FA8629-17-R-2507,_Request_for_Clarification__2.pdf

UH-1N Replacement Program_ Solicitation No: FA8629-17-R-2507 Industry Requests for Clarification and Government Responses

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section K 12 of

The Section K clause, Pg. 12 of 13, 252.227-7017 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE RESTRICTIONS states that contractors are to identify per the clause requirements any deliverable technical data or computer software where the Government will receive less than unlimited data rights.

However, the Government has also indicated that contractors are to identify in Section J, Attachment 8: Technical Data, Computer Software and Computer

Software Documentation Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions; what computer software or technical data deliverables from the contractor where the Government will receive less than unlimited data rights.

Could the Government confirm whether contractors are to identify delivery of technical data or computer software to the Government with less than unlimited data rights in either the section K clause 252.227-7017

IDENTIFICATION AND ASSERTION OF USE, RELEASE, OR DISCLOSURE

RESTRICTIONS or in Section J, Attachment 8: Technical Data, Computer Software and Computer Software Documentation Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions?

The Offeror should use Section J, Attachment 8 as stated in Section L, Paragraph 5.1.12.

2 SRD 3.2.3

The solicitation indicates all parts are necessary for an operational M240 system, but it does not indicate whether the M-240 machine guns are Government

Furnished Equipment (GFE) or not.

Will the Government provide clarity on whether the M240 machine guns are provided as GFE or not?

The Government will not provide the M240 to the contractor as GFE/GFP for integration. The Government will obtain the M240 through the Government supply chain for Government use.

3 SOW 4.4.6.1;

During the draft RFP Q&As, the Government removed the Earned Value Management (EVM) reporting clause 252.234-7001 since clause 234.201 states

Earned Value Management report is discouraged for Firm Fixed Price requirements.

Based on this analysis.

However, SOW paragraph 4.4.6.1 and attachments referenced are elements of

EVM.

Will the Government remove in its entirety, section 4.4.6.1 Contract Work Break Breakdown Structure (CWBS) from the SOW and Section J Attachment 10 Cost and Software Data Reporting/Earned Value Management and CDRLs

A018, A020 and A021 from Section J Attachment 03 as these are requirements that allude to EVM?

No. DFARS 252.234-7004, DoDI 5000.02 and DoD 5000.04-M-1 requires all major contracts and subcontracts, regardless of contract type valued at more than $50M

(then-year) to complete all CSDR requirements which includes maintaining the CWBS.

Section J, Attachment 10 page 1 identifies what forms are due for each element (no

EVM) and page 2 details frequency of reports.

SOW 4.5.4.4 and

CDRL A093,

BLK16

SOW 4.5.4.4, Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System (FRACAS), has text indicating the contractor shall include a reliability growth curve and trend curve for Mission Impacting Failures metric achievement in the FRACAS Report for the period between delivery of the first aircraft until one year after delivery of the 10th aircraft. The associated CDRL (A093) has text indicating the "Final report (is) due one year after Full Rate Production."

Aircraft #10 is FRP - Lot 2, therefore one year afterwards would be during FRP - Lot 3. The CDRL text indicates one year after FRP - Lot 1. There appears to be a mismatch on schedule between SOW text and CDRL.

Will the Government provide clarity on schedule as it relates to this requirement?

The SOW identifies the range of time that the metric must cover ("...for the period between delivery of the first aircraft until one year after delivery of the 10th aircraft").

The CDRL identifies the required deliverable timeframe.

SOW 4.6.4.1 and

4.6.4.2

In the questions answered by the Government prior to final RFP release, a provision was allowed for providing existing ballistic test data in lieu of conducting a Life Fire Test & Evaluation (LFT&E). However, this provision was not included in the final RFP release.

Will the Government consider acceptance of existing ballistic test data for an AV offering where the information exists, in lieu of conducting a Life Fire Test

& Evaluation (LFT&E)?

An LFT&E program is mandated for all ACAT I programs. The scope of the program is dependent on prior live fire testing and available data. The Government will accept previous results if deemed representative for the UH-1N Replacement missions.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

6 PWS 2.2

PWS states "The contractor shall schedule and conduct Type 1 aircrew training such that it is “just-in-time” (completed immediately prior to need) per Table 1 of this PWS and the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)." They do not provide an RDD; and contractor Type 1 training ends at RFT (EOFY23). We are required to provide Type 1 training for 6 OFT IPs for each OFT - the last is delivered to Andrews in FY26.

Will the USG clarify when contractor provided type 1 training for aircrew and simulator instructors will terminate?

Type-1 Aircrew and Type-1 Aircrew Training Device (ATD) Instructor training is projected to terminate after all students identified in PWS Table 1 have been trained.

Timing for the training will be per PWS paragraphs 2.2 and 2.4 and the contractor's

Integrated Master Schedule.

7 PWS: 2. - 2.4

The solicitation does not specify training requirements or identify any aircraft for

Contractor Type 1 training requirements.

Will the USAF provide specificity on the type of training provided and aircraft to be used during Type 1 training?

Offerors are required to provide all Type 1 Training and Type 1 Aircrew Training assets.

Specific Type-1 training requirements are identified in PWS paragraphs 2 thru 2.4, the

Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) referenced and the publications they cite therein.

