MACHFinalRFPQandA(19Sep07).doc
DOC document 103 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Modular Aircrew Common Helmet (MACH) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8902-07-R-1003
About this file
Questions Answers MACH Final RFP
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 27
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
MACH SOLICITATION Q&A
19 September 2007
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 1 |
| Performance Specification |
| 3.2.9 |
| Please provide the Navy, Army coast Guard Tooling list currently shown as TBD. |
| Army tooling list is provided as an attachment to this document. A change to the performance specification will be made to incorporate the Army tooling list at a later date. The Navy/Coast Guard tooling is the same as that of the Air Force, which is provided in the MACH Performance Specification. |
| 2 |
| L |
| 3 |
| 2.3.1 |
| Please correct the P Spec reference in Section L para 2.3.1 to read PRF-TA-MACH-001-08A. |
| Corrected. Updated Section L has been provided via amendment to the solicitation. |
| 3 |
| L |
| 41 |
| 3.4.4 |
| Please provide the list of aircraft missing in Section L page 41 para 3.4.4. |
| All aircraft are listed in Appendix C of the performance specification. |
| 4 |
| Performance Specification |
| 11 |
| 3.3.8.1 |
| Regarding response to Draft Solicitation Question 20 covering the P-Spec, request clarification regarding whether use of MIL-V-43511 in lieu of MIL-DTL-43511 will be allowed. |
No, requirement is for use of MIL-DTL-43511 as MIL-V-43511 is inactive and no longer in use.
| 5 |
| Performance Specification |
| 15 |
| 3.4.3.1 |
| Regarding response to Draft Solicitation Question 26 covering the P-Spec, request the USG define “favorable” CG. |
| Favorable CG is anything within the acceptable test parameters defined in section three of the performance specification. |
| 6 |
| CDRL A027 |
| The Gov’t response to question number 28 SOO Section states that this CDRL has been removed but it is still in the RFP. Is it the government’s intention to remove this CDRL? |
| The Government response to question 28 was erroneous. The CDRL will not be removed. CWBS updates will be expected to be delivered “as required” per the CDRL. |
| 7 |
| CDRL B006 |
| Change to CDRL B006 stated in response to question EXH-7 was not reflected in the Final RFP release. Request the USG amend CDRL B006 to read 5 days for Government comments. |
| CDRL has been changed to reflect 5 days for Government comments. The revised CDRL has been provided via amendment to the solicitation. |
| 8 |
| Appendix A, Equipment Compatibility |
| Request the USG clarify “Noted” response to the following draft solicitation question: “If the Government does not own rights request they advise who does.” |
| The manufacturers of the items listed in the Equipment Compatibility appendix can be obtained by using any internet search engine. For the helmet mounted devices, the manufacturers are: |
JHMCS- Vision Systems International
641 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
PHONE: (408) 232-5300
FAX: (408) 432-8449
email: hmcsales@vsi-hmcs.com
AH-64 IHADSS- Honeywell Aerospace
PHONE
US/Canada: 800-601-3099
International: 602-365-3099
AH-1W TOPOWL- Thales Avionics
NVCD- Vision Systems International
641 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
PHONE: (408) 232-5300
FAX: (408) 432-8449
email: hmcsales@vsi-hmcs.com
JSF HMD- Vision Systems International
641 River Oaks Parkway
San Jose, CA 95134
PHONE: (408) 232-5300
FAX: (408) 432-8449
email: hmcsales@vsi-hmcs.com External Audio -
Communication and Ear Protection, Inc. (CEP) PO Box 311174
3700 Salem Road
Enterprise, AL 36331-1174
| 9 |
| CDRL A027 |
| Regarding response to Draft Solicitation Question 28 covering the Statement of Objectives, the Government response stated that CDRL A027 had been removed. This was not removed from the Final Solicitation package. Please clarify. |
| The Government response to question 28 was erroneous. The CDRL will not be removed. CWBS updates will be expected to be delivered “as required” per the CDRL. |
| Will canopies be required for the ejection testing? The origin for the question is that normally the tests are not done with the canopies. However, if they are required, we have been informed their acquisition cost is very high and they are not reusable. |
| No, canopies will not be required for sled testing. |
| 11 |
| Performance Specification |
| 4.7.2.1 |
| In section 4 of the MACH System Performance Spec, paragraph 4.7.2.1 states: "A minimum of twenty-two (22) successful ejection seat tests shall be completed to verify conformance of the MACH System." |
In several responses in the answers posted on September 5th, the government stated that the contractor may propose trades to reduce cost. Are the 22 tests required by paragraph 4.7.2.1 tradable?
