Industry_Q__A_C-130H_ALR-69A_RFP.pdf

Ref: C-130H ALR-69A RWR Modification, RFP Solicitation FA8553-17-R-0019

Industry Questions & Answers

1. RFP Section B, CLIN 0001AB, states “Final Acceptance to take place after successful completion of Flight Test.” However, this statement is missing from CLIN 0001AC (Trial

Kit/Installation on C-130H2.5/3 Non Barren Aircraft), and both Verification Kit/Installation

CLINs 0001AD and 0001AE. Request clarification on what constitutes final acceptance for the kit deliveries & installations made under those CLINs. Are flight tests planned for each

TKI and VKI aircraft?

USG RESPONSE: This was an error for CLIN 0001AC. The language should have been included. For CLINs 0001AD and 0001AE, ground and flight testing will only occur for the initial TKI. Formal acceptance of follow-on TKI/VKI will occur after government conducts aircraft inspection and all deficiencies are corrected by the contractor.

2. RFP Section B, CLIN 0003 is “Reserved”; however, this CLIN is still referenced in Section

L900.6.d, sub-paragraph 7 and Section M.2.C sub-paragraph i) as a priced FFP Sub-CLIN.

Should references to CLIN 0003 be deleted in Section L/M since a description is not provided in Section B, or will this description be provided in a future RFP amendment?

USG RESPONSE: Reference removed as noted in Amendment 0002

3. RFP Section B, CLIN 0004AC, is indicated as a separately priced item with Quantity of “1

Lot (LO)”, which is similar to CLIN 0004BP (TMCR). However, in the RFP Attachment 3

Price Matrix, cell G16 has “0” entered for QTY. Should the QTY in cell G16 be changed to

“1” to match the required quantity in Section B?

USG RESPONSE: Revised to a quantity of 1 LO as noted in Amendment 0002

4. Is CLIN 0004AC (TDP) to be separately priced and included in the TEP calculation? We believe it is, but note that it is not referenced in Section L-900.7 sub-paragraph “Firm Fixed

Price”, and Section M.2.C.c sub-paragraphs i and iv.

USG RESPONSE: Updated to reflect change as noted in Amendment 0002

5. RFP Section L-900.7, Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, second sub-paragraph and

Section M.2.A references an outdated SOW of 21 March 2017. Should this date be corrected to the current SOW dated 19 Apr 2017?

USG RESPONSE: This has been corrected on Amendment 0001 to remove all date references

6. RFP SOW paragraph 23.0 states the Contractor shall ensure the Unique Item Identifiers

(UII) are applied to all Group B components and to the top kit, or intermediate/external container. Request clarification on applying UII to Group B components when they are provided as GFE per SOW paragraph 3.0 and SOW Attachment 1.

USG RESPONSE: UII will apply to Group A components…not group B. This will be corrected in the SOW.

7. RFP SOW paragraph 3.0 states that updates to the existing drawings will be annotated per

ASME Y14.35 via Engineering Change Orders (ECOs) prior to inclusion in the TDP, which occurs after Government Engineer approval. To facilitate this ECO documentation and approval process, will the Government provide the Group A installation drawings in a native drawing format and if so, what is that format? Or, will the Government provide the installation drawings in a neutral format (i.e., DXF)?

USG RESPONSE: The Government will provide the Group A installation drawings in a neutral format after contract award if requested.

8. RFP SOW paragraph 5.0 states that all aircraft flight testing shall be conducted by the

Contractor with Government oversight; however, SOW paragraph 5.8 states the Contractor will not be required to fly on the aircraft at any time during this program. Request clarification on Contractor requirements to support flight testing.

USG RESPONSE: All aircraft ground testing shall be conducted by the contractor with government oversight. Contractor will support government flight testing but will not be required to fly on an aircraft. This will be corrected in the SOW.

9. RFP SOW paragraph 5.8 states that flight testing will be conducted at a date to be determined during the testing phase. Table 3, Estimated Schedule Timeline for Milestone

Events in RFP Section L/M, states Flight Testing will occur 9 months ARO. Request clarification on the scheduled timing for flight testing, and where flight testing will be performed.

USG RESPONSE: For proposal and planning purposes, the flight test is scheduled to occur

9-12 months ARO. Exact date is not known at this time. Ideally, flight testing will occur at a range within close proximity to the host unit.