8 PWS: 2. - 2.4

The Government did not identify aircraft to fulfill flight training requirements during contractor Type-1 flight training.

Will the USG consider a post DD-250 hand receipt (DD-1149) of aircraft back to the offeror for Contractor Type 1 training? No.

PWS 2.2, 2.3,

and Table 1

Developmental Test (DT) requires aircrews with depth and breadth of experience to fly a newly fielded AV, regardless of offering selected.

Will the USAF provide the skill level and qualifications of USAF pilots supporting Developmental Test (DT)? USAF aircrew will be qualified in the UH-1N or HH-60G.

PWS 2.2, 2.3,

Table 1 The Developmental Test (DT) Aircrews will be trained by a contractor devised syllabus, but the Government hasn't provided training requirements.

Would the government provide a detailed Aircrew Training Task List required for Pre-production training of Developmental Test (DT) Aircrews?

No, Developmental Test Aircrew require the same Type-1 Aircrew training as the operational and Formal Training Unit (FTU) Aircrew.

Section J Atch 03: SOW, Annex G: PWS--Table

4; SEP Figure 3.2

The SOW Annex H: PWS and SEP identify Type 1 Training and RFT similarly. All SOW Annex: PWS sections imply the Contractor will continue Type 1 Aircrew and

Maintenance Training after RFT. The SEP shows contractor Type 1 training stopping after RFT. The disconnect between SOW Annex H and SEP cause confusion and make planning, pricing, and comprehension of USAF requirements difficult.

What is the purpose of the term RFT?

Ready For Training (RFT) is a Government term and is determined by Air Education and

Training Command (AETC). RFT is a Milestone identifying the point at which the Government Formal Training Unit takes on the responsibility of conducting the Formal training of UH-1N Replacement Aircrew students.

Section J Atch 03: SOW, Annex G: PWS--Table

4; SEP Figure 3.2

The SOW Annex H: PWS and SEP identify Type 1 Training and RFT similarly. All SOW Annex: PWS sections imply the Contractor will continue Type 1 Aircrew and

Maintenance Training after RFT. The SEP shows contractor Type 1 training stopping after RFT. The disconnect between SOW Annex H and SEP cause confusion and make planning, pricing, and comprehension of USAF requirements difficult.

Does the term "RFT" signify any key event or trigger in the contract? No. See answer in CM #11.

Section J Atch 03: SOW, Annex G: PWS--Table

4; SEP Figure 3.2

The SOW Annex H: PWS and SEP identify Type 1 Training and RFT similarly. All SOW Annex: PWS sections imply the Contractor will continue Type 1 Aircrew and

Maintenance Training after RFT. The SEP shows contractor Type 1 training stopping after RFT. The disconnect between SOW Annex H and SEP cause confusion and make planning, pricing, and comprehension of USAF requirements difficult.

Does the USAF take over training at RFT? Yes.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section J Atch 03: SOW, Annex G: PWS--Table

4; SEP Figure 3.2

The SOW Annex H: PWS and SEP identify Type 1 Training and RFT similarly. All SOW Annex: PWS sections imply the Contractor will continue Type 1 Aircrew and

Maintenance Training after RFT. The SEP shows contractor Type 1 training stopping after RFT. The disconnect between SOW Annex H and SEP cause confusion and make planning, pricing, and comprehension of USAF requirements difficult.

Does the USAF expect contractor provided Type 1 Aircrew and Maintenance Training after RFT?

The Government does not project Type-1 Aircrew training after Ready For Training (RFT) is declared. However, the contract options for Type-1 Aircrew training give the Government the flexibility to procure additional Type-1 Aircrew training, if required after RFT has been declared.

Maintenance Type-1 Training is NOT related to Aircrew Formal Training Unit (FTU) RFT.

However, the contract options for Type-1 Maintenance training give the Government the flexibility to procure Type-1 Maintenance training at any time.

In the case of any discrepancies between the DRAFT SEP and a contractual document, the contractual document shall take precedence.

Section J Atch 03: SOW, Annex G: PWS--Table

4; SEP Figure 3.2

The SOW Annex H: PWS and SEP identify Type 1 Training and RFT similarly. All SOW Annex: PWS sections imply the Contractor will continue Type 1 Aircrew and

Maintenance Training after RFT. The SEP shows contractor Type 1 training stopping after RFT. The disconnect between SOW Annex H and SEP cause confusion and make planning, pricing, and comprehension of USAF requirements difficult.

If the Contractor is to provide Aircrew and Maintenance Training after RFT, will the contractor provide AVs for the purposes of Type training?

Yes, the contractor is required to provide Air Vehicles (AV) for Type-1 Aircrew training should that option be exercised after aircrew Ready For Training (RFT) is declared. In the case of any discrepancies between the DRAFT SEP and a contractual document, the contractual document shall take precedence.

See also response to CM #8.

Maintenance Type-1 Training is NOT related to aircrew FTU RFT. The contractor may be able to use, on a non-interference basis, delivered and Government accepted AVs for Maintenance Type-1 training only with prior approval from the Government. This use shall not negatively impact operational effectiveness, student training or program schedule.

