Industry_Q_and_A.pdf

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

Additional Industry Questions & Answers

1. There is no way for the contractor to know how many pilot instrument panel configurations there are across the C-130 (H2, H2.5, H3) fleet for both the barren and non-barren aircraft. The same is true for the number of configurations for the Navigator station. To accurately estimate design deltas, drawing impacts, parts list, labor hours, etc. the contractor needs to understand the number of configurations and areas available to install the azimuth indicators, indicator control panels, audio control panels, fan control panels and Ethernet/1553 ports. To ensure a consistent requirements baseline will the USG provide the number of configurations for the six variants for both the pilot instrument panel and the Navigator station that the contractor should propose or does the USG want each contractor to include a ground rule with their proposal stating the number of configurations that are proposed? If the latter, does the USG intend to cover the added scope via an ECP or Over and Above?

USG RESPONSE: The contractor will design based on the six ACFT site surveys, which will result in multiple configurations. Government recommends conducting as many surveys as possible at each of the three bases to get better idea on the various configurations. The government understands that all configuration may not be covered and accepts the risk during production installs. If all configurations are not covered through the site survey, the USG will utilize what is provided by the contractor and make changes as required for the modification. No ECP or Over and Above will be needed.

2. I see no technical rationale that would require FO Test Cable assemblies meet thermal cycling requirements as outlined in TIA-455-3B. Standard practice is for FO Test Cable Assemblies to be AMQJs built to industry standards (outlined in ARINC 805, para 4.2.2, and/or SAE AS5675 para 3.4) for low loss and repeatability. After contacting various Fiber Optic experts in the industry, they have not seen this requirement levied on FO Test Cable assemblies and it would require outside lab testing and add unnecessary cost to the program. Therefore it is requested that the TIA-455-3B requirement be deleted from the SOW. NOTE:

The components (FO cable, Connectors, Termini) used to manufacture test cables must meet Military Specification requirements that contain thermal testing amongst other requirements of their own, e.g., Mil-PRF-85049/16 FO Cable.

USG RESPONSE: The reason for the TIA-455-3B is due to the current failed fiber cables in the field. To reduce future failure of the cables, USG requires cable assemblies to meet thermal cycling requirements as outlined in TIA-455-3B.

3. In Amendment 0002, the SOW dated 14 June 2017, Paragraph 23.0 has been updated to now read “The Contractor shall ensure that the UII are applied to all

Group A components and to the top kit, or intermediate/external container.” Is it the intent for every line item ordered to receive a UII, to include all miscellaneous items such as nuts, bolts, rivets, etc.? On page 34 of FA8553-17-R-0019, it states “Items less than $5000, which require UID, will be specifically identified in the schedule”. Is the contractor to assume only Group A items greater than $5000 will receive the UII requirements unless specifically annotated?

USG RESPONSE: Yes, mark IAW solicitation clause (Group A items greater than $5,000).

4. The Part Number for the AN/PLM-4 Threat Simulator has been changed in Appendix C of the SOW in Amendment 0002. The part number was P/N FT0100-5 and the revised SOW has P/N FT0100-3. This will require an updated supplier quote. Therefore we request a proposal extension of 45-60 days.

USG RESPONSE: The USG acknowledges that an updated supplier quote is needed and therefore provides an extension until 21 July 2017.

5. Paragraph 5.9 of the SOW, is it the intent that the contractor shall provide serial numbers for each fiber optic cable assembly and not each fiber optic cable?

USG RESPONSE: On the assembly only

6. Are there any CDRL requirements for the Production Options?

USG RESPONSE: No but status reports/updates should be provided.

7. CDRL A038 needs to reference Rev P of the TMCR.

USG RESPONSE: CDRL A038 has been corrected, resigned and updated in the CDRL package.

8. The current CDRL requirement as stated in A003 for drawing delivery is for “final reproducible data” shall be delivered 90 days after completion of CDR. CDR is scheduled for 6 months ARO, and the first Trial Installation Aircraft starts 8 months ARO with a completion of 9 months ARO. As scheduled, the drawings will be delivered before all 3 Trial Installations are complete.

Recommend changing the drawing delivery schedule to 60 days after the 3rd Trial Installation kit completion.

USG RESPONSE: The engineering data OPR concurs with changing the drawing delivery schedule to 60 days after the 3rd Trial Installation kit completion. The word "final" has been removed from the CDRL A003 attachment, page 3, Blocks 12 & 13, para 3

9. SOW Para 15.1.1 re: Packaging, the SOW calls out MIL-STD-2073-1 (Class B).

Class B has been superseded by Class C. How does the Government want the contractor to proceed?

USG RESPONSE: Please package the asset(s) in accordance with Level B packaging requirements. "Level B: Protection required to meet moderate worldwide shipment, handling, and storage conditions. A Level B pack must, in tandem with the applied preservation, be capable of protecting material not directly exposed to extremes of climate, terrain, and operational and transportation environments." Packaging does not prescribe Class B nor C.

10. SOW Para 15.1.1 references packaging requirement IAW AFMC Form 158, provided through Section J of the contract. Though referenced in Section J as an attachment, the form was not provided. Request Government provide.

USG RESPONSE: AFMC FORM 158 will be provided and has been added to FBO.

11. Drawings for FE171-0005 and FE171-0016 were not provided as part of the solicitation package. Request that the Government provide.

USG RESPONSE: Drawings are available and will be provided by the government.

See amendment 0004 on FBO.

12. We request that the following information be provided:

Neutral CAD versions of the following drawings: 3336936 COVER – TAIL CONE, DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS; 3336937 MOLD LINE DRAWING – TAIL CONE, DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS; 3338282 DOUBLER – TAIL CONE TIP, ASSY OF

The following analyses: stress, loads (static and dynamic), aerodynamics, buffeting, acoustic and vibration, drag, and crash safety for the current tail cone design (the one depicted in the PDF drawing provided in the RFP).

USG RESPONSE: The information is not needed in this format, but will be provided after award to the winning bidder if requested.

13. Will Offerors be compliant with Section L and Section M, Sub-Factor Two:

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), if they deviate from the timeline stated in "Table 3 Estimated Schedule Timeline for Milestone Events" as long as offerors adhere to the required delivery stated in Section B of the solicitation?

USG RESPONSE: USG agrees the offerors should be allowed to deviate from the estimated schedule in sections L and M and still remain in compliance with sub-factor two as long as they adhere to the schedule in Section B. There are two things to consider

1) Schedule in section L and M is "estimated"

2) Sounds like you want to move the 80% review to occur prior to the first TKI.

This may lead to a lot of rework on their part once TKI is complete but, I don't see an issue with them getting the 80% review done earlier than our estimated schedule calls for. What's important is that the 80% review is completed prior to Verification.

14. Reference TMCR, page 13, Item 25 manual 1C-130H-2-23JG-20-10, request confirmation that the TO number is stated accurately.

USG RESPONSE: No. The TO (1C-130H-2-23JG-20-10) is not correct. It should be 1C-130H-2-23JG-20-1. For the winning vendor this will be lined out at the TO conference.

15. Does the Government anticipate providing a conformed solicitation prior to the proposal due date?

USG RESPONSE: Not at this time.

16. C/J Band Antenna issue on getting a quote from Cobham Lansdale.

USG RESPONSE: We are aware of the issue and the proposal date has been extended to 21 July 2017. It is adequate for offerors to propose based on an estimate. Offerors may have the opportunity to update the proposed price during Final Proposal Revisions (if discussions are opened) to incorporate the quote into their final proposed price.