10. Have all C-130H2/2.5/3 aircraft to be modified by this ALR-69A RWR mod complied with the following TCTOs as applicable to the individual tail numbers referenced in each TCTO:

a. 1C-130-1339

b. 1C-130-1379

c. 1C-130-1465

d. 1C-130-1479

e. 1C-130-1486

f. 1C-130-1487

g. 1C-130-1818

h. 1C-130-2016

i. 1C-130-2094

USG RESPONSE: No; all aircraft are not modified by the listed TCTOs

11. We understand the “single kit” requirement in SOW paragraph 1.2 for all three C-130 versions H2, H2.5, and H3, including barren and non-barren aircraft. Based on the

Government’s previous response to Q&A #3, we also understand that it is acceptable for parts not used in the single kit to be considered residue, but this should be “minimized to the greatest extent possible”. When residue/excess material cannot be “minimized”, will the

Government accept a significant cost/price increase that is amplified across 140 Group A kit deliveries for the production options? For example, each ICS station requiring access to

ALR-69A audio would require four different faceplates to accommodate all C-130 aircraft affected by this mod: 1) 5V integrally lit ICS faceplate, 2) 28V integrally lit ICS faceplate;

3) 5v bulb lit ICS faceplate, and 4) 28V bulb lit ICS faceplate. Or, will the Government re-consider changing from a “single kit” design to four (4) separate Group A kits in the production options for H2/2.5 barren, H2/2.5 non-barren, H3 barren, and H3 non-barren aircraft?

USG RESPONSE: The audio integration should utilize the current EW knob on the ICS

Controls, single kit still applies; no additional costs required.

12. RFP Section I, FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan – Alternate II, requires the submittal of a subcontracting plan with our proposal. Request clarification on whether this subcontracting plan shall be included in proposal Volume I, or submitted in a separate volume/appendix.

USG RESPONSE: If there is any submission, as a result of an RFP attachment or RFP

Clause, the submission should be included in Volume I of the RFP.

13. Request clarification from the Government on what is the “required delivery schedule” for this mod program. RFP Section F states the required delivery for each item is annotated in

Section B for each CLIN (Months ARO). RFP Section L-900, Sub-Factor Two: Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS) provides an “Estimated Schedule Timeline for Milestone Events” in

Table 3. RFP Section M.2.A, Sub-Factor Two, provides a parenthetic reference to SOW paragraph 19.2 as the required delivery schedule, which is the contractor’s proposed IMS.

Several SOW paragraphs cite additional delivery schedule requirements including SOW paragraph 1.1 (18 months to produce the A-kits); SOW paragraph 3.2 (TKI start NLT 8 months after contract award and Verification start NLT 15 months after contract award), SOW paragraph 3.7 (completion of ground/flight tests 11 months after contract award). Is it correct to assume the ARO delivery schedules for each CLIN, as specified in Section B, is the governing “required delivery schedule”, and all other dates are considered to be notional and/or Government estimates?

USG RESPONSE: Yes; for proposal purposes.

14. Request clarification of the term “ship in place” as it relates to CLINs 0001AB through

0001AE – since each CLIN covers both kit delivery and kit installation. Is the “ship in place” date considered when the kits are ready to ship at origin of the kit manufacturer, delivered to the TKI/VKI installation facility, or when the kits are actually installed on the aircraft?

USG RESPONSE: “Ship in place” is when the kits are actually installed on the aircraft.

15. Section M.2.A sub-paragraph b) states, “with particular emphasis on the OEM analysis and validation”. This language does not correspond to the same Sub-Factor in Section L. Can the Government provide some clarification on what emphasis is required and what OEM analysis and validation is being referred to here?

USG RESPONSE: If work will be subcontracted, the proposal should provide a detailed narrative of the work involved and the technical approach the subcontractor must use to facilitate program completion. Section M provides how the information will be evaluated.

16. DD Form 1423 for CDRL A038 (TMCR) references TM-27-01 in Block 16. Should this reference be corrected to TM-86-01N as stated in Block 4, and as provided in the RFP attachment?

USG RESPONSE: This was corrected at RFP release.

17. Section 1, paragraph 1 of RFP Attachment TM-86-01 states the tailored TMCR shall be included in the proposal as a separate exhibit. Since the context of a “proposal” in this paragraph refers to the Offeror, which proposal volume should include the tailored TMCR, assuming it is required with our proposal?