Section J Atch 03: SOW, Annex G: PWS--Table

4; SEP Figure 3.2

The SOW Annex H: PWS and SEP identify Type 1 Training and RFT similarly. All SOW Annex: PWS sections imply the Contractor will continue Type 1 Aircrew and

Maintenance Training after RFT. The SEP shows contractor Type 1 training stopping after RFT. The disconnect between SOW Annex H and SEP cause confusion and make planning, pricing, and comprehension of USAF requirements difficult.

If the Contractor is to provide Aircrew and Maintenance Training after RFT, does the Government expect the Contractor to provide maintenance personnel for Contractor Operated AVs, or will government provide maintenance support for those AVs?

Yes, the contractor is required to provide maintenance personnel and all other support required for contractor-operated Air Vehicles (AV) used during Type-1 Aircrew and

Maintenance training. The Government will not provide maintenance support for AVs used during contractor Type-1 training. In the case of any discrepancies between the

DRAFT SEP and a contractual document, the contractual document shall take precedence.

Section J Atch 03: SOW, Annex G: PWS--Table

4; SEP Figure 3.2

The SOW Annex H: PWS and SEP identify Type 1 Training and RFT similarly. All SOW Annex: PWS sections imply the Contractor will continue Type 1 Aircrew and

Maintenance Training after RFT. The SEP shows contractor Type 1 training stopping after RFT. The disconnect between SOW Annex H and SEP cause confusion and make planning, pricing, and comprehension of USAF requirements difficult.

a. If the Contractor is to provide Aircrew and Maintenance Training after RFT, will the Contractor provide training devices, or use Kirtland AFB training devices to conduct Type1 training after RFT?

b. If No, and contractor Type 1 Training stops at RFT; please update SOW

Annex H to properly reflect guidance.

No change to PWS.

a. The contractor shall provide training assets required to conduct Type-1 Training.

b. Aircrew Type-1 Training is projected to be completed by Ready For Training.

However, contract flexibility allows for Type-1 training options throughout the life of the contract.

In the case of any discrepancies between the DRAFT SEP and a contractual document, the contractual document shall take precedence.

PWS 3.3.5.8.6

Paragraph "a" removed the requirement to conduct gunnery training events on the Kirtland AFB ranges. The other paragraphs in Section 3.3.5.8.6 require us to conduct other portions of gunnery training at Kirtland AFB.

Reword or rewrite the section to either

1. Designate Kirtland AFB as location for Air to Surface Gunnery location

--OR--

2. Remove all references to Kirtland AFB, and allow contractor to provide gunnery training location at their discretion.

PWS paragraph 3.3.5.8.6 applies to GROUND live fire gunnery training only, NOT Aerial gunnery training, which will be conducted by Government flight instructors. For the purpose of proposals, offerors should assume all gunnery training will occur at Kirtland

AFB.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

PWS 3.3.5.8.6.c

Paragraph 3.3.5.8.6.c requires "Instructors shall act as Range Safety Officers (RSO).....RSO training will be scheduled with and conducted by the Combat Arms

Training and Maintenance (CATM) or Department of Energy National Training Center (DoE NTC)." This appears to be a Kirtland AFB-specific requirement, since CATM does not have range authority over other air to surface ranges across most of the Air Force nor DoD. Likewise, it does not appear DoE NTC provides RSO courses outside the Kirtland AFB area. Gunnery ranges operated by other services and other installations often use different RSO certification and approval criteria than those within CATM's or

DOE's oversight.

Is Paragraph c intended to direct the contractor to use Kirtland AFB ranges, facilities, and processes to conduct gunnery training? Yes. See response to CM #18.

PWS 3.3.5.8.6.c and 3.3.5.8.6.e

Paragraph 3.3.5.8.6.c requires "Instructors shall act as Range Safety Officers (RSO).....RSO training will be scheduled with and conducted by the Combat Arms

Training and Maintenance (CATM) or Department of Energy National Training Center (DoE NTC)." This appears to be a Kirtland AFB-specific requirement, since CATM does not have range authority over other air to surface ranges across most of the Air Force nor DoD. Likewise, it does not appear DoE NTC provides RSO courses outside the Kirtland AFB area. Gunnery ranges operated by other services and other installations often use different RSO certification and approval criteria than those within CATM's or DOE's oversight.

Likewise, paragraph 3.3.5.8.6.e requires the contractor to use Kirtland AFB Instruction 91-203 as a guidance document which alludes to potential facility/range use there.

Given paragraph 3.3.5.8.6.e requires the contractor to use Kirtland AFB Instruction 91-203 as a guidance document; is this section intended to drive gunnery training requirements to Kirtland AFB?

See response to CM #18.

PWS 3.3.5.8.6.c

Paragraph 3.3.5.8.6.c requires "Instructors shall act as Range Safety Officers (RSO).....RSO training will be scheduled with and conducted by the Combat Arms

Training and Maintenance (CATM) or Department of Energy National Training Center (DoE NTC)." This appears to be a Kirtland AFB-specific requirement, since CATM does not have range authority over other air to surface ranges across most of the Air Force nor DoD. Likewise, it does not appear DoE NTC provides RSO courses outside the Kirtland AFB area. Gunnery ranges operated by other services and other installations often use different RSO certification and approval criteria than those within CATM's or

DOE's oversight.

