Post-RFP_Release_Questions_and_Answers_Update_5_Jul_2018.pdf

C-17 Roll-On Conference Capsule (ROCC)

Post-RFP Release Questions and Answers July 2018

(Updated 5 Jul 2018)

Q1: SLS Workstation (SRD 3.10.6.6) - May the Seats and Workstation be positioned fore and aft, with a table in between, or must they be placed side by side with a table on one side?

A1: Offerors may design the workstation however they determine best meets the requirements of the

RFP.

Q2: Is the ROCC classified as a Facility, Aircraft, Transportable, or Special Category Facility in the CNSSAM TEMPEST RED/Black Installation Guide?

A2: ROCC should be classified as a “Transportable” for TEMPEST purposes.

Q3: Can we include a micro-phone in the VTC/IFE equipment suite?

A3: There is no requirement for a microphone; the travel teams provide any necessary microphone for the carry-on VTC system. It is not desired for a microphone to be integrated into any other equipment provided as part of the ROCC because of the possibility that classified conversations could be picked up inadvertently.

Q4: Paragraph, 3.5.9a in the SRD, is not included in the Table of Integration tests to be performed by Government as noted in the SOW; is this an oversite?

A4: No, this was not an oversight. Paragraph 3.5.9/4.5.9 is verified through inspection and test. In section 3 of the SRD, paragraph 3.5.9 is not broken into two parts. It is one requirement. 3.5.9a in the test matrix deals with the design inspection aspect of the requirement. 3.5.9b deals with the test portion that is accomplished by the LDTO. The test matrix is for reference only; the actual requirements are in sections 3 and 4 of the SRD.

Q5: Attachment 4 appears to be a spreadsheet within Schedule L which is a word document. Would the government please provide Attachment 4 in excel format?

A5: Section L, Attachment 4 will be provided in excel format.

Q6: Please clarify why Section M table for SF 1 rating goes from Blue through Red, but an accompanying statement (from Amendment 1) states that the highest possible rating is Purple. If Purple is the highest possible rating the "color" table should be consistent with that statement.

A6: The table is from the DoD Source Selection procedures. The language in Amendment 1 simply clarifies that the highest possible rating is Purple, because there is only one possible strength.

Q7: Can you provide the interior noise fields, or the max noise level, the ROCC will be exposed to during cruise?

A7: The ambient noise levels in the C-17 Cargo Bay are listed in SRD paragraph 3.4.1, Table 4.

Q8: There appears to be contradiction between the specifications called out in the C-17 ROCC RFP regarding seat loads. However, based on the Industry Day presentations, the requirement in the end is a 250-pound passenger with crash loads specified in EN-SB10-002 Rev A (fwd 20, aft 10, right/left 10, down 20, up 10) with these loads being static. Please confirm.

A8: For seat structural requirements, the ROCC System Requirements Document (SRD) is the authority and supersedes any written or oral information given at Industry Day. SRD paragraphs 3.2.1 and

3.2.1.2 define the relevant requirements. The seats proposed for the ROCC must be successfully tested in accordance with SAE AS8049C using a 250 lb occupant for the seating and restraint system;

this is a critical requirement for eventual airworthiness certification of the ROCC on the C-17.

Q9: Relative to the Executive Summary there is a 4 page maximum listed in Section L. There is the requirement for a table of contents yet it is not clear if that counts against the 4 page limit. Can you please confirm that it does not count against the 4 page limit?

A9: Table of contents does not count against the page limits. Section L, paragraph 3.2 states, "[e]ach page shall be counted except the following: Cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, cross reference matrix, and glossaries.

Q10: There are conflicting sentences in the SOW para. 3.4.5.5 regarding transportation of the FA and PROD ROCCs for integration testing and/or delivery. Please clarify as there is a significant cost difference in the way it is moved to Edwards AFB.

A10: The first two sentences in SOW paragraph 3.4.5.5 require the contractor to describe in the manufacturing plan how the ROCC will be transported to a non-specified military or commercial airfield. The last sentence in this paragraph defines the specific airfield (Edwards AFB) to which the contractor shall transport the FA ROCC for Government acceptance and integration testing. SOW paragraph 3.4.5.6, defines the specific airfield/operating location (Joint Base Andrews) that the FA ROCC will be delivered (fielded) to as ROCC P-1 after final preparation by the contractor. Additionally, CLIN 0004 (Production ROCC) and CLIN 0006 (FA to Production ROCC Configuration) both specify delivery of production ROCCs to Joint Base Andrews.

Q11: Will the contractor have to install lifting points and provide a unique GFE sling to pick up the ROCC (individual units) from the ground/flat surface and place it on a k-loader or truck? Our assumption is that if this a requirement, the US government will provide the crane for the demo/testing.

Reference:

The SOW para 3.4.4.2 calls out demonstrating picking the ROCC from a flat surface by crane.

The SRD Para 3.3.5 Ground Transportation ROCC transferable from the ground.

