Questions_&_Answers_30_March_2017.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FA8552-17-R-0002

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

30 MARCH 2017

1. Question: The Contractor shall possess current, direct aircraft maintenance and extensive logistics and program management knowledge of and experience on the TH-1H helicopter or other rotorcraft." This project is considered a major avionics alteration. Companies such as ours that specialize in Avionics modification / integration contracts are aircraft agnostic. The above verbiage should be deleted from the PWS as expertise in new avionics technology should be deemed more valuable than expertise in the TH-1H airframe. This requirement limits the qualified bidder’s pool significantly without any benefit to the government.

a. Answer: This is not a major avionics alteration. The requirement is for ADS-B Out capability only, not a redesign of the existing glass cockpit.

2. Question: The current PWS requirements for “All electrical components shall conform to the guidelines set forth IAW Military Standard (MIL-STD)-461G" is impossible to achieve. There is currently no COTS equipment build to that specification that meets the FAA TSO requirements for UAT capability nor will any current COTS equipment meet MIL-STD-464C. Additionally, no current COTS electrical and electronic components conform to DO-160E, F, or G Section 20, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.

a. Answer: Both of these paragraphs deal with EMI/EMC. MIL-STD-464 deals largely with the EMI/EMC that will be conducted by the Government. It also covers bonding of antennas and other equipment to aircraft as necessary for integration. Any testing such as MIL-STD-461G or DO-160E, F, or G or previous versions should be noted and possible inference mitigation strategy developed by the contractor.

3. Question: FCC and PAMA are not accepted qualifications as industry credentials for Avionics technicians.

a. Answer: These qualifications were only listed as examples, and may have been taken out of context. However, the PWS reads, “As needed, the Contractor shall provide aircraft technicians that have applicable qualifications to the job they are performing (i.e. certificate issued by Federal Aviation (FAA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Professional Aviation Maintenance Association, or two years documented on-aircraft experience).” There is no mention of this being applicable to “avionics technicians” only.

4. Question: Is “ADS-B IN” a technical requirement in addition to “ADS-B OUT” capability?

a. Answer: No, this is not a technical requirement.

5. Question: Is there a bidder’s library available to fully understand current aircraft configuration?

Very few details are currently provided and are too limited to facilitate a viable technical approach by prospective bidders.

a. Answer: The Government will add the TH-1H Detail Specification to the solicitation to provide sufficient information on the current aircraft configuration.

6. Question: Specific references within the CDRL's as defined should be provided. A general reference to very exhaustive documents presents risks to the bidders and the COTR for clear

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

agreement on all required deliverables. Care should be given to the fact that in this contract, the government requires COTS equipment for the advantage in pricing, lead-times and NRE costs. Mandating full up MIL-SPEC requirements for a COTS based solution is unreasonable and impossible to achieve without fully loaded NRE and product develop timeline needs to satisfy this program's goals as stated for schedule and costs.

a. Answer: The Government does not require COTS equipment; it should be used to the maximum extent possible.

7. Question: Do these aircraft presently have a baseline ELA to be expanded upon for these modifications or will all original ELA specifications need to be developed to support this SOW?

a. Answer: Yes there is a baseline ELA for the TH-1H.

8. Question: The TDP shall provide the necessary design, engineering, manufacturing, testing and quality assurance requirements information necessary to enable the procurement or manufacture of an interchangeable item that duplicates the physical and performance characteristics of the original product without additional design engineering effort or recourse to the original design activity or any third party. Acceptable "Vendor Item Control Drawings" are not clearly defined in the PWS nor is there relief shown in this paragraph to utilize this type of engineering documentation vs the stated requirement for unlimited data rights for all manufactured products that will be included in this project.

a. Answer: A vendor item/control drawing is an engineering drawing that provides only that information which will describe what is wanted/needed. The drawing should not be a full design disclosure drawing of the item identified as the source of supply; rather, the item identified as the source of supply should meet the requirements of the drawing. The vendor drawing should not define what you have, but the engineering information you needed to choose what was chose.

9. Question: The above is extraordinary for products that are COTS based in their design and manufacture. The avionics integrator CANNOT flow down these data rights to the products manufacturer(s) that will be providing their products to support this contract. All COTS equipment is built to NRE specifications that are wholly owned and controlled by the Avionics equipment OEM that did not use government funding. They will not release this data and we cannot force them to do so. They will simply not choose to participate in this contract if they will be forced to supply the above data as currently articulated in the PWS thereby likely eliminating all FAA certified products needed in the program.

a. Answer: Unlimited data rights do not apply to unmodified COTS products. Unlimited data rights apply to engineering product definition data created using Government funds as a result of the contract.

10. Question: As this is a Firm Fixed price contract, the labor burden is wholly owned by the prime contractor. Adding man power reporting requirements to the PWS elements that are not "Cost plus Fee" are unnecessary and only add to the administrative burdens of this effort for the contractor with no benefit to the government.

a. Answer: This is a mandatory Congressional mandate. Contractor Manpower Reporting is mandated IAW FY11 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 8108 of Public Law 112-10 of the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

11. Question: Does the requirement in 5.8.2 apply?

a. Answer: Yes, section 5.8.2 of The PWS applies.

12. Question: To support a compliant proposal submission, request the Government the

Government provide or provide access to the manuals listed on CDRL A00K, TMCR to offerors.

a. Answer: The Government will not provide access to the technical manuals until a successful offeror has been identified and a contract is awarded due to distribution restrictions. The TO’s have Distribution Statement D - Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (Administrative or Operational Use) (15 May 2012).

13. Question: Is it possible to get a copy of the TOs listed in CDRL A00K, items #2 through #19 on

Table 2, page 10 of the TMCR for the FA8552-17-R-0002 solicitation. If so, I’d like to request it.

a. Answer: The Government will not provide access to the technical manuals until a successful offeror has been identified and a contract is awarded due to distribution restrictions. There is enough information within the TMCR to provide a basis for a proposal. Secondly, the RFP will be amended to include the TH-1H Detail Specification.

The TO’s have Distribution Statement D - Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (Administrative or Operational Use) (15 May 2012).

14. Question: Can you provide a list of Government provided test equipment. PWS paragraph says the GFE list is attached, but it is not.

a. Answer: At this time, no GFE has been identified. Flight testing will be conducted by the

Government Lead Test Organization.

15. Question: Please confirm that the Gov’t will be providing hangar facilities and the contractor will be providing CFTs for the installations.

a. Answer: Hangar facilities at Cairns Army Airfield is limited; however, hangar space should be expected for this modification.

16. Question: PWS Para. 1.1, The ADS-B requirement shall also include the deployment of a Contractor Field Teams (CFT) for installation.

a. Answer: contractor field team shall install the Government approved design.

17. Question: PWS Para. 4.1.2, These services will be performed primarily at the Contractor’s facility. Travel may be required to the aircraft located at Cairns Army Airfield, AL and/or a facility capable of supporting the CFT.

a. Answer: The design and administrative functions shall be performed primarily at the Contractor facility. Government provided space for performing contract services (i.e.

non-recurring engineering, design, administration, etc.) other than installation on the aircraft should not be expected.