No, the 22 sled tests represent the minimum sample set that the Government is willing to accept and are therefore required.
| In response to the question (SOO 38) regarding the availability of Government Furnished Information (GFI) listed under Section 11, of the SOO, as “reference only”, you stated this would be made available after award. We believe this information should be provided during the RFP response period, and are hereby making this request to grant access to these documents for all prospective offerors. |
| The documents are Unclassified Sensitive Information and therefore are not available for public release. They will be provided to the successful awardee upon contract award. Offerors are requested to propose to the solicitation as written. |
| Referring to the draft RFP questions and answers relative to SOO paragraphs 4.1.1 through 4.1.4, when will the referenced AH-1W, AH-64, NVCD, and F-35 documents be provided? |
| The responses provided were made in error. Detailed specifications for the referenced items are not required to prepare a proposal as offerors are not being asked to develop new HMDs or life support equipment, only HMD interfaces and integration of the MACH with the life support equipment. As stated in response to Question 19 below, the government is researching access to HMD drawings, which if possible, will be made available on FedTeDS after notification of their availability is made in FedBizOpps. |
| Will the Government also provide similar detailed specifications for JHMCS, maxillofacial shield, and JSAM (all variations) in order for bidders to prepare proposals? |
| Detailed specifications for the referenced items are not required to prepare a proposal as offerors are not being asked to develop new HMDs or life support equipment, only HMD interfaces and integration of the MACH with the life support equipment. As stated in response to Question 19 below, the government is researching access to HMD drawings, which if possible, will be made available on FedTeDS after notification of their availability is made in FedBizOpps. |
| Referring to the question relative to the Performance Specification, 3.1.2 System Objective, and the Government response, JHMCS and IHADSS (although not mentioned) are dedicated/integrated helmet systems specific to their respective applications. There is no feasible approach to merely providing an interface module between them and the MACH. They are not completely modular in themselves. While the JHMCS relay optics is modularly removable from the helmet, the universal connector and cabling is integral to the helmet. The IHADSS HDU is a removable module, but the electro-optic tracking system’s harness assembly is integral to the helmet shell. So the “interface module” to be provided will require at least some of the existing sight and display components to be integrated. The specifications identified above are necessary in order to identify the GFE required to support proposal preparation. Please confirm the Government will provide the necessary components as GFE from SDD thought the life of the program. (There are likely similar issues with AH-1W and JSF). |
| Requested GFE should be identified in your proposal as stated in Section L, provision YA-L001, para 3.1.3. During contract performance, additional GFE requests will be considered and approved as necessary. |
| Is the contractor required to include the cost for the use of government test facilities and any required support by government personnel in conducting the test, or can the use of specific government test facilities be identified under the category of “GFE”, with the assumption that the Program Office is responsible for use and ancillary facility support costs. Typically, government range and test facility costs are funded by the Program Office, with the contractor responsible for providing the units under test (UUTs), engineering support for the test and any unique test equipment associated with the UUT.” |
| All costs associated with test set up, testing and any follow-on analysis should be priced out in your proposal. This includes the use of any proposed government-owned test facilities and their associated support and equipment costs. If the facility chosen for ejection testing does not supply the support equipment necessary for testing (i.e. ejection seats, high speed cameras, etc), than those items should be priced out in the proposal as well. Do not assume anything will be provided as GFE as the Government intent is not to provide any unless absolutely necessary. As previously stated, the government is only an observer during the referenced test. |
| Will the contractor be responsible for obtaining costs for the ejection seat, fore-body and canopies, as well as high-speed cameras and recording equipment that will be used in the ejection testing. If not, is it necessary to list these items separately under “GFE”, or will they fall under the umbrella of the test facility identified in the GFE list? |
| If arrangements cannot be made with a test facility for the use of the necessary support equipment, you do have the opportunity to propose GFE via the GFE clause in the solicitation. Ref Sec L, provision YA-L001, para 3.1.3. |
| 18 |
| SOO |
| 4.4.6 and 4.4.7 |
| Paragraph 4.4.6 requires the contractor to establish an Interface Control Working Group (ICWG) to “proactively manage MACH System compatibility… for design and system qualification.” |
Paragraph 4.4.7 requires the contractor to establish an Aircraft Integration Working Group (AIWG) to “proactively manage MACH System qualification and integration… for design and system qualification.”
