20170713_12(c)(25)_Section_J,_Atch_25_Section_L.pdf

FA8629-17-R-2507

Section J, Attach 25: Section L

13 July 2017

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

1 PROGRAM INFORMATION

1.1 Program Structure and Objectives

The UH-1N is a twin-engine, medium-lift utility helicopter initially manufactured in the 1960s.

The USAF UH-1N fleet supports Combatant Command (CCMD) critical missions and vertical lift needs of several Major Commands (MAJCOMs). Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) assumes Lead Command responsibility for the UH-1N Replacement program.

AFGSC employs vertical lift from Minot Air Force Base (AFB), Malmstrom AFB, and FE Warren AFB, to provide nuclear security response and convoy support. The Air Force District of Washington (AFDW) provides emergency evacuation for senior Government and Department of Defense (DoD) officials as well as airlift for key personnel in the National Capital Region (NCR) and is based at Joint Base Andrews. Pacific Air Force (PACAF) provides Operations Support Airlift (OSA) for key personnel and is based at Yokota Air Base. UH-1N aircraft within Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) provide test range support to Eglin AFB and act as a munitions development testing platform. Air Education and Training Command (AETC) provides medical evacuation and support operations to the Air Force Survival School at Fairchild AFB. In addition, AETC provides UH-1N initial qualification training at Kirtland AFB. All MAJCOMs are tasked to perform Search and Rescue (SAR), via the National Search and Rescue Plan and Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA), as ancillary missions.

The UH-1N Replacement Air Vehicle (AV) will enable operators to provide physical protection to high-value national assets and increase operational efficiency and readiness. The UH-1N Replacement AV will aid in deterrence of adversaries and allow for a rapid response to mitigate threats and deny hostile aims.

The UH-1N Replacement Training System (TS) will be comprised of non-motion, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Level 7-capable Operational Flight Trainers (OFT), Cockpit Procedural Trainer(s) (CPT), Integrated Aircrew Systems Trainer (IAST), Alternate Insertion/Extraction Part-task Trainer (AIE PTT), Weapon Procedure Trainer (WPT), spare parts, support equipment, technical data, Type 1 Contractor Training, and courseware.

As a result of the capability need, the UH-1N Replacement Program Office has structured the solicitation to allow for the acquisition of (to include any necessary integration for) the AV, Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL), TS, training, test support, a comprehensive product support package, and priced options for data that will preserve the long-term product support decisions of the UH-1N Replacement System.

2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by this Instruction to Offerors (ITO) and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The Offeror’s proposal shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW) (including Annex H, Performance Work Statement (PWS)), System Requiremets Document

(SRD), Training Systems Requirements Document (TSRD), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and Integrated Master Plan (IMP). Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but, rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal and the Cabin Space Ground Demonstration outlined in Paragraph 4.2.6.3.3, herein.

Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the model contract/solicitation. The proposal shall be valid for a period of no less than 300 days from the required submission date.

The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A that the proposal is valid for this time period.

2.1 Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns to the CO. Written requests for clarification (prior to proposal submittal) may be sent to the CO at the address below:

AFLCMC/WIH, Bldg 11, Room 148 Attn: Kraig Neer, Contracting Officer 2640 Loop Road West

WPAFB, OH 45433-7228

Kraig.Neer@us.af.mil Reference: FA8629-17-R-2507

2.2 Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may request a post-award debriefing by choosing to wait until after the source selection decision to receive a debriefing. However, Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing. The CO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.503. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

2.3 Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

2.4 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at https://www.fbo.gov/. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.5 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to/from Offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via the AMRDEC SAFE file sharing website, direct mailing, or pick-up by local contractor representatives. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, Offerors must use Microsoft (MS) Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If the Offeror intends to submit source selection information via encrypted email, the Offeror will need to contact the Contracting Officer prior to that first submittal in order to exchange Public PKI key credentials. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information).

2.6 Use Of Non-Government Advisors

(a) Offerors are advised that technical and price data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation may be released to non-Government advisors for review and analysis. The non- Government advisor support will be provided by:

Name of firm(s)

HX5, LLC

212 Eglin Parkway, SE Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 Attn: Todd Burkhardt (todd.burkhardt@hxfive.com)

Booz Allen Hamilton 3800 Pentagon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Beavercreek, OH 45431

Apogee Engineering, LLC 4031 Colonel Glenn Hwy., Suite 301 Beavercreek, OH 45431 https://www.fbo.gov/ https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/

(b) Offerors shall provide, in the Contract Documentation Volume, a copy of paragraph (b)(2) or provide written objection to disclosure as indicated in paragraph (b)(1). If the Offeror objects to disclosure of a portion of the proposal, the consent in (b)(2) shall be provided for the remainder of the proposal.

(1) Any objection to disclosure:

(i) Shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer (CO) within the Contract Documentation Volume of the proposal; and

(ii) Shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. The detailed statement shall identify the specific portions of the proposal the Offeror objects to disclosure to non-Government advisors.

(2) I understand technical and price data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation may be released to non-Government advisors. I consent to release of any (unless objection is provided in (b)(1) above) proprietary, confidential, or privileged commercial or financial data provided by the firm(s) named below in response to this solicitation, to non-Government advisors for review and analysis:

Signature:

Firm:

Name (individual authorized to commit firm):

Title:

Date of Execution:

(c) The CO will evaluate any objection to disclosure and make a determination whether the non- Government advisor(s) shall be permitted to participate in the source selection. The CO shall inform the objecting Offeror of the final determination, and, if the use of non-Government advisors has been changed, shall inform all Offerors of the change.

(d) Offerors shall execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement with each company listed above (prior to submitting a proposal). Copies of the executed Non-Disclosure Agreement must be provided to the CO in the Contract Documentation Volume.

3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 3-1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in the table. The volumes identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below:

Table 3-1 - Proposal Organization

VOL ITO

Para

VOL TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I 4.1 Executive Summary

One original, five hard copies and two electronic (one for the Air Force and one for DCMA)

10 pages

II 4.2 Technical One original, five hard copies and two electronic (one for the Air Force and one for DCMA)

300 pages, excluding:

• IMS/IMP,

• Draft Airworthiness Certification

Plan,

• Certification Basis

• Approved flight manual with all performance charts for certified baseline AV,

• CD with Engine Performance Data,

• Graphical tabular data,

• Contract Work Breakdown

Structure (CWBS),

• Copies of Comparable Standards

• Weight and Mission

Performance Workbook,

• Dictionary,

• Small Business Participation

Plan.

III 4.3 Price One original, two hard copies and two electronic (one for the Air Force and one for DCMA)

No Limit

IV 5.0 Contract Documentation

One original, two hard copies and two electronic (one for the Air Force and one for DCMA)

No Limit

3.1.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. Each page shall be counted except the following:

cover pages, table of contents, tab separators, glossaries, and items expressly excluded from the page limit in Table 3-1. If page limitations are exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations may be placed on responses to

Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors.

3.1.2 Page Size and Format

The following page size and format instructions will allow for a common baseline for proposals.

The page size and format instructions shall be followed for all pages contained within the page limits specified in the Volumes I and II outlined in Table 3-1, above.

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be typed with 1.5 line spacing. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the font shall be Times New Roman and the text size shall be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page size and format restrictions shall also apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 by 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume, and count as a single page for each face of the 11 by 17 sheet utilized. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

3.2 Pricing Related Data

The Offeror shall not include any pricing related data in the Executive Summary volume or the Technical volume. All pricing information shall be addressed in the Contract Documentation volume and the Price volume, specifically in the Pricing Table Workbook (Section J, Attachment

07) and the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Workbook. Information shall be limited to Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) or SubCLIN pricing, including unit and extended pricing, as specified in the RFP. All dollar amounts proposed in response to the solicitation shall be stated in U.S.

currency in then year dollars. All proposed values shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

3.3 Classified Information

For any classified proposal documents to be sent to the UH-1N Replacement program, the Offeror shall send via the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET), utilizing the following two secure email addresses: joseph.m.bovair.civ@mail.smil.mil and william.c.williams46.civ@mail.smil.mil. Any classified proposal documents will count towards the page limitations in Table 3-1. For specific guidance on marking in an electronic environment, see Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 5200.01, Volume 2, Enclosure 3, Section 17 'Marking in the Electronic Environment. Classified proposal documents shall be submitted NLT the deadline set forth in Section L, Paragraph 3.9.

mailto:joseph.m.bovair.civ@mail.smil.mil mailto:william.c.williams46.civ@mail.smil.mil

3.4 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The Offeror shall complete the partially filled-out Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix at Attachment 01 of this ITO indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the ITO, Section M, SOW/PWS, SRD, and TSRD.

3.5 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

3.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

3.7 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet shall be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the Offeror's name. The same identifying data shall be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

3.8 Electronic Offers

The Offeror shall submit electronic copies of proposal volumes using read-only CDs or DVDs.