A11: The contractor must design the separate ROCC capsules (SLS and CR/SA) to have the capability to be transferred from the ground/flat surface, high bay stand or K-loader onto a flatbed truck or adequately-sized USAF ground transport trailer. The contractor is responsible to determine what hard lifting points on the exterior of the capsules are required, and the location of those lifting points. The contractor is not required to provide a unique sling if the proposed design requires use of a crane to accomplish transfers. During integration testing at the LDTO’s test location, the Government will provide the lifting equipment needed to enable the contractor to accomplish this demonstration IAW SRD Para 4.3.5.

Q12: In reference to SRD para. 3.2.1.1, we interpret this as saying that the government requires an additional 1.5 safety factor to the standard crash loads of the aircraft. Is this correct?

Standard Required per SRD (multiple std. b y 1.5) Forward 9.0 Forward 13.Sg Aft 1.5g Aft 2.25g Right/Left 1.5 Right/Left 2.252 Down 4.5 Down 6.75g Up 4.5g Up 3g

A12: Yes. Per SRD 3.2.1.1, an error factor of 1.5 must be applied to the ROCC structural design as well as the fixed and removable miscellaneous equipment inside the ROCC. These higher crash load requirements shall be documented in the contractor’s structural analysis IAW SRD 4.2.1.1. The standard load specification value in the last row of the above table is incorrect (should be 2G). A corrected table would read:

Standard Required per SRD (multiple std. b y 1.5) Forward 9.0 Forward 13.Sg Aft 1.5g Aft 2.25g Right/Left 1.5 Right/Left 2.252 Down 4.5 Down 6.75g Up 2g Up 3g

Q13: We are trying to determine routing and the best location for running the interface cables from the Steel Eagle to the ROCC. Can you provide the estimated FS location of the ROCC and the Steel Eagle in the C-17? If you could also provide the approximate location of the connector panel on the Steel Eagle?

A13: The Government plans for the ROCC to be positioned close to the longitudinal center of the C-17 cargo compartment with the Steel Eagle (SE) loaded aft to the ROCC, as closely as possible using the available adjacent locks. Refer to slide 14 of the Industry Day presentation, ROCC Electrical and Communications Interfaces. Please note that if an aircraft rail lock is not operational, the ROCC and SE may be positioned further apart in order to engage the proper number of aircraft locks for restraint.

The SE's main connector panel is located on the aft section of the roof. The cable length must be sufficient to run the length of the SE (approximately 10 feet) to the location of the ROCC connector panel(s), which will be determined by the contractor.

Q14: Where does the program intend to have the Depot Mx located?

A14: As described in SOW Para 1.4, the SPO is planning for the contractor to accomplish all Depot Mx tasks at JB Andrews, MD (JBA).

Q15: Will the Contractor be expected to perform maintenance on the production ROCC outside of the Depot Mx facility after delivery?

A15: All scheduled depot-level maintenance is intended to be accomplished at JBA during the CO&MS phase of the program. Unscheduled out-of-cycle depot Mx is covered in SOW para 3.4.11.6, and may require a contractor-provided Depot Field Team at an alternate location. Per Section L Para 6.1.4.4.1, one out-of-cycle depot maintenance event is anticipated during each year of CO&MS. ‘

Q16: If the Depot Mx is not co-located with the Operational site, and requires flying to the Depot Mx site, will the Government also provide Ground Handling equipment at the Depot Mx site?

A16: Yes

Q17: How does the government plan on providing storage / electrical power / air - if the Depot Mx is not co-located with the operational site?

A17: The Government will be responsible for providing storage / electrical power / compressed air at the ROCC depot facility.

Q18: Do we assume the Depot will be at our facility or an offsite facility?

A18: In proposals, assume all Depot Mx will be performed by the contractor at JBA IAW the SOW.

Q19: Are data rights still part of the Source Selection?

A19: Level III Drawings data rights are no longer an option on the contract. The level III drawings are now a firm requirement since they are required for airworthiness. The data rights shall be bid in accordance with the standard DFARS data rights clauses. The two data rights H-clauses are no longer a part of the RFP or resultant contract.

Q20: How are the data rights determined?

A20: If the offeror is claiming limited or restricted data rights for its product, the offeror must assert those data rights as part of the proposal. The Government will review the proposed rights and may challenge the assertion. For example, if the Government has reason to believe the Government paid for part of the development under a past Government contract, then proposed limited or restricted rights would be challenged.

Q21: How do the data rights assertions impact the proposal rating?

A21: Data rights for Level III Drawings will no longer be evaluated since they are not an option CLIN.

The drawings, as described in the TDP section of the SOW, are a technical requirement but the data rights associated with the TDP are not being evaluated for technical acceptability. Offerors cannot gain a strength or be assigned a weakness due to the data rights being asserted.

Q22: Per Section L paragraph 3.7, Binding and Labeling, please clarify the need and/or provide acceptable alternatives to the two-hole punch requirement.

A22: The Government does not have a requirement for a two-hole binder for the copy of the proposal that is hole punched at the top. If an offeror chooses to use a binder, commercial available solutions are available by searching for 2 ring binder, 2 ring legal binder or 2 ring binder for top punched. Folders with top fasteners, or binders with rings on the side are also acceptable as long as the requirement of the two holes punched at the top are met.

----------- End of Document -----------