Is it the Governments intent that both the ICWG and AIWG exist simultaneously to collect design data early in the program and then perform qualification during the DT&E phase, or is the Governments intent that the ICWG is used for the design data collection and the AIWG is used during system qualification?
It is the government's intent that both the ICWG and the AIWG exist simultaneously to collect design data early in the program and then perform qualification during the DT&E phase. If appropriate, an individual may/should serve on both working groups.
Request that the following GFP from the USAF is required to properly quote on the MACH program for integration and interface module development. For the items listed we need the actual equipment in the size extremes (the smallest and the largest), interface control drawings and CAD data if available.
System or Equipment Contract or Specification Requirement Reference
Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System SOO 4.1, CLIN 0001, Perf Spec 3.2.1, Appendix A
AH-1W System SOO 4.1.1, CLIN 1001, Perf Spec 3.2.1, Appendix A
AH-64 System SOO 4.1.2, CLIN 1002, Perf Spec 3.2.1, Appendix A
Night Vision Cueing Display SOO 4.1.3, CLIN 1003, Perf Spec 3.2.1, Appendix A
Joint Strike Fighter Helmet Mounted Display SOO 4.1.4, CLIN 1004, Perf Spec 3.2.1, Appendix A
Maxillofacial Shield SOO 4.1.5, CLIN 1005, Perf Spec 3.2.1, Appendix A
Panoramic/Advanced Night Vision Goggles Perf Spec 3.2.1, Appendix A
AN/VS-6 Night Vision Goggles
AN/VS-9 Night Vision Goggles
JSAM/JPACE
NVG Head up Display
PLZT/Nuclear Flash Protection
The government is researching access to these drawings, which if possible, will be made available on FedTeDS after notification of their availability is made in FedBizOpps. The government does not control the rights to many of these systems and as such, prospective offerors should be attempting to access the necessary data independent of the government. The HMD manufacturers have been provided in response to Question 8 above.
| 20 |
| Section B and Performance Specification |
| CLIN 0001 & P-Spec para 3.1.1 |
| Solicitation, Offer and Award Section B Page 2 Supplies or Services CLIN 0001 "This CLIN shall include all costs associated with the development of the MACH System in accordance with the CSOW, manufacture and transportation of 10 Operational Assessment (OA) Test Articles, CDRL requirements of Exhibit A, and Government OA Test Support. Of the required OA Test Articles, 1 is to be JHMCS compatible and 9 are to be PNVG/NVG compatible". |
Performance Specification Paragraph 3.1.1 describes the "MACH System" as including the following helmet components: eye protection, oxygen delivery interface, basic full head protection, NVG mount interface module, fit interface, retention device, sound attenuation, communication components, and final shell color coat.
Please confirm there is no need to provide an equivalent MACH system with visor/s for conventional flight purposes i.e. a version that is not NVG/ PNVG or JHMCS compatible. As written there is no requirement to develop or deliver a "slick" version.
The basic MACH system should include a visor (as required for eye protection) as well as NVG/PNVG capability. The basic SDD requirement in CLIN 0001 is for the core MACH system as defined in P-Spec paragraph 3.1.1 and must be compatible with all equipment listed in Appendix A (to include JHMCS) unless this equipment is called for in one of the SDD Option CLINs. The intent of the Government is to provide the requirements and allow offerors to propose their own design for meeting those requirements.
Please confirm the basic MACH system SDD configurations will be with an NVG interface or a JHMCS interface module i.e. in accordance with CLIN 0001 requirements. If affirmative then we believe P-Spec Para 3.1.1 should be revised accordingly.