USG RESPONSE: If there is any submission, as a result of an RFP attachments or RFP

Clause, the submission should be included in Volume I of the RFP.

18. RFP SOW paragraph 6.1 requires PCA IAW CDRL A022. CDRL A022 does not specify which Group A kit will be used for PCA, only that a draft report is due 30 days prior to trial/verification installs and a final report delivered 15 days after completion of verification installs. Request clarification on whether PCA is required on each trial install and verification kit, or one (1) production representative kit.

USG RESPONSE: Yes, PCA is required prior to each TKI and Verification.

19. RFP Section B is missing a CLIN for CDRL A043, Logbooks and Records, Aircraft and

Aeronautical Equipment Log as stated in SOW paragraph 3.2.2.

USG RESPONSE: A Sub-CLIN has been added to Section B in RFP Amendment 0002.

20. DD Form 1423 for CDRL A026 (Specification Requirement Verification Matrix) states in

Block 16 for Blocks 10,11, 12, 14 that the final report shall be delivered NLT 10 business days after kit verification. Request clarification on the meaning of “after kit verification” in terms of 1) After installation of the FIRST verification kit (i.e., Kitproof install is complete),

2) After the first PCA is complete on the verification kit, or 3) After the ATP is successfully completed on the verification kit.

USG RESPONSE: Verification is required on 3 installs, because there are 3 different MDSs.

Final report is due 10 business days after the ATP is successfully completed on the verification kits.

21. Will the Government provide copies of the engineering drawings for the FO Maintenance

Kit, Part Number 5009381001-001, and Aircraft Adapter Group, Part Number 201126346-

10? Otherwise, the requirements stated in SOW paragraph 3.2.1 cannot be met because either the source of supply is most likely a competitor on this proposal (CAGE 022T1), or the source is not a viable commercial supply entity (CAGE 98747).

USG RESPONSE: The government will provide drawings or a bill of materials for the FO

Maintenance kit and Aircraft Adapter Group.

22. RFP Sections L&M for Sub-Factor Three requires the Offeror to provide an engineering and manufacturing approach to meet the requirements in SOW paragraphs 3.0 and 5.9.

Additional guidance in this Sub-Factor includes references to some SOW sub-paragraphs under 3.0 (i.e., 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, and 3.5.1), but not all of them, and also includes a reference to

SOW paragraph 5.0. Since SOW paragraphs 3.0 and 5.0 include additional contractor requirements not specifically referenced in responding to this Sub-Factor, can the

Government clarify if those sub-paragraphs should also be addressed in our proposed approach for technical acceptability?

USG RESPONSE: The contractor should address each sub-paragraph as listed

23. Request that the following Clauses be deleted:

- DFARS 252.227-7021 Rights In Data -- Existing Works (MAR 1979): Does not apply to ALR-69A(V). Used in contracts exclusively for the acquisition of literary, musical and dramatic works; motion pictures; sound recordings; and works of a similar nature.

USG RESPONSE: Concur; clause will be deleted

- DFARS 252.227-7022 Government Rights (Unlimited) (MAR 1979): Does not apply to ALR-69A(V). Used in solicitations and contracts for architect-engineer services and for construction involving architect-engineer services.

USG RESPONSE: Concur; clause will be deleted

- DFARS 252.227-7023 Drawings and Other Data to Become Property of Government

(MAR 1979): Does not apply to ALR-69A(V). Used in contracts for architect-engineer services, or for construction involving architect-engineer services.

USG RESPONSE: Concur; clause will be deleted

- DFARS 252.227-7025 Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Government-Furnished

Information Marked With Restrictive Legends (MAY 2013): Does not apply to ALR-

69A(V), there is no technical data, computer software, or computer software documentation marked with a restrictive legend(s) in the RFP.

USG RESPONSE: Concur; clause will be deleted

- DFARS 252.246-7001 Warranty of Data-Basic (MAR 2014): This is not a required clause. DFARS 246.708 states that warranties on technical data should only be obtained by the government when practicable and cost effective. We do not consider the added cost to the program for the broader protection or the longer period of liability required by this clause to be in the Government’s best interests.