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any.

Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. If there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the hard copies will take precedence. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Attachment 02, hereto.

3.9 Distribution

Proposals (one original, five hard copies and two electronic) shall be addressed to the CO and mailed or hand carried to the following address by 28 August 2017 @ 15:00 Eastern Time.

Offerors may not submit any initial proposal information via e-mail or other electronic means.

The Government will not consider any information not physically delivered to the stated location by the stated time.

AFLCMC/AZA, Bldg 570, Room 113 Attn: Kraig Neer, Contracting Officer 1755 11th Street Wright- Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7228 Reference: FA8629-17-R-2507

Be sure to advise the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) for prime and subcontractors that the proposal is "For Official Use Only" and "Source Selection Information--See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104". Proposals or proposal revisions (as requested) received at the address specified for the receipt of proposals after the exact time specified for receipt of offers will be considered “late” in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(3).

4.0 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

4.1 Instructions For Volume I, Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the Offeror shall provide the following information:

4.1.1. Narrative Summary

The Executive Summary shall be a concise narrative summary of the entire proposal. The salient features shall tie in with the Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated.

4.1.2. Table of Contents

The Executive Summary shall contain a Master Table of Contents of the entire proposal. This Table does not count toward the 10-page total limit for Volume I.

4.2 Instructions For Volume II, Technical

4.2.1. To facilitate evaluation, the Offeror’s Technical Volume shall be specific and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of UH-1N Replacement requirements.

The Offeror’s proposal shall clearly articulate a technical approach that addresses all requirements identified within Section L that provides the Government confidence in the offeror's ability to perform all requirements contained within SRD/TSRD, SOW/PWS and requirements. Using the instructions provided below, the proposal shall provide as specifically and clearly as possible the actual methodology the Offeror would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the requirements in this RFP; statements paraphrasing the requirements in this RFP or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. The Offeror should note that data submitted prior to the proposal submission will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation; therefore, such data shall not be relied upon or incorporated in the Technical proposal by reference.

4.2.2. Technical. The purpose of this section is to set forth, in the most comprehensive manner, the Offeror’s understanding of the program requirements and to clearly demonstrate the ability to meet the evaluation requirements of Section M, Factor 1, Technical. This section shall present a clear, concise description of how the Offeror plans to meet solicitation requirements. This section shall not contain any pricing data. The Offeror’s proposal submission shall represent that the Offeror will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the completeness of the proposal. The Government will not assume an Offeror possesses any capability that the Offeror fails to identify in its proposal. In the technical volume, the Offeror shall address the technical solution for meeting the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor.

4.2.3. Technical Risk. The Offeror’s proposal shall address any Technical Risk associated with those aspects of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with a standard 4x4 or 5x5 likelihood and consequence risk cube. Provide a risk reporting matrix as outlined in the DoD Risk, Issues, and Opportunities Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOW or specification requirements) and whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic risk mitigation strategy for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

4.2.4. Volume Organization. The Technical volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

-Table of Contents -List of Tables and Drawings -Glossary -Subfactor 1 – Schedule -Subfactor 2 – Mission Capability -Subfactor 3 – Systems Integration -Subfactor 4 – Training System -Subfactor 5 – Product Support

4.2.5. Subfactor 1, Schedule (Integrated Master Plan (IMP) / Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS))

The Offeror shall provide an IMP and IMS. For guidance in development of the IMP and IMS, the Offeror shall adhere the Department of Defense (DoD) IMP and IMS Preparation and Use Guide, Version 0.9, dated 21 October 2005, and to the Air Force Integrated Master Schedule Assessment Process, Version 3.0, dated 7 June 2012.

4.2.5.1 IMP

The Offeror shall tailor the Government-provided IMP as required for its particular approach.

The IMP shall be event-based, containing the events, accomplishments and entrance/exit criteria needed to successfully achieve Required Assets Available (RAA) No Later Than (NLT) 30 September 2022 and delivery of the first Operational Flight Trainer (OFT). RAA is defined as:

1. Delivery of seven UH-1N Replacement AVs;

2. Delivery of certified and verified technical data;

3. Completion of all SATAF activities at the initial fielding location;

4. Delivery of Type-1 training; and

5. Delivery of the required spares and support equipment for the initial seven AVs.

The IMP shall identify mandatory Offeror and Government events, accomplishments, and entrance/exit criteria (or subject areas where indicated) identified in the requirements of this RFP. Events, accomplishments, and entrance/exit criteria may be combined to facilitate offeror’s approach to achieving the requirements of this RFP.

