USG- Ktr QA Responses 5.18.21.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

MEMORANDUM FOR MOBILE AIRCRACT ARRESTING SYSTEM

FROM: AFLCMC/WNKAC

235 Byron Street, Suite 19A

Robins AFB, GA 31098-1670

SUBJECT: U.S Government (USG) Response to Questions/Clarification Requests on DRAFT

MAAS RFP.

1. The USG is providing this response to the questions submitted on 04/01/21 thru 04/06/21 regarding the DRAFT request for proposal FA8534-21-R-0009 for the Mobile Aircraft Arresting System Source Selection.

2. QUESTIONS.

A. There are two entries in Beta.SAM for FA8534-21-R-0009. Is there a difference in the notice posted on January 25th and the recently posted March 17th? If so, we wasn’t the update to the RFP entered onto the existing Beta.Sam entry? The DRAFT RFP posting on 3/17/21 includes the most up to date information on this effort. The reason there are two listings is due to a new buyer taking over the effort. Beta.SAM will not allow a new person to adjust an entry previously posted by someone else. From here on, all updates will be posted using the March 17th entry.

B. Is this effort still Draft only? Yes, the effort posted to Beta.SAM is still in DRAFT form. We are still working to finalize the RFP but and wanted industry feedback before finalization.

C. Will everyone be given the opportunity to submit to this new entry for MAAS on Beta.SAM? Yes, if you have an approved SAR, you will be able to submit on this effort.

D. Is the correct assumption that that the response date of 2 April 2021 will be updated after the solicitation is officially released and box 9 of the RFP will match? Yes, once the final RFP is posted the response dates will be updated and match in both documents.

E. Is the correct assumption that when the official RFP is released the government is planning a 45 day turn? No, the Government’s plan is to issue the RFP with a response deadline of 30 days after posting. If additional days are required, a contractor may request an extension to the response deadline. However, the Government reserves the right to deny any extension requests.

F. Attachment B – Past Performance Questionnaire shows a 14 May 2020 date in the header. Is the correct assumption that you will be looking to receive these forms from our customers 2 weeks prior to the Solicitation Close date (Box 9)?

The Government requests that surveys be submitted prior to the RFP closing date.

G. With current uncertainty of the effects of the pandemic, will the Government be open to accepting schedule delays? Schedule delays will be reviewed on a case by case basis during period of performance of the contract.

H. CLIN 0001 shows 24 months PoP, however the First Article shows FA to be received 300 days ARO. Additionally, the SOW paragraph 3.5.2.2 states that the contractor shall have a system available for First Article Testing 270 days ARO. Can the government please clarify this requirement? The PoP is the estimated time for completion of the build and FAT to include the Government receiving the FAT report from NAVAIR. The SOW will be updated to reflect the 300 days for the first article delivery for testing.

I. In accordance with CLIN 1002 and SOW 1.0 and 3.4.1, the government is requesting an update to the Technical Orders (IPB Update). Will the Government be providing this package to vendors so we can estimate the amount of work required and cost associated with the update? Technical Orders will be provided with Final RFP Release.

J. In accordance with CLIN 1003 and SOW 3.4.2, the government is requesting an update to the Provisioning Performance Specifications. Will the Government be providing this package to vendors so we can estimate the amount of work required and cost associated with the update? The Government is not requiring an update to the Provisioning. Instead, the Government is requiring a provisioning package for all new parts that are not stock listed.

K. In accordance with CLIN 1005 and SOW 3.4.3, the government is requesting an update to the Training and Familiarization plan. Will the Government be providing this package to vendors so we can estimate the amount of work required and cost associated with the update? The Government is not requiring an update to the training and familiarization plan. Instead, the Government is requiring the vendor to develop a training package for their specific system.

L. According to the drawings, some parts are listed as a Critical Safety Item. Are there any special testing/qualification requirements not found on the individual drawings for all parts, which have the classification? Any and all testing criteria is contained within in the drawings and technical orders, which will be updated and provided with the final RFP release.

M. SOW paragraph 3.2.2.1.1, The contractor shall conduct a preliminary design review (PDR) within 4 months after the contract is awarded to review any drawing discrepancies discovered. The contractor shall conduct a critical design review (CDR) within 8 months after the contract is awarded to review any additional drawing discrepancies discovered. A PDR (4 mos ARO) & CDR (8 mos ARO) seem a little tight for 300 day delivery of the First Article units.