USG RESPONSE: Concur; clause will be deleted

24. In accordance with the 15 May 2017 GSA Acquisition Letter MV-17-02, we believe that

FAR 52.222-60 Paycheck Transparency (Executive Order 13673) (OCT 2016) should be removed from the solicitation.

USG RESPONSE: Concur; clause will be deleted

25. Can you please provide a copy of TCTO 1C-130-2094 for the requirement stated in

Paragraph 4.3 in the SOW.

USG RESPONSE: Yes, after contract award. This should not affect the offeror’s ability to price for RFP.

26. The following questions relate to the TMCR:

Question: Do paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 only apply to the applicable flight manuals contained within

Table 2, or to all page-oriented manuals contained in Table 2?

USG RESPONSE: These paragraphs don't refer to the IETM, they refer to page-oriented

Military Specification (MILSPEC) TOs.

Question: The current C-130 IETM was developed using MIL-PRF-87269, and uses IDET updater tool for updates. Since C130 technical data does not exist in S1000D, and any S1000D data delivered under this contract would be unusable, please explain the reason behind the requirement stated in para 6.3.

USG RESPONSE: The TMCR has been amended, ECD 6 Jun 2017

Page 9, Table 1, Line 2. Since the required change is to an existing TCTO, shouldn’t this box be unchecked?

USG RESPONSE: The TMCR has been amended, ECD 6 Jun 2017

Page 11, Table 1, Lines 19, Interactive Electronic Technical Manual states, “ASD/AIS S1000D, International Specification for Technical Publications Utilizing a Common Source Database

MIL-PRF 87289 Manuals, Interactive Electronic Technical General Content, Style, Format, and user interaction requirements MIL-PRF 87269 performance Specification for the support of Data base, Revisable-Interactive Electronic Technical manuals”

Question: Both S1000D and MIL-PRF-87268/269 are listed. Please confirm the delivery requirement is only IDET source data packages to support C-130 IETM, and that reference to

S1000D be ignored.

USG RESPONSE: The current IETM delivery requirement is only IDET source data packages.

The specification for S1000D is not valid but there is still a required delivery for the IETM so the box should be checked. The TMCR has been amended, ECD 6 Jun 2017

Question: Since the required changes are to the existing IETM, shouldn’t this box be unchecked?

USG RESPONSE: The specification for S1000D is not valid but there is still a required delivery for the IETM so the box should be checked. The TMCR has been amended, ECD 6 Jun 2017

Page 14, Part B – TM Delivery Requirements for Installation of AN/ALR-69A(V) Radar

Warning Receiver (RWR) on Selected C-130 Aircraft (TCTO 1C-130-2016)

The delivery format requirement codes are not all inclusive. When reviewing the Delivery

Schedule table on page 15, code “N” is not listed in the code list on page 14.

USG RESPONSE: The TMCR has been amended to define “N.” ECD 6 Jun 2017

Question: What does “N” mean? See Final TO Distribution (45 days) column.

USG RESPONSE: Native, The TMCR has been amended to define “N.” ECD 6 Jun 2017

Question: In the table on page 15 from a maintenance technical data development stand point, please confirm the delivery requirements:

a. Maintenance paper change pages to TOMA Willie Curry (block 1)

USG RESPONSE: Yes

b. IETM source data packages via IDET updater tool to Lyle Spring (block 4)

USG RESPONSE: Yes

27. FAR 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN -- ALTERNATE II

(DEVIATION 2016-O0009) (AUG 2016) in Section I of Solicitation FA85833-17-R-0019 states that proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall include a subcontracting plan. We do not consider the Section I clauses invoked until they are on contract and Section

L does not call for a subcontracting plan. Therefore, we are asking if a Small Business Plan is to be submitted with the proposal.

USG RESPONSE: Based on FAR 19.702(a) (1) and 19.708(b) (1) (ii), the subcontracting plans are required with initial proposals. If there is any submission as a result of an RFP attachment or RFP Clause, the submission should be included in Volume I of the RFP.

28. Section L, Page 66 of Solicitation FA85833-17-R-0019 references proof of certification. Is this “proof of certification” the SAE-AS 9100, Quality Management Systems – Aerospace

Requirements certification referenced on page 72?