The proposed IMP, so long as otherwise compliant with the proposal formatting requirements set forth herein, may be provided in the Offeror’s format, but shall contain, at a minimum, the events, accomplishments and entrance/exit criteria outlined in the Government IMP (Section J, Attachment 23). The Government IMP provides a framework for the Offeror’s proposed IMP and in no way should inhibit the scope and flexibility to integrate Offeror’s best practices. The Offeror shall align additional entrance and exit criteria with the appropriate events and accomplishments.

4.2.5.2 IMS

The Offeror shall provide a single IMS with all necessary logic for the UH-1N Replacement System. The IMS shall cover the entire scope of work through contract completion, to include activities required to successfully achieve RAA. RAA shall not extend past 30 September 2022.

The IMS shall focus primarily on the events, accomplishments, and entrance/exit criteria as outlined in the Offeror's IMP, as well as the Offeror’s key processes and risk drivers. The tasks included in the IMS shall be sufficient to timely achieve RAA and contract completion.

Additionally, the IMS shall be traceable to, and consistent with, the other portions of the Offeror’s proposal.

IMS Content: The IMS shall contain all the IMP events, accomplishments, entrance/exit criteria, and discrete tasks necessary to support the IMP, linked in a logical network to accurately represent the Offeror’s strategy associated with achieving RAA, delivery of the first OFT, and completion of contract requirements. While developing the IMS the Offeror shall adhere to the guidance contained in the Department of Defense (DoD) IMP and IMS Preparation and Use Guide, Version 0.9, dated 21 October 2005, and the Air Force Integrated Master Schedule Assessment Process, Version 3.0, dated 7 June 2012.

IMS Format: The Offeror shall organize the IMS submission as a separate attachment as follows:

• Chapter 1 – IMS – Includes the IMS, submitted in accordance with the direction herein.

• Chapter 2 – Schedule Rationale – Includes narrative explanations of the durations, constraints and predecessor/successor rationale of the proposed IMS, and IMS definitions.

Chapter 1 – IMS

The Offeror shall provide an IMS with an assumed contract start date, as identified above, that meets the RAA date as specified above. The program IMS shall be submitted on a Windows-compatible CD-ROM in Microsoft Project format and shall keep leads, lags, and constraints to a minimum.

The Offeror shall provide an electronic IMS in Tracking Gantt View (default view in MS Project) containing the following applicable data for each task, summary task, and milestone in the IMS:

• Unique ID

• IMP Reference/Code (Text3 field)

• Name

• Start

• Finish

• Duration (and narrative)

• Total Slack

• Predecessors

• Successors

• Constraint Type

• Constraint Date

• Technical Subfactor (Text2 field)

• CWBS (Text4 field)

• SOW Reference (Text5 field)

• Risk

• Critical Path

• Driving Path

The Offeror shall provide a hardcopy tabular listing of the IMS in Tracking Gantt format and it shall be submitted on single-sided, 11 X 17 inch paper using no smaller than 10-point font. The listing shall contain the following fields: Unique ID, IMP Reference/Code, SOW Reference, Technical Subfactor, Name, Duration, Start, Finish, Predecessors, Successors, Risk, Critical Path, and Driving Path.

The IMS shall clearly indicate at least one unbroken critical path and one unbroken secondary critical path that covers the Offeror’s entire scope of work through Contract Completion. The IMS shall clearly indicate unbroken driving paths to the following events: AV Critical Design Review (CDR), TS CDR, Flight Test Readiness Review, Technical Order Certification and Verification, Type-1 Training, Courseware, and RAA. Text names for tasks/milestones on the critical path shall be displayed in underlined bold red text. If the IMS has multiple critical paths, the proposal shall include documentation in Chapter 2 (Schedule Rationale) detailing the ground rules, assumptions and logic associated with the multiple critical paths. The Offeror shall not mark tasks having a Total Slack greater than zero as critical tasks.

All non-summary tasks, with the exception of the first task, shall have at least one predecessor with a driving relationship. All non-summary tasks with the exception of the last task shall have at least one successor with a driving relationship. All logic relationships between non-summary tasks (predecessor/successor) shall be captured in the IMS. There shall not be any negative total slack in the IMS. Summary tasks shall not be linked. If using Start-Start relationships, the predecessor task shall have an additional successor with a Finish-Start relationship. If using Finish-Finish relationships, the successor task shall have an additional predecessor with a Finish- Start relationship. If using Start-Finish relationships, the predecessor task shall have an additional successor Finish-Start relationship, and the successor task shall have an additional predecessor Finish-Start relationship. The logic used to develop each task’s relationships shall be included in Chapter 2 (Schedule Rationale).

