Q&A_5_June_2017.pdf

C-17 Roll-on Conference Capsule (ROCC) Program

Request for Industry Feedback

Draft System Requirements Document (SRD) and Draft Statement of Work

(SOW)

Questions: (The following are a combination of similar questions received)

Can the dynamic load testing be conducted by a sub-contractor or third party vendor?

(Ref. SOW Para 3.4.7.3)

If ISO 9001:2008/2015 or AS9100 Certification become firm requirements by the issuance of the final RFP, can they be met by a sub-contractor and applied to the overall management of the contract by the prime?

Can the requirement for providing a System Safety Program (SSP) be met by utilizing an

SSP IAW MIL‐STD‐882E held by a sub-contractor or third party vendor? (Ref. SOW

Para 3.4.4)

Can the requirement to utilize a configuration management system IAW Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) EIA 649‐1 be met by utilizing a configuration management system held by a sub-contractor? (Ref. SOW Para 3.4.3.1)

Answer:

The prime contractor will be responsible for meeting all requirements, including all referenced specifications, standards, handbooks, instructions, etc. The prime contractor is not permitted to claim a certification they have not earned or been certified to, even if a sub-contractor holds the certification.

As this acquisition is anticipated to be a total small business set-aside, FAR 52.219-14(c), Limitations on Subcontracting, states: “By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for –

(1) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.

(2) Supplies (other than procurement from a nonmanufacturer of such supplies). The concern shall perform work for at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacturing the supplies, not including the cost of materials.

(3) General construction. The concern will perform at least 15 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees.

(4) Construction by special trade contractors. The concern will perform at least 25 percent of the cost of the contract, not including the cost of materials, with its own employees.”

Please be advised that the rules governing affiliation and ostensible subcontracting apply when determining size under the Limitations of Subcontracting, as does the Non-Manufacturer Rule

(On a supply contract, a firm must perform at least 50% of the cost of manufacturing the supplies

-- not including the cost of materials) because a supply North American Industry Classification

System (NAICS) code is chosen for this acquisition (anticipated NAICS code for the ROCC program is 336413 – Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment). More information on the

Non-Manufacturing Rule can be found on the U.S. Small Business Administration’s webpage at

1075490921C Typewritten Text

1075490921C Typewritten Text

1075490921C Typewritten Text

1075490921C Typewritten Text

1075490921C Typewritten Text 5 June 2017

1075490921C Typewritten Text

1075490921C Typewritten Text the following link: https://www.sba.gov/contracting/contracting-officials/non-manufacturer-rule/non-manufacturer-waivers.

Question:

Since availability of the USG Research Laboratory (AFRL/RY) will not be known at the time of release of the Final RFP, how are contractors to price the EMI/EMC testing? (Ref SOW 3.4.7.3)

Offerors should assume that AFRL labs will be available for component EMI/EMC testing. The

SOW will be changed to clarify this point.

Is the Steel Eagle considered to be a part of the ROCC system as it pertains to the dynamic testing? (Ref SOW 3.4.7.3)

No, Steel Eagle is not part of ROCC and therefore does not require dynamic load testing. Steel

Eagle only affects ROCC communication and electrical systems.

(Ref. SRD, Para 3.1) Should the “design and certified to permit occupancy” in the referenced sub-para be limited to the “designed capacity/occupancy” of the ROCC vice as it currently reads which could include personnel quantities above the designed occupancy level?

The combined occupancy of the individual capsules shall not exceed the total occupancy of the

ROCC. The occupants of the ROCC will be able to move between the SLS and CR/SA, and therefore can be located in either area. Since there are four (4) seats in the SLS, it has to be designed as if the four seats are occupied. Since the CR/SA has nine (9)(T) or eleven (11)(O) seats, it has to be designed as if all the seats are occupied. In addition, the capsules must be designed with a factor of safety called out in MIL-S-8512D.

https://www.sba.gov/contracting/contracting-officials/non-manufacturer-rule/non-manufacturer-waivers https://www.sba.gov/contracting/contracting-officials/non-manufacturer-rule/non-manufacturer-waivers

Reference SRD Paragraph 3.5.1 Electrical Power Source:

a. We have concerns with the power specified, standard aircraft practice utilizes 28

VDC or 120Vac - 400Hz power.

b. From past experience we are concerned the power specified (Two (2) 50 Amp, 120VAC, 60 Hz single phase circuits) cannot power up all the specified systems. Two

(2) ECU’s, Lighting, Audio/Video Equipment, Water Systems and carry-on equipment. Will additional power be allotted if required?

a. Although that is standard aircraft practice, the ROCC will be utilizing the Steel Eagle as intermediate equipment that connects to the aircraft and the ROCC. The Steel Eagle draws from aircraft 115 VAC 400 Hz power. The ROCC shall be similar to other capsules used by the USAF C-17 with Steel Eagle, where 60 Hz power is converted from standard aircraft power and provided to capsule occupants.

b. No, additional power will not be allotted. The ROCC will only utilize the power capability provided from the Steel Eagle – AF experience has shown this is sufficient power for the legacy Silver Bullet capsules. Additional power connections from ROCC to the aircraft are not desired or acceptable. An electrical loads analysis should be performed as part of SRD verification to ensure all the powered equipment and connections designed into the ROCC can be adequately supplied thru the Steel Eagle.

Reference SRD 3.5 Electrical Requirements. Commercial off-the-shelf aircraft certified components utilize 28VDC & 120VAC 400Hz, has the US government considered the extra cost to try and certify off-the-shelf commercial equipment that runs off 120VAC - 400Hz to support the various specified systems?

The Steel Eagle already serves this purpose. Utilizing Steel Eagle with the ROCC avoids additional expense to the Government to evaluate and qualify 400 Hz rated COTS equipment to replace and/or complement the Steel Eagle. Introducing another 400 Hz system to support the

ROCC would require additional burdens to determine load analysis to electrical systems, changes to procedures and technical data, safety and operational checks, and additional crew burden.

Reference SRD Paragraph 3.6.4 System Environment Requirements – Operations and Paragraph

3.8.5.2 Pressurization.

Is DO-160 testing acceptable in lieu of similar Mil-Spec’s (810G, 464, 401)?

No, DO-160 test cannot be substituted for similar Mil Specification testing.

Reference SRD Paragraph 3.8.3.2 Corrosion Prevention

No materials that utilize cadmium/chromium plating shall be utilized on the unit. Does this include Mil-Spec hardware?

Yes, this includes MIL-Spec hardware. There are other options for hardware coatings on the market today. It should not be necessary to use cadmium and chromium plate. In addition to this, the Air Force is actively moving away from such coatings on fasteners and other hardware for environmental reasons. The designs for the ROCC should not introduce more cadmium/chromium to the supply system.

SRD section 3.6.1, Storage pertaining to environment storage is written in fairly vague way using the language “all weather conditions.” This is a fairly open ended requirement and almost impossible to verify and translate into the system requirements flow down. However, in section

4.0, the verification section, there is language in the remarks column that alludes to a more defined and verifiable requirement using the language “rain, quarter size hail and blowing dust….” Recommend refining this particular requirement in 3.6.1 to be more specific so the requirement can be flowed down and properly verified by analysis or demonstration.

SRD paragraph 3.6.1 will be updated with definitive criteria for what is considered to be all weather conditions.

SRD section 3.9.6.2 pertaining to thermal loads from the ROCC into the C-17A cabin require C-

17A system requirements data in order to know what thermal load is acceptable. The wording of this requirement could be clearer if it just focused on the requirement to meet the C-17A specifications. And somehow, the Government would have to make that data accessible to the contractor. It may be easier, for the Government to lay in the thermal loads into the SRD in a clear defined requirement.

Paragraph 3.9.6.2 will be deleted from the SRD.

-End of Q&A-

Thank you for your continued interest and the input, feedback, and questions received in response to the draft SRD/SOW documents. There will be more opportunities in the future to ask questions pertaining to the ROCC acquisition through the Draft RFP and at an Industry Day

(Mid-October 2017(estimate)/ Time & Location TBD).