MAAS_Questions and Answers_1_13March24.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE GEORGIA

MOBILE AIRCRAFT ARRESTING SYSTEM (MAAS)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FA8534-24-R-0002

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

13 MARCH 2024

Q1: The solicitation notice states: “Foreign participation will not be limited for this solicitation and subsequent award”. If foreign participation is allowed, how does this effect the export control drawings.

A1: Drawings marked “Export controlled” can be released to approved participants by the owner of the drawings.

Q2: To be considered a qualified source, vendors shall have an active Source Approval Request (SAR) or would have had to request one. Can foreign participants receive this?

A2: Foreign participants can receive a SAR.

Q3: Can we get a copy of the test procedures that will be done during the first article testing (FAT)?

A3: MIL-STD 3036 and the NAVAIR Test Matrix outline test procedures for FAT. The NAVAIR Test Matrix was added as Attachment 26 to this solicitation via Amendment 001.

Q4: Could you please clarify the definition of 'recency' in the context of the USAF? Specifically, does it encompass both active and completed efforts within the past fifteen (15) years as a reference only? Is this applicable to any type of aircraft arresting system, complete operating systems, or individual parts?

A4: Recency is explicitly defined in Section M, paragraph II.C.1. as, "...active or completed efforts performed within the past fifteen (15) years from the issuance date of this solicitation." In order for an effort to be determined recent, it must have been active or completed within the past 15 years from the date of the RFP issuance.

For purposes of relevancy, in which the second question is more applicable, please reference Section M, paragraph II.C.4. The relevancy criteria speaks to "system" and does not reference "individual parts".

Q5: How does the definition of 'recency' apply if a supplier or its predecessor's entire operating system has been outside of their sustainment, mandatory overhauls, and warranty purview for more than 5 years?

A5: Recency as defined in Section M: C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor paragraph 1 (General) does encompass active or completed efforts performed within the past fifteen (15) years from issuance date of this solicitation. If the effort is within the fifteen-year recency time frame, it will be considered recent. For relevancy, please refer to Section M. C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor paragraphs 4 (Relevancy).

Q6: What were the past specific parameters or performance metrics used to evaluate during the dynamic dead load testing at NAVAIR in Lakehurst NJ, and how did the results of the testing contribute to the overall validation of the current aircraft arresting system requested under this SOW?

A6: Past parameters and performance metrics contributed to the development of performance metrics contained in MIL-STD 3036 (Attachment 7), and the NAVAIR Test Matrix (Attachment 26).

Q7: Other than using the weight of an F-15, F-16, or F-22 aircraft in a post-installation to toggle the system into the hydraulic control mode could you please provide any other critical details regarding the specific requirements or standards that define this type certification engagement?

A7: Details concerning the post-installation certification engagement can be located within AFMAN 32-1040 Para 4.4 and FC 03-260-18F Para 4-7.1.

Q8: I do not see where the PPI Tool was included in the downloadable items. In the Solicitation ATCH-02, page 10 – Attachment A list the instructions on how to obtain the PPI Tool. Followed by the steps for entering data. I have the one from the prior solicitation. Can you upload it please.

A8: The Section L Attachment has been corrected to include instructions for requesting access to the PPI Tool. Updated Attachment is incorporated into Amendment 0001 of the solicitation.

Q9: I note in the Solicitation/Contract that the first article delivery is 390 calendar days (pg. 5 and 44) while the First Article Requirements document indicates 240 days. In last year’s iteration these numbers were consistent with each other. Can you explain?

A9: After review of the First Article delivery days, the solicitation was amended to correct the total calendar days allocated for final delivery of tested and accepted unit. Below is a breakdown of how the 425 days were calculated:

240 days: First Article (Ref: SOW para 3.5.1.1) 5 days: Functional Verification (Ref: SOW para 3.5.1.1) 120 days: NAVIAR Testing (Ref: SOW para 3.5.1.2) 15 days: Contractor Submission of Test Report (Ref: CDRL A016) 45 days: Government Approval of Test Report (Ref: CDRL A016/AFMC IMT 260) Total Days: 425

Q10: Given the Air Force’s estimate that its needs to purchase more than 160 systems, will the Air

Force commit to purchasing any quantity of systems beyond the test article? If not, why not?

A10: Until the First Article has been tested and approved by the Government, we cannot commit to purchasing any additional quantities.

Q11: The SOW states: “The first article item shall match within +/- 5% the documented performance of the fielded USAF BAK-12 system in terms of all performance parameters, to include end-of-arrestment stored energy, off-center engagement tendencies, and end-of-arrestment hook loads;

failure to achieve this performance will result in disapproval of the first article.” When will the Air

Force provide the USN test reports, referred to in Q&As from the previous RFPs for this requirement, establishing the performance parameters?

A11: Test Reports will be provided to the successful offeror.

Q12: Can the Air Force confirm that blanks within FAR 52.244-2 on page 77 are to be completed by the

Contracting Officer, and not by the offerors as part of their proposals?

A12: Upon further review of this clause, the Government has determined it is not applicable and it has been removed as a result of amendment FA8534-24-R-0002-0001.

Q13: Section L-900.II.C.11. states that a legend must be included at the top and bottom of the page for both Attachments B and C, but Section L does not state what information must be in the legend. Can you please confirm that the legend should read as follows:

“SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION”

A13: Concur, that is the correct legend and Solicitation Amendment FA8534-24-R-0002-0001 has included this update to Section L.

Q14: Section L, Attachment A, covers instructions for Past Performance Information (PPI) and that the

PPI tool could be downloaded in the same manner as the other RFP attachments. However, the PPI file does not appear to have been uploaded. Can you please upload the PPI tool or share via email?

A14: The Section L Attachment has been corrected to include instructions for requesting access to the PPI Tool. Updated Attachment is incorporated into Amendment 0001 of the solicitation.

Q15: The RFP references the MAAS Price Matrix as Attachment 02 in several places. The correct reference is Attachment 05, based on the title of the uploaded MAAS Price Matrix.

A15: The Section L Attachment has been updated to correct MAAS Price Matrix and Cross Reference Attachment numbers in Amendment 0001 of the solicitation.

Q16: Has a list of interested parties been published for this solicitation? If so, how do obtain the list?

A16: No, to maintain the integrity of a Source Selection, a list of interested parties will not be released.

REFERENCES:

Solicitation Amendment (FA8534-25-R-0002-0001) NAVAIR Test Matrix (Atch-26) Section L (Atch-2)