Level of effort (LOE) tasks (e.g., program management, recurring CDRL submissions, training or other routine, on-going programs, etc.) should be avoided in the IMS. However, the Offeror may provide specific activities within these categories that are significant to executing the program (e.g., exercising annual options or one-time CDRL submission), with proper justification in Chapter 2 (Schedule Rationale). These types of activities shall be represented as milestones and clearly labeled as LOE activities.

Durations in the IMS shall be shown in days. The Offeror’s rationale used to develop each task’s duration shall be included in Chapter 2 (Schedule Rationale). The durations shall be based on a calendar consistent with the Offeror’s work schedule. The Offeror’s work schedule shall be included in Chapter 2 (Schedule Rationale) and support Government-conducted testing and activities; (e.g. LFT&E, OT&E, DT&E, airworthiness activities).

The IMS shall be constructed using only tasks (summary and non-summary) and milestones.

Schedule reserve shall not be represented as a task in the schedule. Any task with duration greater than 45 workdays shall be divided into subtasks with smaller durations or justified in the narrative included in Chapter 2 (Schedule Rationale). The duration justification shall include descriptions of the subtasks that are included in the task, the duration of each subtask and relationships between those subtasks. The Offeror shall not submit supplemental schedules for these tasks.

For each IMS task, the Offeror shall identify in the MS Project Text2 field the corresponding Technical subfactor primarily associated to that task, e.g., Technical Subfactor 2, Technical Subfactor 3, etc. The Offeror shall represent Technical Subfactors as follows: Technical Subfactor 2 = "T2", Technical Subfactor 3 = "T3", etc. All Technical Subfactors shall be addressed to a level of detail sufficient to provide a reasonable understanding of the execution of that subfactor.

Relationships with excessive lag time shall be avoided in the IMS submittal. Any task with lag shall be justified individually in the narrative included in Chapter 2. The Offeror shall not include activities with negative lag time. Leads shall not be used in the IMS.

The Offeror shall let the logical relationships between tasks and task durations calculate the IMS.

Constrained dates, except RAA, within the IMS are discouraged and shall be kept to a minimum.

The Offeror’s rationale used to develop the relationships between activities shall be included in Chapter 2 (Schedule Rationale). Task constraints shall not be used in the IMS; the Offeror should strive to propose an IMS with no constraints. Each constraint other than "ASAP" and/or directed dates shall be justified individually in the Chapter 2 narrative. The IMS shall not include constraint dates or any other conditions that would limit the ability of the Government to perform a schedule assessment. The IMS shall not include Finish No Later Than (FNLT), Start No Later Than (SNLT), Must Finish On (MFO), and Must Start On (MSO) constraints. The Offeror shall not include deadlines on any task.

Chapter 2 - Schedule Rationale

The proposed IMS Chapter 2 narrative shall include the following documentation:

A detailed narrative describing the assumptions and data used to determine the logical relationships between activities will be provided along with the IMS by the Offeror. This narrative shall include discussion of historical information used (if any), reference to how the relationships trace to the IMP and other contractual documents, and any additional information that supports the logic of each relationship.

A detailed narrative describing the assumptions, rationale, and data used to determine all activity durations will be provided along with the IMS by the Offeror. This narrative shall include discussion of historical information used (if any), reference to how the duration was determined and any additional information that supports the duration justification.

A detailed narrative describing the assumptions and rationale used to justify LOE tasks in the IMS will be provided along with the IMS by the Offeror. This narrative shall include discussion of how the LOE was determined relevant for inclusion in the IMS and any additional information or supporting justification of including the LOE in the IMS.

A detailed narrative describing the assumptions and rationale used to justify lags and constraints of tasks in the IMS will be provided along with the IMS by the Offeror. This narrative shall include discussion of how the lags and constraints were determined, why they are necessary, any impacts they have on slack or logic, and any additional information or supporting justification of the use of lags and constraints in the IMS.

Detailed narratives for the critical paths shall be provided along with the IMS by the Offeror.

The narratives shall contain details of the logic resulting in the critical paths and an analysis of each critical path. The critical paths shall be sequences of discrete tasks/activities, not summary tasks, in the network logic that have the longest total duration through the contract. The secondary critical path may not be part of the primary critical path. Discrete tasks/activities on the critical path have the least amount of total float/slack. The driving paths shall be sequences of discrete tasks/activities, not summary tasks, in the network logic that have the longest total duration through the interim milestone. Driving paths may not be part of the primary or secondary critical paths. Discrete tasks/activities on the driving path have the least amount of total float/slack to the interim contract milestone.

The Offeror shall provide and document the company’s and Government’s work calendars used as the basis for the IMS. Specifically, the work calendars shall identify the Offeror/Government holidays by year for the duration of the program, the Offeror/Government planned number of hours (shifts) per day, and any other assumptions.

The Offeror shall conduct a Schedule Health Assessment (SHA) using the 14 Point Assessment developed by Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and provide results of the assessment to indicate the mechanical integrity of the schedule. The SHA evaluates criteria such as missing logic, lead/lag times, task relationships, constraints, missed tasks, horizontal/vertical integration of tasks, and logic of a project schedule and will be used to help determine the health and validity of the Offeror’s IMS. See Section L, Attachment 03, DCMA 14PA Macro Files, Installation and Usage Guide for the DCMA SHA macro.

4.2.6. Subfactor 2: Mission Capability

4.2.6.1 AV Mission Performance

The Offeror shall complete the Government-provided Weight and Mission Performance Workbook (Section L, Attachment 04) for each leg of the UH-1N Replacement Mission Profiles described in the UH-1N Replacement SRD 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and Energy Consumption described in SRD 3.1.5.

The Offeror shall provide:

4.2.6.1.1 A complete and certified flight manual for the baseline certified AV with all performance charts.

Provide updates to the certified flight manual performance charts that reflect performance changes for the UH-1N Replacement AV configuration that have been reviewed for engineering and procedural accuracy.

4.2.6.1.2 A graph of Specific Range versus True Airspeed showing the effects of payload and ambient conditions for a range of pressure altitudes and for gross weights from basic AV weight up to maximum gross weight in 1,000 lb increments for a standard day and high hot day as identified in the UH-1N Replacement Mission Profiles (SRD 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3).

4.2.6.1.3 Graphs of payload weight versus Mission Range that clearly identify the payload for each mission identified in the UH-1N Replacement Mission Profiles (SRD 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3).

4.2.6.1.4 Graph of level flight maximum speeds at maximum continuous power for the emergency security response (ESR) mission profile cruise points (SRD 3.1.1.2).

4.2.6.1.5 Graph of best range cruise speed for the continuity of operations (COOP)/Transport Mission Profile cruise points (SRD 3.1.3).

4.2.6.1.6 Chart identifying the UH-1N Replacement configuration is within the Center of Gravity (CG) envelope for each mission profile described in the Mission Profiles of the SRD, Appendices D-1 through D-3, including CG calculations for each segment.

4.2.6.1.7 Equivalent flat plate drag area for the UH-1N Replacement mission configurations. Clearly identify if the additional drag has been accounted for in the Weight and Mission Performance Workbook (Section L, Attachment 04). Accounting should identify increments and decrements from the certified flight manual versus the proposed UH-1N Replacement configuration.

4.2.6.1.8 An engine cycle deck.

4.2.6.1.9 A graph which clearly identifies the Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) capability for the COOP/Transport Mission Profile, segment 7 (SRD Appendix D-3).

4.2.6.1.10 Substantiation data showing the UH-1N Replacement AV’s handling qualities are IAW MIL-H- 8501, ADS-33E-PRF or 14 CFR Part 29. Include data showing any impacts to maintaining the existing baseline AV certification.

4.2.6.2. Survivability

4.2.6.2.1 Force Protection (SRD 3.2.1.1)

The Offeror shall:

4.2.6.2.1.1 Describe the armor solution for the cockpit and cabin floor to provide ballistic protection from 7.62x39mm M43 Type PS ball round with a V50 equal to 1,960 fps at zero degrees obliquity.

4.2.6.2.1.2 Describe the force protection solution for the pilot and copilot in the seated position on the side, back, and bottom from small arms fire up to a 7.62x39mm M43 Type PS ball round with a V50 equal to 1,960 fps at zero degrees obliquity, to include cockpit field of protection in terms of shot line azimuth and elevation angles.

4.2.6.2.1.3 Describe the test methods, standards, and specifications used to qualify the force protection levels.

4.2.6.2.1.4 Provide descriptions and summaries for all ballistic and qualification testing to substantiate the force protection levels for the cockpit and cabin.