The basic MACH system shall provide NVG/PNVG capability. The SDD CLIN 0001 requires the development of the basic MACH system as well as development of a JHMCS compatible system.
| It is assumed development and delivery of the MACH system includes the development of modules that will accept the existing NVG and JHMCS hardware interfaces currently used to mount or attach the equipment or HMD's to existing helmets (HGU-55/P, HGU-56/P HGU-55JHMCS and JSF). Please confirm that, unless otherwise directed, the contractor would not be required to develop a new interface or mount and that the contractor would only be required to develop a system that provides a means to properly accommodate and mount the existing HMD or system interface to the MACH shell. |
| Offerors are required to present a MACH system that is compatible with the equipment in Appendix A of the P-Spec and meets the requirements of the P-Spec. The approach taken to do that is entirely up to the offerors. |
It is assumed 1 each JHMCS and 9 each PNVG/NVG OA Test Article deliverables should be supplied with the interfaces to enable the respective modules to be assembled to the MACHs. Please confirm.
With regard to the 10 units identified above, this statement is correct
| 24 |
| Section B & SOO |
| CLIN 1008 & SOO para 4.1 |
| None of the CLIN's identified in Section B pages 2 through 9 specifically address testing apart from CLIN 1008 which requires the contractor to support IOT&E. |
SOO paragraph 4.1 requires the contractor to "Design, fabricate, qualify, manufacture and produce a MACH system that meets the KPP Performance Parameters (KPPs) and as many of the non-KPP thresholds and objectives as practical within cost and schedule constraints as defined in the MACH Performance Specification PRF-TA_MACH-001-08A".
If this is the case we believe CLIN Descriptive Data paragraphs should be revised to include ‘qualification testing’. Please confirm.
As stated in SOO paragraph 4.2 and 4.6, DT&E is expected to occur prior to completion of SDD. As such, the cost of DT&E is to be included in the SDD price proposed. CLIN 0001’s Descriptive Data accurately captures all SDD activities.
| 25 |
| SOO |
| 4.1.1 & 4.1.7 |
| SOO Reference Paragraphs 4.1.1 to 4.1.7 calls up Interface SDD Contract Options which are to be priced in accordance with CLIN 1001 to 1007 requirements. There are no CLINS or requirements for the manufacture and delivery of Para 4.1.1 AH-1W interface, Para 4.1.3 NVCD interface, Para 4.1.4 F-35 HMDS interface, Para 4.1.6 Independent Volume Control audio system and Para 4.1.7 External Audio system. Please clarify if this is an oversight. If hardware is required please amend the 2000/3000 series CLIN’s |
| This is not an oversight. There is no requirement for hardware of the HMDs and systems cited. |
| 26 |
| Performance Specification |
| 45, 47 |
| Para 4.7.2.3.1 & Table IX |
| Windblast and Sled Testing. MACH P Spec, 16 Jul 07, paragraph 4.7.2.3.1 and Table IX "Windblast Test Conditions Matrix" page 45. Table X "Ejection Test Matrix" page 47 establishes windblast requirements for Small Female, 8 shots, Mid Male, 8 shots, and Large Male, 8 shots. However, paragraph 4.7.2.3.1 documents the use of a Case 1 5th percentile female manikin and a Case 6 95th percentile manikin only. There are no provisions for a Mid Male Manikin, i.e. ADAM for tests 5 thru 8 and 17 thru 20. Is this an oversight? Please clarify requirements together with the helmet build standard for the windblast and for the first qty 10 of the ejection tests, (see question 1 above for non NVG version) as we need to properly determine equipment requirements in our response to the RFP. |
| The Mid Male has not been included in the sled testing because the worst cases have been used instead. The Specification has been written correctly. Table X of the Specification includes an “HMD” column that outlines the helmet configuration for each test. The N/A refers to the basic MACH System as described in Para 3.1.1 |
F-35 HMDS is not listed in MACH P Spec Table X Ejection Test Matrix. Please confirm that no sled testing is required for this MACH configuration or if this is an oversight.
At this time, sled testing is only required for the HMDs being developed under CLIN 0001, namely JHMCS and NVG/PNVG, as noted in Table X.
PAGE
FA8902-07-R-1003
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .