule of 330-360 for the production units is unacceptable to the Government.

The Government will not order production units of either the CMBS or the adapters until such time that the first article units have successfully completed all testing and the test report has been accepted by the Government. The Government cannot provide a definite time that it will place orders for the production units subsequent to its acceptance of the first article units.

9. Questions: Reference the “Proposal Requirements” Provision: “Paper size shall be 81/2” X 11.” Each page shall be numbered consecutively.” Are 11”X 17” sheets allowed? If so, are they counted as one (1) or two (2) pages? Can the solicitation be changed to allow 11” X 17” sheets?

Answer: No.

Are the technical compliance matrix, table of contents, and lists of figures, drawings, and illustrations included in the page count?

Answer: Yes.

10. Question: Page 82 of 83 of RFP. Reference “Evaluation Basis for Award” provision, paragraph 4, Cost/Price: Should this be listed as 3? If not, what is section 3?

Answer: The paragraph “4” in the “Evaluation Basis for Award” provision should be “3.

11. Question: Reference “Proposal Requirements” provision: paragraph (d) 2, Subfactor Three:

Boresight Environmental Considerations, and “Evaluation Basis for Award” provision, paragraph (c) 1, (b), Subfactor Five: Adapter Environmental Considerations: After reviewing the specific technical requirements for the CMBS and Boresight Adapters, it appears that the USAF identified two different technical evaluation requirements. Please clarify why there would be a Requirements/Evaluation difference between the CMBS and adapters, when the two are used together to perform the aircraft boresight measurements.

Examples: (1) Storage Temperature evaluated for CMBS but not evaluated for adapters. (2) Salt Fog evaluated for adapters but not evaluated for CMBS.

Answer: The question/comment indicates a misunderstanding of the difference between technical requirements and evaluation criteria. Purchase Description PD09WRGBGBEB12, and PD10WRGBGBEB08 identify the performance requirements of the CMBS, F-15 and F-16 adapters. Those requirements are mandatory. Notwithstanding that the requirements are mandatory, the Government selected certain aspects of the CMBS, F-15 and F-16 adapters that it wanted to review in offerors’ technical proposals. Those aspects are identified in the evaluation provisions, “Proposal Requirements” and “Evaluation Basis for Award.” Simply because a PD requirement was not listed in the evaluation criteria for the technical proposal does not mean that it is not a mandatory requirement for the CMBS and F-15 and F-16 adapters.

Questions/Answers on the Statement of Work, 19 January 2010

12. Question: Paragraph 3.2.2.1 Preliminary Design Review (PDR): The government has performed a Market Survey and understands that potential offerors have been working on a solution for the F-15 and F-16 boresight requirements. If an offeror has a complete drawing package for the CMBS and their F-15/F-16 boresight adapters, is a PDR review required?

Answer: Regardless if “potential offerors have been working on a solution for the F-15 and F- 16 boresight requirements,” the Government’s minimum, mandatory requirements for the CMBS and the adapters are specified in the RFP. It is to these requirements that the contractor will design, test, and produce the CMBS, F-15 and F-16 adapters. The Government’s requirement for a PDR is mandatory and the contractor shall submit all required documentation in accordance with paragraph 3.2.2.1 of the Statement of Work, dated 19 January 2010.

13. Question: Reference paragraph 3.2.2 Technical design and program management reviews (PMRs), and paragraph 3.2.3 Program Management Review support. Is the contractor required to host Program Management Reviews (PMR’s) quarterly? Is this for the development/preproduction effort only or does this include Item 0012 Production units and the option units? Please explain in further detail section 3.2.3 so we may price accordingly.

Answer: Statement of Work paragraph 3.2.2 advises that the contractor shall host PMRs quarterly, or at the contractor’s request as approved by the Government. See Amendment 0001 where this paragraph explains that PMRs shall be conducted quarterly until such time that the Government provides final acceptance of the first article CMBS, F-15 and F-16 adapter kits.

Thereafter, when the program transitions into production, the contractor shall conduct PMRs two times annually as directed by the Government. Paragraph 3.2.3 has been revised via Amendment 0001 to instruct that the PMRs shall be held at Robins AFB. PMRs may also be held simultaneously with the PDR and CDR.

14. Question: Reference paragraph 3.2.7 Monthly status report. Within the paragraph, there is a reference to Section 3.1.2 is titled “Plant access”. What current master schedule is this requirement referencing?

Answer: The reference to “current program master schedule (see 3.1.2)” was an error. Please see Amendment 0001 where this reference in Statement of Work paragraph 3.2.7 has been deleted.

15. Questions: Reference paragraph 3.4.2 Technical Order (T.O.) requirements. If the contractor’s proposed CMBS common system currently has a US Air Force NSN number and an Air Force assigned Technical Order for the common CMBS, will this Technical Order be acceptable for this contract? The CMBS system is being used on numerous US Air Force aircraft other than the F-15 and F-16.

The paragraph also states that “Operation and Operator Maintenance Instruction; Maintenance and Overhaul; and Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB) manuals” shall be in accordance with TM 86-01N. Would the Government consider the use of Contractor format which would be less expensive?

Answer: The USAF will assign asset-specific NSNs to the contractor’s CMBS and F-15 and F- 16 adapters. Each offeror shall ensure that it is familiar with the CDRL for the Technical Manual Contract Requirements, ELIN F001, and that its proposed price encompasses all the work specified in the data deliverable. The USAF will assign a technical order to the technical manual as necessary. The contractor shall deliver all data in accordance with the instructions in the DD1423s. If the contractor’s format does not adhere to the instructions in the DD1423, then it is not acceptable.

16. Question: Reference Statement of Work, paragraph 3.5.1.2: What is meant by the phrase “general maintenance for the up-keep”?

Answer: The phrase “general maintenance for the up-keep” means any preventive or corrective maintenance actions that will be performed by the USAF technicians using the CMBS. This refers to basic maintenance which is not complex enough to require the unit to go to PMEL.

17. Question: Reference paragraph 3.5.2.1 Executable code under paragraph 3.5 Training/familiarization. Please confirm that the “Executable code” is intended for the training material only. Or is the USAF asking for the “Executable code” of the CMBS and the F-15/F-16 specific “Executable code”? If this was developed by the contractor before this program, is this still a contract deliverable? If so, please advise where this is to be priced?

Answer: The executable code is intended for the training material only. Regardless of when the code was developed, the contractor shall provide this information as required by the contract. It is each offeror’s decision where to include any costs associated with this requirement.

18. Question: Reference paragraph 3.6.2 Preproduction test procedures and report. This paragraph is for in-plant testing only. Where will “on-aircraft verification-testing” be completed by the contractor before OT&E?

Answer: See Amendment 0001, Revision 1 to the Statement of Work which provides more information relative to aircraft availability to the contractor subsequent to contract award.

19. Question: Reference paragraph 3.6.3: Is a CDRL A002 required for this SOW?

Answer: Please see Statement of Work, paragraph 3.6.2 wherein it states that, “Subsequent to testing at Nellis AFB, the contractor shall submit a final test report to the Government (DI- NDTI-80603, Test Procedure; DI-NDTI-80809B, Test/Inspection Report).” Additionally, the last sentence in paragraph 3.6.3 states, “Subsequent to OT&E, the contractor shall prepare a final test report for government review and approval.” The test report will include contractor-testing,

20. Question: Reference paragraph 3.6.4 Refurbishment. What does the statement, “One preproduction item shall be retained at the contractor’s facility until the last shipment” mean?

There is only one F-15 and one F-16 preproduction boresight system. Please explain.

Answer: The first sentence in Statement of Work, paragraph 3.6.4 states, “After completion of preproduction and users OT&E acceptance, the preproduction items shall [ship], within 30 days, to the contractor’s facility for refurbishment/calibration and certification.” Regardless of how many preproduction CMBS units, F-15 adapter kits, or F-16 adapter kits are ordered in the solicitation, the Statement of Work is advising offerors that one preproduction CMBS unit, one preproduction F-15 adapter kit, and one preproduction F-16 adapter kit will remain at the contractor’s facility after all testing is completed, and after the contractor performs refurbishment, calibration, and certification, until the end of the contract when the Government issues final shipping instructions. Leaving one each preproduction unit at the contractor’s facility will serve to assist the contractor in configuration control and management of all CMBS units, F- 15 and F-16 adapters throughout the life of the contract.

21. Question: Reference paragraph 3.6.5 Production acceptance procedure and report. Should this state “in accordance with Section 4 of both PD’s”? Please provide the exact “subset of the preproduction test procedures will be required for production.” It is very difficult to provide a Firm Fixed Price without the USAF defining this requirement.

Answer: See Amendment 0001 and Revision 1 to the purchase descriptions which will identify what is required in the production units for verification testing.

22. Question: Reference paragraph 3.7.5 Production release. Should this additionally say release is also contingent upon successful completion of government OT&E?

Answer: The contractor will not submit the final first article, or preproduction, test report until after all testing has been completed. All testing includes OT&E.

23. Question: In the Statement of Work, page 9, paragraph 3.5.2.1: can you provide the existing Air Force Standard Desktop Configuration?

Answer: DOD systems currently use the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC) versions 2.x. The standard is available through the AFWay program, the National Institute of Standards (NIST) and for the most part remains consistent with the Microsoft OS available to the general public. A set of approved products utilizing the Security Automation Protocol (SCAP) are available for certifying FDCC Compliance. The list is available at http://nvd.nist.gov/scapproducts.cfm .

See Amendment 0001 to the Statement of Work wherein additional information is provided relative to the desktop configuration.

Questions/Answers on Purchase Description PD09WRGBGBEB12, dated 8 February 2010 and PD10WRGBGBEB08, dated 28 January 2010.

24. Question: Reference PD10WRGBGBEB12, paragraph. 1.1: What is meant by the term “fully mature.”

Answer: This phrase was mistakenly included in the referenced paragraph from another document. It has been removed via Amendment 0001.

25. Question: Reference both Purchase Descriptions, paragraph 2.1 General. Where are these documents (Test Reports) to be placed in the offeror’s proposal response? Volume 2 has a page limit of 40 Pages. This is a considerable amount of data (over 500 Pages).

Answer: The paragraph states that the “…contractor shall submit the test results as compliance to the requirements in question.” Note that the sentence refers to “contractor” as does the entirety of the document. Hence, this statement refers to post-award actions.

26. Question: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.1 General. This statement does not match the requirements of the Solicitation document which has two (2) each CMBS under Item Number 001AA and 001AB and 18 each CMBS under Item Number 0012. In addition, there are options for CMBS under option Item Numbers 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001. It does not address any of the requirements for systems under Item number 0012 and higher. Will the Purchase Description be expanded to include the “production system requirements”?

Answer: The first sentence in paragraph 3.1 of Purchase Description PD09WRGBGBEB12 is a general statement. The Purchase Description serves to identify the specifications for the CMBS.

However, it is the Schedule of the RFP that identifies pricing structure and quantities. The purchase description does not need to be revised.

27. Question: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.1, lines 9 -13: This is interpreted to mean just the technical data and calibration procedures required by military personnel in the operation and application of the hardware on both the F-15 and F-16 aircraft's weapons and avionics systems. Is this correct? What is meant by the calibration reference point drawings showing critical parameters?

Answer: The first question is not clear relative to what is being inquired. Note that paragraph

3.1 of PD09WRGBGBEB12 clearly states that, “The contractor shall provide all technical data calibration procedures, including calibration reference point drawings showing critical parameters, and training aids and materials to the Government prior to hardware delivery to completely familiarize Air Force military personnel in the operation and application of the hardware on both the F-15 and F-16 aircraft’s weapons and avionics systems.” Also see paragraph 3.5.1 of the Statement of Work which discusses the training and familiarization requirements of the program. The “calibration reference point drawings showing critical parameters” means the areas on the drawings that are critical as far as tolerances and dimensions that would be attachment points and critical holes, for example.

28. Questions: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.1, lines 14-16, and PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.2, lines 10 -12: Will Government provide the Contractor with technical data for research and to develop and verify aircraft interface data?

Given that there are multiple aircraft with multiple Block configurations, will technical data be available for all configurations?

If technical data is not available or if technical data for all configurations is not available, it is assumed that the Contractor will have to take physical measurements. Is this correct?

If physical measurements are required, when and where will aircraft be available for inspection and measurement?

What constitutes “verified data”?

PD10WRGBGBEB08 above states “When specified (see 6.2)”. Para 6.2 f states “When specified the contractor shall provide the government with aircraft adapter interface per 3.2.” Is it correct to assume that these two provisions taken together require the contractor to provide “verified data”?

Answers: The contractor is responsible for obtaining the technical data relative to aircraft interface and configuration data, including physical measurements. The Government will make available to the contractor F-15 and F-16 aircraft at Nellis AFB, NV subsequent to contract award. See Amendment 0001, Revision 1 to the Statement of Work for information relative to the availability. Verified data is confirmed calculations, analyses, information, etc. that will support the fact that the adapters function and mate correctly with the aircraft.

29. Questions: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.1.1: Clarify what is meant by the term “Growth Provisions,” and indicate whether this is an objective or a requirement.

Reference same PD, paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.5.1, and 3.3.5.1.1: It is the [offeror’s] understanding that with the exception of the Aircraft Boresight Reference Line (ABRL), aircraft coordinates are not used to boresight the F-15 or F-16. Is this requirement limited to the ABRL alignment?

Answers: The term “growth provision” simply refers to the capability of measuring.

PD09WRGBGBEB12 and PD10WRGBGBEB08 identify minimum, mandatory requirements for the CMBS and the F-15 and F-16 adapters, respectively. In a few places in the PDs, the Government has identified an “objective” which shows what the Government would optimally want to see in the performance. However, the objective in no way negates or diminishes the minimum, mandatory requirement stated in the PDs. This requirement is limited to the ABRL alignment as the ABRL establishes a baseline set of coordinates for the aircraft prior to boresighting procedures.

30. Questions: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.3.8. System Size, and reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.12 System size.

What is the definition of the “Complete CMBS”? Are you asking for the “Common Measurement System” alone as specified in Item Number 0001AA in the solicitation? Or are you asking for one each Item 0001AA + 0002AA = total system weight of 800 pounds and 0001AA + 0003AA = total system weight of 800 pounds?

PD09WRGBGBEB12 states “two-man lift capable.” PD10WRGBGBEB08 states “two-man lift capable between 5th percentile female and 95th percentile male.”

These are two different requirements per MIL STD 1472. Please state which one is correct?

Please confirm that “two-man lift capable” is the correct interpretation.

Answers: PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.3.8 states that, “Total CMBS weight including adapters shall not exceed 800 lbs and 102” high; objective: total system weight of 500 lbs or less.”

The CMBS plus the adapter, whether it is an F-15 adapter or an F-16 adapter, shall not exceed 800 lbs and 102” high. To reiterate, in a few places in the PDs the Government has identified an “objective” which shows what the Government would optimally want to see in the performance.

However, the objective in no way negates or diminishes the minimum, mandatory requirement stated in the PD which is 800 lbs.

PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.3.8 has been revised via Amendment 0001 to include, “two-man lift capable between 5th percentile female and 95th percentile male.”

31. Questions: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.3.10. Calibration, and PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.13 Calibration: Are Calibration Tooling, Fixtures and Calibration Procedures requirements for this solicitation? If an offeror has complete calibration tooling/drawing/procedures for their CMBS and F-15/F-16 equipment, why is the USAF requiring a deliverable package? Is the USAF asking for “unlimited rights”? Is the USAF asking for all the hardware, software and procedures required to calibrate? If so, where should this be priced? Please note this may cost the USAF more than the 0001AB, 0002AB and

0003AB.

Answers: The contractor shall furnish calibration tools and equipment that are considered unique, individualized, and special to their own designed boresight system and adapters. See Amendment 0001 to the RFP which establishes separate CLINs in the schedule specifically for these sets of tools and equipment. The Government will order these special tool and equipment kits as necessary via delivery order. Also see additional clauses relative to the data rights and the more detailed paragraphs in the purchase descriptions which should provide more clarification as to the Government’s requirement.

32. Question: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.4.2 Protective Coatings. Type I Class H of MIL-PRF-85285D is for aircraft paint, whereas Type II Class H of MIL-PRF-85285D is for ground support equipment paint. Is the use of Type II Class H acceptable?

Answer: Type II Class H paint for ground support equipment is acceptable.

33. Question: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.4.7 Shock meter, and reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.5.11.2: We are assuming one shock meter per boresight system (CMBS + Adapters=System). Is this a correct assumption?

Answer: No. The contractor shall ensure that each adapter has its individual shock meter.

34. Questions: Reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.7.1 and PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.3.5: Does the Purchase Description require that either the adapters and/or the CMBS be capable of being calibrated in the field or does a depot level calibration (PMEL) satisfy the PD? If depot level is acceptable, what are the delivery requirements? Does the contractor have to deliver all of the special tools and calibration equipment necessary to setup a depot?

Answers: Both PDs require that the CMBS and adapters be capable of being calibrated in a PMEL facility. As each PMEL facility has common tooling and equipment, the contractor shall provide those tools and equipment that are “unique” to its boresight system and adapters. See Amendment 0001 to the RFP which establishes separate CLINs in the schedule specifically for these sets of tools and equipment. Also see the more detailed paragraphs in the purchase descriptions which should provide more clarification as to the Government’s requirement.

35. Questions: Reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.11 and PD09WRGBGBEB12, paragraph 3.3.9: These paragraphs contain the statement that adapters and CMBS, respectively, “shall also have the capability to perform boresight alignment confidence checks or minor boresight alignments without LRU removal.” What is meant by “confidence checks”?

What is meant by minor boresight alignments? Does the current telescope-based boresight system have this capability? If so, which LRUs can be checked or aligned? If the current telescope-based boresight system does not have this capability, should this be identified as an objective and not a requirement?

Answers: Confidence checks are inspections that are conducted to ensure the various aircraft systems that incorporate boresighting are within the specifications. Minor boresight alignments are slight adjustments that USAF users are able to make to the equipment without taking the equipment out of operation.

The two PDs in this instant RFP identify the requirements that the CMBS and the F-15 and F-16 adapters must meet. Any performance features that the Government identified as an objective has been so designated in the purchase descriptions. The Government will not provide information on any other boresight system.

36. Question: Reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, paragraph 3.14.2: MIL-PRF-23377J Type I, Class C1 is barium chromate, and Class C2 calls for strontium chromate. Would the use of Class C1 be acceptable?

Answer: Class C1 is not acceptable.

37. Question: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, Table 2. The F-16 Aircraft Boresight Accuracy and reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, TABLE II. The F-16 aircraft boresight accuracy:

The AoA is currently only measured and aligned for the Pitch axis (using a simple inclinometer).

This requirement is calling out a Pitch, Yaw and Roll accuracy requirement. How is this to be compared to the existing system when it only has a “Pitch” measurement/alignment requirement?

Answer: The AoA is only able to be measured in the pitch axis since that is its only axis of rotation, therefore the yaw and roll axes are not actually measured.

38. Questions: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, Table 4. The F-15E Aircraft Boresight Accuracy, and reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, TABLE IV. The F-15E aircraft boresight accuracy. The accuracy requirement for the Hard Point Left Pod, Hard Point Right Pod and JHMCS Cockpit Mapping Robot has not been provided in the tables. When will this be provided?

In PD09WRGBGBEB12, there are two different JHMCS mapping robot systems that can map the cockpit (different technologies which require different boresight approaches; legacy verses FACT); can you provide more information on which one is referenced?

What is the required measurement accuracy for JHMCS Cockpit Mapping Robot adapter?

Answers: The answers to these questions will be provided as soon as a few key points of data are confirmed with the USAF aircraft systems office.

39. Question: Reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, page 5: Related to the 100g shock meter, are they applied to each adapter or to just the case?

Answer: The contractor shall ensure that each adapter has its individual shock meter.

40. Question: Reference PD09WRGBGBEB12, page 20: Comparison –based analysis, will you provide the legacy baseline?

Answer: There is not a universal reference point for boresighting functions as such is dependent upon the various technologies that are available. The Government will not provide the baseline associated with any of the legacy equipment.

41. Question: Reference PD10WRGBGBEB08, page 6: Is the external fuel tank reference to wing tanks?

Answer: Yes.

42. Question: Reference PD10WRGBGBEB08: Tables 1 and III of the PD identify legacy systems to be boresighted on each aircraft along with their attendant fixture nomenclatures.

However, the tables do not specifically identify the requirement for providing depot boresight and potting fixtures. Should the CMBS/adapter requirements include depot and potting fixtures or does WR plan to re-use legacy fixtures in the USAF inventory for these procedures?

Answer: The Government does not intend to use potting fixtures with the boresight replacement program. See Amendment 0001 which emphatically states this in the purchase descriptions.