4.2.6.2.2 Ballistic Damage Tolerance (SRD 3.2.1.2)

The Offeror shall:

4.2.6.2.2.1 Describe the ability of the AV to have a 95 percent probability to maintain flight for 30 minutes given a single impact by a 7.62x39mm Type BZ M1943 API round at 1,960 fps at zero obliquity angles and for all azimuth and elevation angles within the bottom hemisphere while the AV is in a level flight attitude. Also describe the ability of the AV to have a 95 percent probability to maintain flight for 30 minutes given a single impact by a 12.7x108mm B-32 API round at 2,097 fps at zero obliquity angles and for all azimuth and elevation angles within the bottom hemisphere while the AV is in a level flight attitude.

4.2.6.2.2.2 Describe the analysis, methods, tools, standards, and specifications used to determine the ballistic damage tolerance.

4.2.6.2.2.3 Describe all vulnerability reduction features implemented to achieve the necessary ballistic damage tolerance.

4.2.6.2.2.4 Provide a summary of the components and systems contributing to the ballistic damage tolerance vulnerability.

4.2.6.2.2.5 Provide a summary of ballistic testing data/reports, or modeling and simulation analysis, conducted by either the U.S. Government or an independent source.

4.2.6.2.2.6 Provide a summary of all ballistic and qualification test data and/or reports used to substantiate the analysis.

4.2.6.3 Cabin Space (SRD 3.5.2.1, 3.5.2.3, 3.5.4 and 3.10.2)

The Offeror shall:

4.2.6.3.1 Provide a combination of narrative, dimensioned drawings, graphics, and pictorial images (including but not limited to: excerpts from the Flight/Operators Manual and any supplemental manuals) describing how the proposed AV meets cabin occupant requirements for each mission as described in SRD sections 3.5.2.1 Cabin Seating Configuration for intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) ESR Mission, and 3.5.2.3 Cabin Seating Configuration for COOP/Transport Mission and the Special Mission Equipment “A” for ICBM ESR mission stowage requirements described in SRD section 3.5.4.

4.2.6.3.2 Provide a detailed description of the procedure (including sequence and timing) for the following tasks for the ICBM ESR, and the COOP/Transport Missions:

4.2.6.3.2.1 Cabin occupant ingress and restraint,

4.2.6.3.2.2 Loading and securing of Special Mission Equipment “A” (if required by mission),

4.2.6.3.2.3 Unsecuring and unloading of Special Mission Equipment “A” (if required by mission), and

4.2.6.3.2.4 Cabin occupant egress (normal).

4.2.6.3.3 Make available a ground demonstration AV (configurable for the ICBM/ESR and COOP/Transport missions) at their production facility. The purpose of the ground demonstration AV is for the Government to assess seating capacity and stowage of the Special Mission Equipment “A” using the Offeror’s procedure, provided pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.6.3.2 above.

The Government will only conduct one ground demonstration for this assessment. The ground demonstration AV shall be available along with the appropriate support equipment and personnel to support reconfiguration of the cabin. The AV shall be operationally representative of the cabin configuration for the ICBM/ESR and COOP/Transport missions. It is acceptable if any mission equipment is in “mock-up” form, but it shall at a minimum be capable of occupying the same space in the cabin as the proposed design. The UH-1N Replacement Program Office will provide the personnel required to conduct the ground demonstration. The Contracting Officer will contact the Offeror to coordinate the dates, duration, and number of participants for the demonstration. The Offeror shall refer to Section L, Attachment 8, Supplementary Information to Offerors for Cabin Space Demonstration.

4.2.7. Subfactor 3: Systems Integration

4.2.7.1 Manufacturing and Quality

4.2.7.1.1 Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (SOW 4.3.8.4)

The Offeror shall identify and provide a written description of the Offeror’s experience in producing the airworthiness-certified baseline AV.

The Offeror shall identify the current Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) for the airworthiness-certified baseline AV and for the final configuration. The MRL shall be based on a self-assessment using the criteria and process identified in the DoD MRL Deskbook (http://www.dodmrl.com/MRL_Deskbook_2016.pdf).

The Offeror shall identify the current MRL for the certified baselined TS and for the final configuration. The MRL shall be based on a self-assessment using the criteria and process identified in the DoD MRL Deskbook.

The Offeror shall provide a description of the approach used to assess and determine the MRLs.