Will the government please clarify if Kirtland AFB is the only suitable gunnery training location?

See response to CM #18.

SOW 4.1.1,

4.5.2.2, 4.5.2.2.2

PWS 3.3.6.1.5,

3.3.6.1.6, 4.3.11.1

The language of all narratives provided related to Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) indicate planning, stand up, site activation and the facility itself. The language does not describe who or how the SIL will be staffed. Language in paragraph 4.3.11.1 alludes to the SIL being staffed and operated by the

Government.

Does the Government intend for the Contractor to staff the SIL at any point during the entire contract PoP?

The SIL will be staffed by the Government.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

23 PWS 3.3.6.3.1

The narrative indicates need for an "aircraft/propulsion specialist" and "avionics/mission systems specialist" at each UH1N Replacement MOD. The narrative does not provide specificity on Government expectations for skill set, experience or education. As written, "aircraft/propulsion specialist" could be interpreted as Airframe and Power plant (A&P) qualification.

Will the Government provide specificity on expectations for skill set, experience and education?

The Government does not intend to provide specificity on expectations for skill set, experience and education. The requirements are identified at PWS 3.3.6.3.1.

24 SOW 4.3.9.3

This section of the SOW lists the change order process in regards to the ECPs and

CCPs

Could the Government confirm whether the contractor's proposal costs for each individual ECP and CCP submitted to the Government are to be priced into the overall FFP CLIN or into the price for each submitted ECP and CCP proposal submitted by the contractor in accordance with contractor's proposal per FAR 31.205-18(a) and CA 9904.402-61(c)?

The Government does not expect the offeror to propose, in the FFP CLINs of the contract, the potential future proposal preparation costs of unknown ECPs/CCPs.

Section J, Attachment 7 The CLIN 0130 (and successive CLINs) CLIN Delivery Schedule Table is not in the

Section J, Attachment 7.

Will the Government provide the CLIN Delivery Schedule Table? See Page 7 of 41 of the FBO posted Section J, Attachment 7.

Section J, Attachment 7 and SOW paragraph 4.5.5

CLIN 007 is not defined to anticipate planned scope for Tech Manual Sustainment Support; there is no definition on amount of scope for sustainment in SOW para

4.5.5.

Will the Government provide a projection of how many TO or change orders are to be planned for within an option year?

The Government does not plan to provide a projection of how many TO or change orders are to be planned for within an option year. IETMS will be updated IAW the TMCR pg. 6 para. 8.0 IETM Maintenance Requirements that states; "The Contractor shall maintain accuracy, currency and configuration of all ASD/AIA S1000D Specification, Version 4.1, and MIL-STD-3048A compliant Type-2 IETMs until final delivery of the IETMs to the Government in accordance with Section 2, Table 2 of this TMCR. During this IETM maintenance period, the Contractor shall update any affected IETMs with the results from Flight Test and Verification; and shall also update all IETMs by preparing Emergency, Urgent, and Routine revisions to incorporate corrections, equipment configuration changes, maintenance changes, and operational concept changes within the following timelines."

SOW 4.1.1,

4.5.2.2, 4.5.2.2.2

PWS 3.3.6.1.5,

3.3.6.1.6,

4.3.11.1 and

Section J, Attachment 7.

The language of all narratives provided related to Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) indicate planning, stand up, site activation and the facility itself. The language does not describe who or how the SIL will be staffed. Therefore, CLIN XX19 seems to be a product based requirement

Does the Government require offerors to price a support element for the SIL since the TEP prices it across 10 CLINs?

No support is required for the SIL.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

Multiple discrepancies between SEP and IMP entrance/exit criteria. Some have moved between events, others removed, some omitted.

Given the SEP provided is in draft, it is not authoritative. Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments?

The Draft SEP is provided for guidance and the USG does not intend to provide a final SEP. The draft SEP addresses the technical reviews and approach at the summary-level while the specific details are identified in the IMP or other contractual documents. In the case of any discrepancies between the Draft SEP and a contractual document, the contractual document shall take precedence.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

AV Configuration Review – SEP Exit criteria calls for SV certifications and accreditations initiated. The IMP indicates Airworthiness Certification plan approved as exit criteria.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

AV Configuration Review - Technical order guidance conference conducted is exit criteria within SEP; it was removed from the IMP.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

AV Configuration Review – IMP indicates Software Development Plan Approved as entrance criteria. SEP does not have Software Development plan as entrance criteria.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

"AV CDR SEP lists Manufacturing and Quality Information Received as Entrance Criteria – Has been removed from IMP. AV CDR SEP lists Manufacturing and

Quality Information Reviewed as Exit Criteria. Removed from IMP.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

AV CDR Reliability and Maintainability engineering data received is entrance criteria, with the same data reviewed as exit criteria in the SEP. It is shown in the

IMP in AV Configuration Review entrance/exit criteria. The 1423 in alignment with IMP.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

AV CDR - Anthrometric Assessment added to IMP as AV Cockpit and Cabin Configuration Approved for CDR Exit criteria. It is not in the SEP Entrance/Exit criteria.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

AV CDR – IMP lists CM information received as Entrance criteria. The SEP lists CM Information reviewed as Exit criteria.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

Section J, Attachment 23 IMP and SEP

AV FCA – Manufacturing Plan Approved is Entrance criteria within SEP. It was deleted from IMP and appears to have been moved to AV Configuration Review.

Does the USG intend to provide a final SEP that reconciles with the balance of the attachments? See response to comment #28.

Section J Atch

24; LRIP Award The LRIP Award "window" closes prior to Milestone C in the SEP AV Schedule. Will the Government clarify when the LRIP award is intended?

The Draft SEP schedule is draft. The Offeror's proposed schedule and the required Government DT&E drive the timeframe to achieve Milestone C. LRIP window (LRIP 1 and 2) is intended to occur between 13 and 36 Months After Contract Award (MAC)

IAW Section J, Attachment 24.

Section J Atch

24 CLIN by Fiscal Year Matrix

As depicted, a 16-month delivery schedule places the last aircraft delivery in each CLIN 9 to 11 months prior to POP end date.

Will the Government clarify if it is their intent to have the AV delivered in this manner?

Section J, Attachment 24 is intended to represent all potential CLINs and Option CLINs for the UH-1N Replacement Contract and to depict when these CLINs are to be established and/or exercised. The MAC ranges included in Section J, Attachment 24 do not represent delivery schedules. See Section L ,Attachment 05-TEP Workbook, Table 1 and Section J, Attachment 07-UH-1N Replacement Pricing Table Workbook, Table 1. In both of these documents the Government requests the offeror include the Air Vehicle delivery schedules in terms of Months After Contract Award (MAC) and/or Months After Receipt of Order (MARO) for each CLIN. CLIN establish date through delivery of final AV under each CLIN will represent the PoP for the XX03 - AV CLINs.

Section L, Paragraph

4.2.5.2

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

Will the USG clarify the intent is to plan through end of contract or through end of program? Offerors should plan through the end of contract.

Section L, Paragraph

4.2.5.2

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

Will the USG define whether planning is through the end of RAA or through end of contract performance? Offerors should plan through the end of contract.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section L, Paragraph

4.2.6.2.2 thru 4.2.6.2.2.6

Section L instructions require offerors to provide "requested ballistic data and ballistic testing results". However, doing so renders the document classified in nature IAW the USAF Classification Guide.

Will the Government provide clarity on whether or not a potentially classified response would be necessary for this requirement?

If a classified response is necessary in order to propose in response to the solicitation, the Offeror should follow the instructions at Section L, Paragraph 3.3.

Section L, Paragraph

4.2.7.4 and 5.1.10.21

Paragraph L 4.2.7.4 indicates the Offeror provide a Small Business Participation Commitment Document. In Paragraph L 5.1.10, the requirements ask for the

Small Business Participation Plan.

Will the Government provide clarity on which requirement has precedence and which documents will satisfy Small Business inclusion?

See Amendment 1 to the RFP. All references to the "Small Business Participation Plan" have been replaced by the "Small Business Participation Commitment Document."

Section L, Paragraphs

5.1.10, 5.1.10.2 and 6

There is a difference in the nomenclature/numbering convention (name and number) of attachments listed in paragraph L 5.1.10 and the attachments listed in L 6. For example, in paragraph L 5.1.10.2, Attachment 1 is the AV System Specification; and in L 6, Attachment 1 is the Cross Reference Matrix.

Will the Government clarify the numbering convention for all attachments required in this solicitation?

Section L, Paragraph 6 outlines the attachments to the Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. Section L, 5.1.10 outlines the list of attachments that will be included in the resultant contract, which is Section J, not Section L.

Section L TEP, Table 11

Table 11 establishes an FY26 delivery date for the FE Warren OFT. Section J, Attachment 03: SOW, Table 4B, Page 73 sets an FY24 delivery date for the FE

Warren OFT.

What is the government's intended delivery date for OFT 4 at FE Warren?

Per Section J, Attachment 3, Table 4B, delivery date is FY24. An updated TEP workbook will be provided in Amendment #2.

Section L TEP, Table 11

Table 11 establishes an FY27 delivery date for the JB Andrews OFT. Section J, Attachment 03, SOW, Table 4B, Page 73 sets an FY26 delivery date for OFT6 at JB Andrews.

What is the government's intended delivery date for OFT 6 at JB Andrews? Per Section J, Attachment 3, Table 4B, delivery date is FY26. An updated TEP workbook will be provided in Amendment #2.

46 No reference The Section J, Attachment 1, AV SRD and Section J, Attachment 2, TRSD both say:

"see classified Appendix B: Threats". No classified material was provided and Section L provides no instructions for release of a classified appendix.

Will the Government clarify when the classified material will be released as it may have a significant impact on planning and responding to the solicitation

IAW the instructions provided?

On 1 August the Government posted to the Final RFP FedBizOpps website, instructions on how to request the classified annex to the SRDs.

Section L, Paragraph 2.3 Section L alludes to "discrepancies" at paragraph 2.3, but the solicitation has no provisions for submitting questions to the Government (suspense or format).

Will the Government be providing formal instruction on the submission of additional questions should they arise?

The Government will not provide formal instruction for additional questions.

Section L, Paragraph

4.2.7.4

5.1.10.20. Requires Attachment, a Small Business Participation Plan. It says the offeror shall provide this plan as specified in paragraph 4.2.7.4 herein. However, paragraph 4.2.7.4 requires submission of a Small Business Participation Commitment document(s).

Will the Government clarify whether a Small Business Participation Plan is required or not?

See Amendment 1 to the RFP. All references to the "Small Business Participation Plan" have been replaced by the "Small Business Participation Commitment Document."

Section L, Paragraph 2.6

L 2.6 says: Use Of Non-Government Advisors

(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.

The RFP asks the Offeror to provide the non-Government advisors disclosure statement in the Contract Documentation Volume IV. However, the instructions in Volume IV do not indicate where to provide this information in the volume.

Will the Government provide clarity as to where the information is to be provided?

Anywhere in the Contract Documentation Volume is acceptable.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section L, Paragraph 5.1.10.9

Clause 252.225-7017 requires the Offeror to identify any technical data where we are giving the Government less than unlimited data rights. However, Section L 5.1.10.9, Attachment 8 also requires us to identify the same information. This implies providing the same information in two places.

Will the Government clarify the requirement? The Offeror should use Section J, Attachment 8 as stated in Section L, Paragraph 5.1.12.

Section M, 2.2.1.1

Section M allows for aircraft delivery NLT 18 months. The SEP AV Program Schedule defines the Developmental Test start date as 16 months after contract award.

Will the USG clarify the timeline associated with AV delivery? 16 months or 18 months?

Per section M 2.2.1.1, aircraft delivery is NLT 18 months. The Draft SEP in the bidders library is a draft document.

Section L,

4.2.5.2 and Section M, 2.2.1.1

Section L, paragraph 4.2.5.2 says "The IMS shall cover entire scope of work through contract completion tin include activities required to successfully achieve RAA.

The guidance provided at M-2.2.1.1 provides specific instruction with a period of less than contract completion.

Will the Government clarify where the IMS should end; and provide a corresponding IMP that correlates to the IMS required?

For IMS coverage "contract completion" occurs when the period of performance for the last Option CLIN has concluded. Utilizing Section J, Attachment 24: UH-1N

Replacement Projected CLIN-Fiscal Year Matrix the last Option CLIN can be exercised at 133-144 Months After Contract Award. Utilizing Section L, Attachment 5: Total

Evaluated Price Workbook, CLIN 1216- Special Tooling is projected to be the final Option CLIN exercised.

Section J, Attachment 19 Small Business Participation Plan

Can the Government please confirm that this attachment should be called "Small Business Commitment Document" in line with Section L, 4.2.7.4?

See Amendment 1 to the RFP posted on 1 Aug 2017.

Section L Table

3-1

Can the Government please confirm that the "Small Business Commitment Document" (Section L, 4.2.7.4) is excluded from the page limit? This table lists the former name, Small Business Participation Plan.

See Amendment 1 to the RFP posted on 1 Aug 2017.

Section L 5.1.10.20

5.1.10.20. Attachment 19 – Small Business Participation Plan. The Offeror shall provide this plan as specified in Paragraph 4.2.7.4 herein.

Can the Government please confirm that this attachment should be called "Small Business Commitment Document" in line with the reference Section L paragraph, 4.2.7.4?

See Amendment 1 to the RFP posted on 1 Aug 2017.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

Hazard Analysis Reviewed. This criterion is not numbered.

For completeness, would the Government number Hazard Analysis Reviewed to be K.02.01 Hazard Analysis Reviewed.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

XX.02 OFT CPT FCA Conducted This accomplishment appears to be mis-named. For completeness would the Government rename the accomplishment to be XX.02 CPT FCA Conducted.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

AC.02 IST AIE PTT FCA Conducted This accomplishment appears to be mis-named. Would the Government rename this accomplishment to be AC.02 AIE PTT FCA Conducted.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

AC.02 IAST AIE PTT PCA Conducted This accomplishment appears to be mis-named. Would the Government rename this accomplishment to be AC.02 AIE PTT PCA Conducted.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

AC-AIE PTTT PTT Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) This title appears to contain a typographical error. For completeness, would the Government change this title to be AC-AIE PTT.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

This event appears to be a duplicate of Event AE-AIE PTT Functional Configuration Audit (FCA)

Would the Government clarify the IMP requirement for AIE PTT FCA. See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

This event appears to be a duplicate of Event AF-AIE PTT Physical Configuration Audit (PCA)

Would the Government clarify the IMP requirement for AIE PTT PCA. See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

AL.01.01 - KTR Support to Government ATO Brief AL.01.01 AL.01.2 - Government ATO Brief Conducted

Would the Government change the number for criterion "Government ATO Brief Conducted" to be AL.01.02.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J,Exhibit- A CDRL Package

CDRL A018

Contract Work

Breakdown Structure

(CWBS), Block

The Contractor shall submit the Contractor Cost Data Reports at frequencies specified in the OSD Deputy Director, Cost Assessment (DDCA) Section J attached

Attachment 10 Cost and Schedule Software Data Report plan.

The Offeror assumes that the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment

10; COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT

CO-PLAN.

Does the Government agree with this assumption?

Yes, the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment 10; COST AND SOFTWARE

DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT CO-PLAN.

Section J,Exhibit- A CDRL Package CDRL A019 Cost Data Summary Report (DDD Form 1921), Block 16

The Contractor shall submit the Contractor Cost Data Reports at frequencies specified in the OSD Deputy Director, Cost Assessment (DDCA) Section J attached

Attachment 10 Cost and Schedule Software Data Report plan.

The Offeror assumes that the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment

10; COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT

CO-PLAN.

Does the Government agree with this assumption?

Yes, the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment 10; COST AND SOFTWARE

DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT CO-PLAN.

Section J,Exhibit- A CDRL Package

CDRL A020

Functional Cost-

Hour Report (Form 1921-1), Block 16

The Contractor shall submit the Contractor Cost Data Reports at frequencies specified in the OSD Deputy Director, Cost Assessment (DDCA) Section J attached

Attachment 10 Cost and Schedule Software Data Report plan.

The Offeror assumes that the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment

10; COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT

CO-PLAN.

Does the Government agree with this assumption?

Yes, the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment 10; COST AND SOFTWARE

DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT CO-PLAN.

Section J,Exhibit- A CDRL Package

CDRL A021

Progress Curve

Report (DD Form 1921-2), Block 16

The Contractor shall submit the Contractor Cost Data Reports at frequencies specified in the OSD Deputy Director, Cost Assessment (DDCA) Section J attached

Attachment 10 Cost and Schedule Software Data Report plan.

The Offeror assumes that the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment

10; COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT

CO-PLAN.

Does the Government agree with this assumption?

Yes, the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment 10; COST AND SOFTWARE

DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT CO-PLAN.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section J,Exhibit- A CDRL Package

CDRL A022

Sustainment

Functional Cost- Hour Report

(Form 1921-5), Block 16

The Contractor shall submit the Contractor Cost Data Reports at frequencies specified in the OSD Deputy Director, Cost Assessment (DDCA) Section J attached

Attachment 10 Cost and Schedule Software Data Report plan.

The Offeror assumes that the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment

10; COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT

CO-PLAN.

Does the Government agree with this assumption?

Yes, the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment 10; COST AND SOFTWARE

DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT CO-PLAN.

Section J,Exhibit- A CDRL Package

CDRL A023

Contractor

Business Data Report (DD

Form 1921-3), Block 16

The Contractor shall submit the Contractor Cost Data Reports at frequencies specified in the OSD Deputy Director, Cost Assessment (DDCA) Section J attached

Attachment 10 Cost and Schedule Software Data Report plan.

The Offeror assumes that the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment

10; COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT

CO-PLAN.

Does the Government agree with this assumption?

Yes, the referenced attachment is Section J, Attachment 10; COST AND SOFTWARE

DATA REPORTING/EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT CO-PLAN.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

OO.01.01 -

Identify configuration deltas

Block 5. CONTRACT REFERENCE SOW Para 4.3.2.2.2.2 4.3.2.2.2.3

IMP criterion OO.01.01 references SOW 4.2.2.2.2 - TS Critical Design Review, and also reference CDRL 145. The Offeror assumes that this SOW reference in the IMS should be 4.2.2.2.3 - TS Courseware In-process Review, since that SOW paragraph references CDRL 145. Does the Government agree with this assumption?

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

AK.01.05 - ADT

Instructor

Certification Reviewed

Block 5. CONTRACT REFERENCE SOW Para 2.4, 3.3.5.8.2

PWS Para 2., 2.1, 3.3.5.8.4

IMP criterion AK.01.05 references SOW 2.4 and 3.3.5.8.2. The Offeror assumes that these are PWS references and should be paragraph 2. - Type 1 Training, 2.1 - Purpose, and paragraph 3.3.5.8.4 - ATD Instructor Utilization Handbook, because these PWS paragraphs reference CDRLs associated with this IMP criterion. Does the Government agree with this assumption?

No change to IMP. The IMP contains the correct PWS and CDRL references.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

JM.02 LFT&E Conducted

Within Event M-Live Fire Test & Evaluation (LFT&E), IMP criterion J.02 LFT&E Conducted appears to be misnumbered and should in-fact be numbered

M.02. For completeness, would the Government renumber this criterion to be M.02.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

C.01.056 New and NDI Integration Induced Changes to Interface Control Documents (ICDs) Reviewed

Criterion number C.01.05 is assigned to two different criteria. To eliminate confusion, would the Government renumber the second instance of C.01.05 to be C.01.06, and renumber the succeeding criteria C.01.06 through C.01.12 to be C.01.07 through C.01.13.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan

EE.02.02 CR CDR Meeting Minutes and Action Items Documented EE.02.03 CR CDR Action Item Closure Plans Approved

EE.02.02 and EE.02.03 appear to contain a typographical error. For completeness, would the Government Change the nomenclature from CR to

CDR. For these criteria.

See Amendment 2 to the RFP.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section J, Attachment 1, AVSRD Table D- 2, D-6

A discrepancy exists between SRD mission profile versus Section L mission workbook for temperature and altitude. ESR Mission - Segment 5 and 7 and

COOP/Transport Mission - Segment 10 and 11. How should offeror's address?

There is no discrepancy between the SRD and Section L, Attachment 04, Weight and Mission Performance Workbook. The SRD identifies the initial altitudes and temperatures for ESR Mission Segments 5 and 7 and COOP/Transport Mission Segments 10 and 11. The Weight and Mission Performance Workbook specifies the initial condition for the start of the segment in the "Segment Description" column and the ending conditions for the segment in the columns titled, " End segment Altitude (ft)" and "Temp (oC)". Offerors shall provide the data, as stated in Section L, Attachment 04, Weight and Mission Performance Workbook.

76 Section L-5.1.11

Some of the Offeror's proposed attachments are proprietary. FAR 52.215-1 instructs offerors to mark each sheet of data they wish to restrict with a legend. How should offeror's propose proprietary contract attachments while protecting data and not including a restrictive legend? Should offerors propose attachments with a marking and provide a copy without markings if selected for award?

The Offerors should continue to comply with Section L, Paragraph 5.1.11.

77 Section L-5.1

If an offeror does not have an executive with the title Chief Executive Officer (CEO), will the Government accept the certification letter from the otherwise-titled chief executive of the company, e.g., President? If that is not acceptable, how would the Air Force wish for offerors to proceed with compliance to Section L-5.1 in the absence of a CEO?

The otherwise-titled chief executive is acceptable.

Section L, Attachment 5, Table 3

There is an additional line item in the Pricing Workbook for Table 3 LFT&E than is included in the TEP Table (row 52 in Pricing Matrix Workbook, "*installed armor (with Armor Coupons)"

Section L, Attachment 5: TEP Workbook, Table 3 contains the "Installed Armor (With Armor Coupons)" asset in row 66. However row 66 was inadvertently reduced to a row width where the asset does not appear to be on the list. Section L, Attachment 5, Table 3 will be revised to expand the width of row 66. The TEP workbook will be updated in amendment #2 to the RFP.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section L, para

3.2 and 4.2.7.4

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 percentage) by small business subcontractor.

There is an apparent conflict in section L between paragraph 3.2 (Pricing Related Data) and paragraph 4.2.7.4 (Small Business Participation). Paragraph

3.2 directs the Offeror to not include any pricing related data in the Executive

Summary volume or the Technical volume. Paragraph 4.2.7.4 directs the Offeror to include the extent of utilization quantitatively (dollars) by small business subcontractor. It is our intention to provide all of the information required to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4.2.7.4 as attachment 19 in Volume IV, Contract Documentation and provide the same document in

Volume II, Technical but substituting percentages in lieu of dollars by small business subcontractor.

Please confirm that this approach is acceptable.

All pricing related information otherwise necessary to be provided in the Technical volume may be redacted. However, any redacted pricing data must be submitted elsewhere in the proposal (Contract Documentation or Pricing Volumes).

Section J, Attachment 9, Government

Furnished Property

Laptop Computer Quantity of 10 What effort is associated with the government furnished laptops? Can the contractor use the laptops for any effort or is it a limited effort?

The Government furnished laptops will be loaded with the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS) vulnerability scanner to meet the requirements identified in Section J, Attachment 3, UH-1N Replacement Statement of Work, paragraph

4.7.2.4.1 Vulnerability Scans (UH-1N Replacement Training System). The laptops are to be used for vulnerability scanning only.

Section L, Attachment 5, Table 6A

Green cell E18 is pulling from cell D8. Can the Government confirm if cell E18 should this be pulling from E8 instead?

See Amendment #2 to the solicitation.

Section L, Attachment 5, Table 25

Green cells in row 128 for "Total Evaluated Price for CLIN XX12 - Over & Above:" appear to have an incorrect reference. They are currently a summation of row 9 to row 123, but appears as though they should be pulling from row 8 to row 123.

See Amendment #2 to the solicitation.

Section L, Attachment 5, Table 25

Green cells in row 129 for "Total Evaluated Price for CLIN XX39 - FSR On Demand:" appear to have an incorrect reference. They are currently a summation of row 10 to row 123, but appears as though they should be pulling from row 8 to row 123.

See Amendment #2 to the solicitation.

Section J, Atch 23 Integrated Master Plan, Criterion J.02.04

This criterion appears to be a duplicate of criterion J.02.03 MRA Action Item Closure Plans Approved. For completeness, would the Government delete criterion J.02.04, and renumber criterion J.02.05 to be J.02.04.

See Amendment #2 to the solicitation.

CM #

List applicable

Sections, Tables, Figures

Current state of RFP Reviewer Comment/Question Government Response

Section L, Paragraph

4.2.7.2.7 and Table 3-1

Table 3-1 Page Limit

300 pages, excluding:

• IMS/IMP,

• Draft Airworthiness Certification Plan,

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

• CD with Engine Performance Data,

• Graphical tabular data requested in Subfactor 1,

• Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS),

• Copies of Comparable Standards

• Weight and Mission Performance Workbook,

• Dictionary,

• Spares list,

• Small Business Participation

Table 3-1 excludes Copies of Comparable Standards from the 300 page limit for Vol ll. Insofar as the contractor intends to fully comply with subsections 2 and 3 of paragraph 4.2.7.2.7 by providing a detailed explanation of the differences and potential limitations of the comparable standards, the number of pages to do so could be significant.