USG RESPONSE: Page 66 of the solicitation states, “The page limitation excludes any cover page, table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), and proof of certification.” This is only provided as an example of documents not provided in the page count limitation. On page 72, sub-factor four requests the offeror to describe and address how the installation facilities meet the AS9100 requirements. If the offeror provides the Certification document for the installation facility, it would not be included in the technical proposal page limitation. The offeror is still required to describe and address the Quality Management Systems in use by the facility in order to meet the requirements of Sub-Factor Four.

29. Are all C-130H2 aircraft “barren” (no ALR-69 installed)?

USG RESPONSE: No

30. Can you provide a breakout of the total number of aircraft that are barren and non-barren?

USG RESPONSE: This solicitation is to produce one kit configuration for all 146 effected ACFT regardless of whether or not they are barren or non-barren. The TKI and verification will be accomplished on at least 1 of each, 6 total.

31. Does the USAF desire steps for removal of legacy ALR-69 to be added to TCTO 1C-130-

2016 or as a stand-alone TCTO?

USG RESPONSE: To be included in TCTO 1C-130-2016E.

32. Will audio control panels on non-barren aircraft be retained and used in the ALR-69A installation or must the contractor replace any audio control panels that are currently installed? If replaced, how should the contractor disposition the removed assets?

USG RESPONSE: Audio control panels will be provided with the Group A kit.

33. Will the USAF release drawings/TDPs or other procurement information for part numbers

201126346-10 (Aircraft Adapter Group) and 5009381001-001 (Fiber Optic Maintenance

Kit)? The Cage Code identified for 201126346-10 traces to Ogden Air Logistics Center, and the OEM for 5009381001-001 has not responded to requests for pricing or other procurement information.

USG RESPONSE: Yes, USAF will release the drawings for procurement of both items

(reference Amendment 0002).

34. SOW Paragraph 3.3 identifies a requirement for DSS approved and bonded storage space for AN/ALR69A(V) classified modification kits and test equipment. Can you provide an approximate footprint for a classified Group B kit and identify what classified test equipment the contractor will be required to store?

USG RESPONSE: Approximately 400ft2

35. The GFP list (Attachment 1) identifies a CAPRE laptop as GFP. Will the contractor be required to load software or data files onto the ALR-69A(V) Group B LRUs during this modification?

USG RESPONSE: It is not anticipated that the contractor will be required to load software or data files onto the Group B LRUs, however; every scenario cannot be anticipated.

Therefore, the contractor should be prepared to load software or data files onto the Group

B LRUs if required.

36. The schedule for the option CLINS requires delivery to begin 60 days after award of the option, but it is highly likely that components such as the ALR-69A C/J Band Antennas will have a production lead time that exceeds 60 days. Will the USAF accept a longer period between option execution and initial kit deliveries?

USG RESPONSE: The delivery schedule will be reviewed, but at this time the requirements is 60 days after award of options. Should delays occur, the Government will work with the contractor on a case-by-case basis.

37. CDRLS A028 – A031 – Scientific and Technical Reports for Static & Dynamic Loads

Analysis, Stress Analysis, Vibration Analysis, and Thermal Mass Analysis—require delivery of draft reports 30 day prior to PDR per the verbiage on the DD1423. This seems very early and premature given the extremely short time between contract award and PDR.

Will the USAF change the delivery of the initial draft reports to “at PDR” as specified for

Technical Reports in CDRLs A008, A009, and A010?

38. The SOW defines CDRL A031 as an update to an existing report from the C-130H1 effort. This report did not seem to be included in the TDP as released. When will the

USAF make this report available to the contractor?

USG RESPONSE: Government will provide the necessary information after contract award. Pricing should be consistent with an update to a Thermal Report.

39. Will the contractor be required to store or utilize any COMSEC equipment during execution of this effort?

40. If the contractor can deliver kits at a faster rate than the minimum specified for the production options, will the USAF exercise the options earlier than the dates specified in the solicitation?

USG RESPONSE: Exercising an option is based on the availability of funds and the requirement remaining the same. The USG cannot address the exercising of these options at this time. The events in the solicitation are based on estimated projections for each event.

41. Do the ARO dates for major milestones identified in RFP Section L (page 71 of initial solicitation) represent start dates or stop dates for the events?

USG RESPONSE: These are start dates. These dates for each event are estimates for proposal purposes, but are required to meet the 18 month basic PoP.