4.2.7.1.2 Quality (SOW 4.3.8.3)

The Offeror shall describe how its approach ensures manufacturing product quality IAW the current version of Aerospace Basic Quality System Standard AS 9100C: 2009 or AS 9100D:

2016 (or comparable standard), both at the prime and subcontractor levels, for the final AV and TS configurations.

The Offeror shall describe how its quality system assures product quality; achieves stable, capable processes; prevents defects; and employs effective methods for conducting root cause analyses and implementation of corrective actions.

4.2.7.2 Integration (SOW 4.3.2.1)

The Offeror shall:

4.2.7.2.1 Provide a list of the hardware and software requiring integration, beyond those included in the airworthiness-certified baseline AV, to meet requirements (SRD Section 3).

4.2.7.2.2 Provide scaled, dimensional, 3-view drawings of all hardware installed (i.e. hardware requiring integration)

4.2.7.2.3 Describe in detail the non-recurring engineering (NRE) activities and time associated with incorporating each integration item on the airworthiness-certified production AV.

4.2.7.2.4 Describe experience with installing the proposed or similar integration items on rotary wing AV.

4.2.7.2.5 Describe the proposed contractor subsystem and system testing to be accomplished prior to delivery of the AV meeting requirements (SRD Section 3).

http://www.dodmrl.com/MRL_Deskbook_2016.pdf

4.2.7.2.6 Describe the proposed verification approach, as specified in section 4 of the AV System Specification (SS), to meet performance requirements that have not been previously verified.

4.2.7.2.7 Provide the following if the Offeror proposes a comparable standard used to qualify the certified baseline AV or NDI design versus the the standard listed in the AV SRD or the SOW:

1) A copy of the comparable standard;

2) Identify differences between the USAF specified standard and the proposed comparable standard; and

3) Potential limitations of the AV or AV equipment that could negatively impact or degrade mission performance.

4.2.7.2.8 Provide (in proposal Volume IV, Contract Documentation Volume) a UH-1N Replacement AV System Specification that clearly identifies the performance specification for the type-certified production AV and clearly identifies the NDI integration beyond the certified baseline AV needed to meet the UH-1N Replacement AV requirements in the AV SRD. The AV System Specification shall include a completed Verification Cross Reference Matrix (reference SRD, Table 4-1: Verification Cross Reference Matrix).

4.2.7.3 Airworthiness (SOW 4.3.5.1)

The Offeror shall:

4.2.7.3.1 Provide the FAA or US DoD flight certification (Army Airworthiness Release, Navy Flight Clearance, Air Force Flight Release, or Type Certificate) for the certified baseline AV. For Commercial Derivative Aircraft (CDA) FAA certifications, the Offeror shall provide the base Type Cert Data Sheet (TCDS), all applicable Supplemental Type Cert Data Sheets (STCDSs) and Engine TCDSs.

4.2.7.3.2 Submit an Airworthiness Certification Plan using guidance IAW USAF Airworthiness Bulletins 002A, 004A, 005 and MIL-HDBK-516C to obtain USAF flight authorization for final AV configuration. For CDA, the offeror shall also use FAA Order 8110.101A to develop the plan.

The plan shall include the schedule of certification activities including any contractor testing, demonstration, inspection and analysis required and delivery of the USAF compliance report as well as a process to maintain airworthiness for the 30 year operational life of the AV system.

4.2.7.3.3 For CDA, submit a Certification Basis (CB) for all items not covered by the FAA Supplemental Type Certification for the mission equipped AV. For AVs that have a DoD flight certification for the baseline, the Offeror shall submit a CB for final mission equipped configuration items not included in the certification of the baseline AV. For each case, the CB shall be IAW USAF Airworthiness Bulletin 004A and MIL-HDBK-516C.

4.2.7.4 Small Business Participation

The Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document that addresses an intent to subcontract at least 15% of the total value of all subcontracted dollars to qualified small business entities. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document is a separate and distinct document from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. In addition, the Small Business Participation Commitment Document is required from all Offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans. However, objectives/goals specifically identified in the proposal must be consistent across the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) and the Small Business Participation Commitment Document. The Offeror shall submit the Small Business Participation Commitment Document under the Technical Volume of the proposal. Small Business participation only includes small business utilization contributions to contract performance at the 1st and 2nd tier subcontract level.

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall include:

• The name of all 1st and 2nd tier Small Business subcontractors to be utilized (including NAICS codes) and the products/services to be provided;

• A description of the type and complexity of the products/services to be provided;

• The extent of utilization quantitatively (dollars) by small business subcontractor.

4.2.8.