Would the Government be open to moving CDR to 6 mos ARO, or pushing delivery beyond 300 days? The Government will review exceptions to the required design review timing on a case-by-case basis.

N. In accordance with SOW 3.3.1.1, the contractor shall establish, conduct, document, and maintain a system safety program in accordance with MIL- STD-882. Will the Government be providing this package to vendors so we can estimate the amount of work required and cost associated with the update?

The Government is not requiring an update to an existing plan; therefore, no package is available to be provided.

O. In reference to the BEQ of 21 per option, there is a significant cost difference between 1 PR and 21PR. Would the Government be open to Range pricing in lieu of a single price? The Government is open to considering Firm Fixed Price (FFP) ranged pricing based on proposed price breaks.

P. In regards to Travel CLIN 0005, there will be labor and material costs to support the first article testing at NAVAIR, Lakehurst, NJ. Will a separate CLIN be established or should vendors include that in the cost of CLIN 0001?

A separate CLIN will not be established. Vendors should include labor and material cost for FAT in the appropriate established CLIN.

Q. The BAK-12 Mobile Aircraft Arresting System or “MAAS” is a standard

USAF system that has been in use by the USAF for decades. Is the intention to conduct this acquisition under FAR Part 12? No, MAAS is not a commercial item and therefore FAR Part 12 would not apply. The Government will be utilizing FAR Part 15 to conduct this acquisition.

R. SOW 3.5, testing and evaluation states: “A design analysis of the system and each subsystem shall be performed to verify compliance with this SOW and each applicable requirement of the MIL-STD-3036.” As design analysis is different from first article testing, can USAF provide the following per FAR § 9.306:

The performance or other characteristics that the first article must meet for approval; and

The details of tests to which the first article will be subjected for approval;

All performance characteristics and details on First Article approval are contained in the MAAS TDP drawings provided, TOs 35E8-2-10-1, TO 35E8-2-5- 1 , and MIL-STDs 3035 and 3036.

S. SOW 3.5.1 states: “A design analysis of the system and each subsystem shall be performed to verify compliance with this SOW and each applicable requirement of the MIL-STD-3036.” It is assumed MIL-STD-3036 to be a Test Method Standard, not a design standard. Is MIL-STD-3036 the correct reference, or did the USAF intend to refer to MIL-STD-3035? If the intended reference is MIL-STD-3035, can the USAF please identify which of the requirements are considered “applicable” (alternatively, which of the requirements of MIL-STD-3035 are considered inapplicable to the MAAS system)? MIL-STD-3035 is the standard for the design criteria and MIL-STD-3036 is the standard for the testing criteria.

MIL-STD-3035 Sections 3.3, 5.1.2.1-5.1.2.4, and 5.1.2 shall not apply. All other sections are applicable.

T. Are there any QPL’s, QML’s, or QBL’s covering the MAAS? If so, can the

USAF please provide a copy of the applicable QPL’s, QML’s, or QBL’s per FAR 9.204(c)? To date, no company has built a full MAAS to the USAF drawing package and passed FAT. This will be the first MAAS production effort using the USAF drawing package.

U. Section L provides that “Efforts listed may include those with the Federal government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers”. In light of Section 847 of the FY 2018 NDAA which expands the definition of a nondevelopmental item to include “to multiple State and local governments or to multiple foreign governments”. In order to allow references that are most relevant to this MAAS RFP, would the Air Force please amend Section L to read: “Efforts listed may include those with the Federal government, foreign governments, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customer”? Section L will be updated to read “Efforts listed may include those with the Federal government, foreign governments, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customer”.

V. Section M requires offerors to submit four (4) past performance efforts for evaluation, but Section L directs offerors to include other efforts in their cover letter. Please confirm that the USAF will not be evaluating offerors based upon other efforts referenced in their cover letters, which are not submitted for evaluation under Section M. If the USAF will be evaluating or otherwise considering efforts that are not among the four efforts submitted for evaluation under Section M, how will the USAF evaluate or consider those efforts, and how will those efforts factor into the USAF’s award decision? The Government will evaluate the proposals to include the up to four submitted efforts.

The Government reserves the right to review the efforts identified in the cover letter for recency, relevancy, and quality to include in the confidence assessment.

Further, the Government reserves the right to independently identify past performance efforts performed by the potential offerors for inclusion in the confidence assessment. Any efforts identified and included in the confidence assessment will have to meet the same criteria as the four submitted efforts:

recency, relevancy and quality of performance.

W. As used in Section B of the Past Performance relevancy subfactors, how does the USAF define “dynamic dead load testing”? Since the MAAS is a USAF system, has the USAF conducted deadload testing of MAAS systems within the past ten (10) years? If so, will the USAF provide information about the test results from the testing that was conducted. A dynamic dead load test for Aircraft Arresting Systems (AAS) involves pushing a weighted sled, with a tail hook attachment, at required testing distances, speeds and weights to simulate a cable/tail hook arrestment. The AAS and tail hook attachment being tested are outfitted with testing instrumentation, and high speed cameras to verify the dynamic controls and system performance. The weights and speeds of the test are identified in a testing matrix that mirrors potential weights and speeds of USAF fighter aircraft.

The Government has updated Section B by removing the specific system (MAAS) and replacing with a mobile aircraft arresting style system, due to uncertainty of MAAS specific system undergoing this type of testing.

X. As used in Section B of the Past Performance relevancy subfactors, how does the USAF define “Post installation Certification Engagement performed with USAF F-15, F-16, or F-22 Aircraft”? Can we assume that references included by offeror of certification engagements of MAAS systems qualify under Section B when executed by foreign military by using US built aircraft F-15, F-16 or F-22 for the arrest? Will the USAF consider deleting the term “USAF” from the reference to post installation certification engagements, since the aircraft’s ownership is not necessarily significant to the relevancy of the past performance reference? Section B of the Past Performance relevancey factors will be updated to remove USAF. The subfactor is being revised to allow for inclusion of FMS certification engagements.

Y. As used in Section B of the Past Performance relevancy subfactors, how does the USAF define “military style data package creation”? How will the USAF evaluate or confirm whether a cited effort involved technical data package creation? The Government defines “military style data package” as a full data package sufficient to build the article from scratch with data format compatible with standard government drawings.

Z. Is the USAF aware of any USAF supported industry efforts within the past ten

(10) years, involving the MAAS, that involved two of the three Section B requirements (dynamic deadload testing, post installation certification engagements, and military style data package creation)? The Government has updated this requirement removing the specific system (MAAS) and replacing with a mobile aircraft arresting style system, due to uncertainty of MAAS specific system undergoing this type of testing.

AA. If the USAF is not aware of any MAAS efforts within the past ten (10) years that meet 2 of the 3 Section B relevancy criteria, or if the USAF is aware of only a limited number of efforts, has the USAF considered whether the Section B requirements provide an unfair competitive advantage to any particular offeror or whether they are unduly restrictive on competition? The Government has reviewed the relevancy definitions within Section B and has relaxed the requirements to include any mobile aircraft arresting style system for “Very Relevant” and removed the USAF requirement for the “post installation certification engagement.” The revised criteria are not considered to be unduly restrictive or geared towards any particular offeror.

BB. Has the USAF reviewed of the existing Technical Data Package for the MAAS?

If so, is the USAF aware of any issues or problems with the existing Technical Data Package for the MAAS that are likely to require work or correction? If the USAF is aware of issues that are likely to require correction, can the USAF please provide insight into those issues so that offerors can have a better understanding of expected design issues that will be faced? Vendors will be required to review the data package in its entirety and identify any issues or problems with the existing package.

CC. The criteria for “Somewhat Relevant” appear to be limited to manufacturing and do not appear to allow any credit for design or testing efforts. Is this the USAF’s intention? The Government has revised the “Somewhat Relevant” subfactor to include credit for design. The subfactor now reads as “To be considered somewhat relevant, efforts must include manufacturing features or design efforts of for Aircraft Arresting Systems (AAS)”.

DD. The solicitation indicates that cost/price will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Is there any cost or price realism requirement? The Government does not intened to conduct a cost or price realism analysis for this effort.

EE. SOW 3.5.2.2. seems to indicate that the contractor schedules first article testing at NAVAIR Lakehurst. Is this correct? Has the USAF confirmed that the NAVAIR facility will be available for testing, will the interagency administrative mechanisms be in place when the contractor is ready for testing, and will the USAF assist contractor in obtaining scheduling at this government test facility? The Statement of Work (SOW) has been updated to reflect the Government will assist contractors in coordinating with NAVAIR to set up the first article testing at the NAVAIR test facility. The Government has confirmed that the NAVAIR test facility will be available for testing.

FF. SOW 3.5.2.2 provides: “The contract shall have a system available for first article testing 270 days After Receipt of Order (ARO)”. Does the USAF intend to issue separate orders for the design effort and the manufacturing effort?

Since the manufacturing effort cannot begin until the design effort has been completed and approved by the USAF, will the USAF withhold the manufacturing order in full until the design effort has been completed and CDR is passed? The Government’s intent is to issue separate orders for the FA portion (to include the PDR/CDR design phase and the FA manufacturing phase) and production. The PDR/CDR task is for the Government to review any drawing discrepancies with the discovering manufacturer and develop ECPs.

GG. If the USAF awards initial contracts to two offerors, there could be two offerors performing separate design work, resulting in two separate and divergent technical data packages for an existing USAF system. Does the USAF intend for each offeror to develop its own technical data package, or does the USAF intend to arrive at a single design package before the offerors begin manufacturing the first article? Does the USAF intend to share the design results of the respective offerors with each other prior to beginning the manufacturing effort? The Government's intent is for each offeror to use the USAF TDP and develop their own ECPs if discrepancies are discovered. For any drawing discrepancies, ECPs will be coordinated with the AAS engineer and included in the Contractor specific TDP which will be used to produce the first article set. The USAF does not intend to share the ECP results of any respective offeror’s TDP with anyone other offeror. If both offerors pass FAT, the Government will move into production with the lowest price technically acceptable offeror and the TDP used to produce the passing first article.

HH. The MAAS drawings that have been released are in PDF format. Will the USAF be releasing the native/CAD files of the drawings and other technical data package documents? The USAF does have some native/CAD files that were generated by a prior reverse engineering effort, but the quality and organization of these files has been questioned by USAF engineering technicians. These files can be provided to any contractor upon specific request. However, the Government will not provide a guarantee on the information.

II. Many of the above questions invite a dialog to assure full understanding. A one-on-one presolicitation and/or preproposal conference is requested. See generally, FAR § 15.201(c)(8) . The Government will not conduct one-on-one presolicitation or preproposal conferences for this effort, but will be open to answering questions via a Q&A format which will be posted for all offerors.

JJ. On CLIN Series X001, PN 52D8013-104 is referenced. Is this a USAF or generic reference part number? This PN was included in error and will be removed from the final RFP.

Missing Drawings:

All Missing Drawings have been identified and included in the attached updated Drawing Package.

A. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018544- Kingpin.

B. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018553- U-Bolt C. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018612- Frame Stiffener Weldment D. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018616- Toggle Pin Assembly E. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018619- Cradle Assembly F. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018620- Pin Assembly G. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018621- Pin Bracket Assembly H. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018624- Lin, Storage Bracket I. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018625- Turnbuckle Fitting J. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018631- State, Earth Anchor K. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018663- Hydraulic Cylinder Spacer L. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 201018755, Gauge, Anchor Bolt M. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 66B1746- Pin-Tape Connector N. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 66B1747- Nut, Locking-Tape Connector O. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 66B1748- Clamp-Top 8 ½ Tape

Connector P. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 66B1749- Clamp- 8 ½ Tape Connector Q. Next Higher Assembly (NHA) for 66B1752- Body, 8 ½ Tape Connector R. Drawing and NHA for 201018617- Pin S. Drawing and NHA for 201018618- Toggle T. Drawing for 201018995- Fuel Assembly U. Drawing for 201018623- Storage Box V. Drawing for 201018626- Stake Pocket W. Drawing for 201018629- Storage Box Bracket X. Drawing for 201018782- Sprocket Y. Drawings for 201018803- Coupling Z. Drawings for 2010148848- Cam Profile 150-200 Ft. Span

AA. Drawings for 201018917- Forward Engine Mount BB. For Reference: 201018691- Utility Light Kit Electrical Schematic Diagram CC. For Reference: 201018722- Trailer Light System Connection Diagram DD. For Reference: 201018723- Trailer Light System Electrical Schematic

Diagram

Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kristen Campbell and/or Kelsey Wade via email at kristen.campbell.2@us.af.mil and kelsey.wade.1@us.af.mil.

Kristen E. Campbell Contracting Officer

AFLCMC/WNKAC