The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO DRAFT SOLICITATION QUESTIONS
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 1 |
| P-Spec |
| 2 |
| 2.1 |
| Assume the referenced documents are specific sections rather than the whole reference document. The specific sections should be identified in the text of the spec paragraph. |
| No- the documents are referenced in their entirety |
| 2 |
| P-Spec |
| 2 |
| 2.2.1 |
| Recommend the version of the referenced documents & date be included in Section 2. DoDISS has multiple versions for some documents. Or, since no versions are indicated, is it fair to assume that the version in effect at RFP release is the correct version? |
| The versions and dates will not be referenced in this military specification. The most recent copy of all reference documents at the time of the RFP will be used. |
| 3 |
| P-Spec |
| 3 |
| 2.2.2, 2.3 |
| Only reference documents in this spec should be included in Section 2. Are all these references pertinent to this development? |
| Yes- All documents in Section 2 are used in this performance specification. Informational documents are sighted in the Notes Section. |
| 4 |
| P-Spec |
| 5 |
| 3.1.1 |
| Objective requirements are desired. Objectives are included in certain paragraphs. Will the spec be updated to include objectives as firm requirements if they are proposed? Also, see item on Atch L-7 in Section L. Does the Gov’t want bidders to modify the spec (objectives, tradeoffs)? |
| The spec may be modified to reflect proposed thresholds and objectives depending on performance levels achieved during qualification. The government will be conducting a tradeoff source selection- contractors should propose tradeoffs based on their design capabilities and government requirement priorities established in sections L & M. |
| 5 |
| P-Spec |
| 5 |
| 3.2.2 |
| Is this an option (see CLIN 1004)? If so, shouldn’t the spec identify this requirement is only applicable if the option is exercised. The Interface details of the JSF HMD must be provided for Gentex to be able to determine if this requirement can be met. Also, this requirement is listed separately and the JSF HMD is not listed in Appendix A. Is this intentional? |
| Yes- this is an option. |
No, performance specifications do not include contractual data- only technical requirements. The separate listing was intentional- integration with the JSF HMD is not a KPP and it presents significant technical challenges- for this reason it has not been included in the same section. The items in Appendix A are a KPP and integration is mandatory (provided options are exercised).
| 6 |
| P-Spec |
| 6 |
| 3.2.8 |
| It is unclear how the system is better unless quantified. Will the Government quantify the shatter proof and abrasion/corrosion resistance of current system(s)? |
| Current system abrasion is tested by coating adhesion, and corrosion resistance is tested via MIL-STD-810. |
| 7 |
| P-Spec |
| 7 |
| 3.2.14 |
| The requirements states that technical data of the MACH system shall be formally verified, validated, and approved by the appropriate agencies prior to delivery of the first system. What requirements will be used to verify, validate, and approve the system? |
| The government will verify that the supplied technical data meets the requirements of the user and AETC as outlined in the requirements of the contract. |
| 8 |
| P-Spec |
| 7 |
| 3.2.15 |
| The requirement states that the vendor of the MACH system shall provide a training package to the service and training commands and that the service commands shall establish initial and follow on training requirement. When will these requirements be provided to the vendor? Until the vendor knows the requirements for training, it will not be possible to provide an accurate cost and schedule estimate. |
| This is covered in other sections of the contract. |
To clarify, the vendor will provide the training package to include whatever documents/instructions are necessary- the concept of training Life Support personnel to repair helmets will hopefully not be foreign to any submitters. The gov’t will be responsible for implementing and following of the training plan.
| 9 |
| P-Spec |
| 7 |
| 3.2.16 |
| Will the government provide information on the current manning levels for each of the helmet systems the MACH system is schedule to replace? |
| The government intent is that design proposals should not incorporate concepts that cause a dramatic increase in maintenance/task durations. |
| 10 |
| P-Spec |
| 7 |
| 3.2.17 |
| This requirement assumes the MACH system will be painted. If the MACH system can be provided with an acceptable surface finish without paint, would this be acceptable? |
| The finish would be acceptable provided that it meets the requirements outlined in the spec- to include but not limited to adhesion, abrasion, corrosion and color. Certain tradeoffs may be acceptable depending on design capabilities and requirement priorities established in the solicitation. |
| 11 |
| P-Spec |
| 8 |
| 3.3.1 |
| The requirement states that “When used with helmet mounted equipment there shall be no distortion or vignetting of symbology or imagery loss of resolution of optical systems…” How will “distortion” or “vignetting” be measured? Gentex recommends the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) requirements for each HMD be measured on the current helmet system and compared to the MTF on the MACH system. |
| Contractors can propose a variety of methods to verify this requirement. However, the gov’t will be required to approve all test plans and facilities prior to test initiation. |
| 12 |
| P-Spec |
| 8 |
| 3.3.2.1 |
| The maximum G limits in the requirement represent protection levels not currently provided in any fielded helmet system. Gentex again notes that a peak G requirement only may be unnecessarily restrictive and suggests using time at G as well as peak G requirements. For example, 300 G peak, 200 G at 2ms, and 150 G at 4ms. Also, ear dome impacts are not currently required on tactical applications. Is the intent to now provide ear dome impact protection for tactical applications as well as rotary? |
| The AF has determined that peak G is our design requirement when tested in accordance with section 4. Ear dome protection is a requirement of all configurations of the MACH. |
| 13 |
| P-Spec |
| 9 |
| 3.3.2.2 |
| The requirement states that the tear test shall be conducted “over the entire outer surface of the MACH system”. This is beyond the protection levels of current helmet systems which only test above the head band. This expansion of protection will likely cause a weight increase to the helmet. |
Also, a ballistic protection requirement to the helmet has been added. No currently fielded aircrew helmet system currently has such a capability. This requirement will seriously jeopardize the vendors’ ability to meet the weight requirement of the system as a significant amount of material must be added to the helmet shell to meet the ballistic requirement. Historically, this requirement has been applied to helmet visors only.
Reference section 4 to see the actual penetration test locations on the helmet. The ballistic requirement is necessary for rotary wing applications of the MACH.
| 14 |
| P-Spec |
| 9 |
| 3.3.2.3.4 |
| The word “will” is used rather than “shall” in other paragraphs. Is this supposed to be an objective? Recommend defining the words shall and will in Para 3.1 or 3.1.1. |
| “Shall” denotes a contractually binding threshold, “will” denotes an objective. This will be found throughout the document where objectives have been established. In this case, it is an objective. |
| 15 |
| P-Spec |
| 10 |
| 3.3.2.4.1 |
| The requirements states that “hazards….. shall be minimized.” This is not a testable requirement. How is the vendor to prove that hazards are “minimized”? Suggest that this requirement reference the neck protection requirements in section 3.7. |
| Sled and windblast testing will demonstrate whether or not the vendor’s design increases the hazards associated with ejection. |
| 16 |
| P-Spec |
| 10 |
| 3.3.2.6.1 |
| The requirement states that “The MACH system shall be safely retained… when exposed to either a 600 KEAS ejection, and/or helicopter crash.” Suggest removing the “and” from the “and/or” as it is unlikely that the system will undergo a 600 KEAS ejection AND a helicopter crash. |
| With a common helmet, the MACH system will be required to withstand both 600KEAS ejection and helicopter crash. The intent does not require a single helmet to survive both. |
| 17 |
| P-Spec |
| 11 |
| 3.3.3 |
| The Donning requirement of 30 seconds prevents the use of earplugs as a hearing protection device as it will not be possible to insert earplugs and don the helmet within 30 seconds. Suggest removing the insertion of earplugs from the donning requirement. |
| This requirement only pertains to the helmet. The earplugs are not mentioned. |
| 18 |
| P-Spec |
| 11 |
| 3.3.4 |
| Doffing the MACH with earplugs (AHNR or ACCES) can not be done in 10 sec. Suggest excluding earplug insertion from doffing time. |
| Again, earplugs are not mentioned in this requirement. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 19 |
| P-Spec |
| 11 |
| 3.3.7 |
| Are the HMDs listed in Appendix A physically compatible? i.e. is it possible to go from JHMCS to the AH-1W tacking system? Also, the requirement does not take into account the differences in Avionics requirements for the different HMD systems. i.e. the Helmet Vehicle Interfaces for JHMCS and AH-1W. Recommend further definition as to which HMDs will be swapped during flight. |
| The intent of this requirement is to create a helmet capable of swapping modules (ie from NVG to JHMCS) for night and day roles. This is a tradeoff area, and proposals should highlight what items they believe are swappable in flight with their designs. |
| 20 |
| P-Spec |
| 11 |
| 3.3.8.1 |
| Recommend using MIL-V-43511 in lieu of MIL-DTL-43511. All current visors are qualified to MIL-V-43511 requirements. |
| Noted |
| 21 |
| P-Spec |
| 11 |
| 3.3.8.3 |
| Visor distortion “objective” sentence. “the MACH system visor(s) shall exceed…”shall” should be “will” exceed. Visor distortion. MIL-PRF-38169 is in conflict with qualified visors to MIL-V-43511C. |
| Corrected to “Will” |
| 22 |
| P-Spec |
| 13 |
| 3.3.17 |
| The requirement states that “only one standard flight gloved hand to easily operate any mechanism (this includes items such as swapping out or adjusting modules, replacing batteries…) Whether or not HMD modules can be easily replaced is determined by the design of the HMD, and not the MACH system. Also, whether or not batteries can be replaced is also dependent on the design of the item (i.e. NVGs). Recommend requirement be restated so that the MACH system shall not degrade the function of any attached modules. Also, the AHNR specification allows two hands for battery replacement. |
| This requirement pertains to the MACH modules, not fastening of HMDs to the MACH modules. Battery replacement pertains to the MACH system, not HMD batteries- for instance, if the MACH required several batteries to function then they would need to be replaceable with one hand. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 23 |
| P-Spec |
| 14 |
| 3.3.19.2 |
| Requirement states that the headliner not present a burn hazard in extreme thermal conditions. However, the verification testing does not state what the burn hazard test will be and what objective criteria must be met. Can the government tell us what the burn hazard test will be and its corresponding performance parameters? |
| Flame protection is tested in accordance with NFPA-1977 as outlined in 3.3.14 Fire Safety. |
| 24 |
| P-Spec |
| 14 |
| 3.3.21 |
| Table III: What are the IR Signature units? |
| The units are a measure of the light reflection at the respective wave lengths. |
| 25 |
| P-Spec |
| 20 |
| 3.3.29 |
| Visor lens rewrite/comments/suggestions from 22 Sept 2006 Performance Draft Specification not addressed (e.g. laser visors, coating requirements). |
| Unable to verify where this question was directed. |
| 26 |
| P-Spec |
| 15 |
| 3.4.3.1 |
| The requirement states that “the MACH System in the base configuration and when worn with the equipment identified in Appendix A…” Without information concerning the mass and cg location of the equipment identified in Appendix A, Gentex can not determine whether or not the design of the MACH system can meet the stated requirements. Recommend the requirement be re-written for base configuration only or provide mass properties information on all items in Appendix A. |
| No- the MACH system will be required to integrate with this equipment and maintain a favorable CG. |
| 27 |
| P-Spec |
| 16 |
| 3.4.3.2 |
| The text under Figure 2 seems to be in error (reference to a report) & repeated 4 lines – maybe the 2nd set is an objective & should be a will Like the other objectives) instead of shall.. |
| Second paragraph is an objective and will be changed |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 28 |
| P-Spec |
| 17 |
| 3.4.5 |
| Assume this requirement is for rotary applications only and without O2 mask installed. |
| Correct |
| 3.5.1 |
| The MTHDSD for bomber aircraft are longer than required for AHNR. This may be a problem for the TDE but is unknown at this time. Recommend requirements be consistent between AHNR and MACH. |
| AHNR is a temporary fix until the MACH system can be brought online, the MACH requirements are the long term standard required by the user. |
| 30 |
| P-Spec |
| 18 |
| 3.5.3 |
| Audio warning cues not transmitted through the ICS will be impeded due to req. 3.5.1. |
| All applicable audio cues are repeated through aircraft ICS |
| 31 |
| P-Spec |
| 20 |
| 3.6.7 |
| Would a low battery warning at 1 hour remaining be acceptable? This would match the AHNR. |
| This would likely be acceptable (depending on other tradeoffs) provided that the warning was visual- however; a real-time variable battery life indicator would be preferable. (This would be an example of a contractor proposed tradeoff) |
| 32 |
| P-Spec |
| 20 |
| 3.7 |
| The neck protection limits for the small female can not be met with a helmet system. Either a breakaway helmet system, or a helmet to body tether system must be employed to prevent exceeding neck protection limits for the small female. |
| Contractor should propose a design that meets the government’s requirements or propose an acceptable tradeoff based on the established importance in the RFP. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 33 |
| P-Spec |
| 23-24 |
| 3.8 |
| Environmental considerations: Each environmental requirement states that the “MACH system shall perform according to the requirements of this specification after exposure…” What specification tests should be repeated, if any, as evidence of post-environment conformance to specification requirements? |
| All tests should be passable after exposure to the environmental considerations. Contractor will be required to demonstrate effectiveness of the MACH system after environmental testing. |
| 34 |
| P-Spec |
| 25 |
| 3.8.21.4 |
| No similar requirement in the AHNR specification. This MACH requirement would prevent the use of AHNR solutions in the MACH system. Recommend requirement relaxation to allow AHNR use. |
| Negative- this is a user requirement. Contractor may propose a design tradeoff. |
| 35 |
| P-Spec |
| 23 |
| 3.8.4 |
| Temp. range is greater than AHNR (-65F – 160 F) requirement. Recommend consistency with the AHNR temperature range. |
| Negative- the desired requirement is outlined in the spec. |
| 36 |
| P-Spec |
| 23 |
| 3.8.7 |
| The temperature shock range (+165(F to -65(F) is higher than operational temperature range (+160(F) but lower than the storage temperature (+185(F). Is this intentional? The threshold and objective are the same. Temp range is greater than AHNR (0F to 122F) |
| You may have misread the requirement- the MACH shall be capable of enduring temperature shocks in both directions (from cold to hot/hot to cold). |
| 37 |
| P-Spec |
| 26 |
| 4.3 |
| The 3 lines that state a minimum is unclear; what is meant? |
| A minimum of 5 MACH systems will be tested in each production lot that consists of less than 250 helmets. As the production lot size increases, so does the corresponding number of sample helmets for testing. (This pertains to production lot testing.) |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 38 |
| P-Spec |
| 48 |
| Table x |
| All tests are at limits, should not a couple be at center of the envelope? |
| The tests reflect the data set required by the government. |
| 39 |
| P-Spec |
| 50 |
| 4.7.8.1 |
| Visor Coating specification is listed as MIL-DTL-43511; currently no Gentex visor meets this specification. Also, assume the MIL-DTL-43511D versus the MIL-V-43511C. |
| Visors must meet MIL-DTL-43511, again this requirement can be a tradeoff. |
| 40 |
| P-Spec |
| 57 |
| 4.9.1 |
| ANSI S12.42 needs to be added as test method for active portion of ANR equipped systems. This result needs to be added with passive results from ANSI S12.6. Suggest including methodology to combine standard deviations from both test methods. |
| ANSI S12.42 is referenced in the specification for the applicable systems |
| 41 |
| P-Spec |
| 57 |
| 4.9.3 |
| Aircraft or simulators will need to be made available. |
| All GFE/GFI required must be identified in the appropriate GFE clause of the model contract and submitted with your proposal for evaluation. |
| 42 |
| P-Spec |
| 58 |
| 4.9.6 |
| The requirement in 3.5.6 also applies to non-ANR MACH as well. This is an ICS volume check for communications. ANR signals will not have volume adjustment. |
| Noted |
| 43 |
| P-Spec |
| 58 |
| 4.9.8 |
| No need for the ICS. Who will supply the in-flight recordings? Which and how many aircraft are to be used? |
| All GFE/GFI required must be identified in the appropriate GFE clause of the model contract and submitted with your proposal for evaluation. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 44 |
| P-Spec |
| 57 |
| 4.9.2 |
| Who will supply the in-flight recordings? Which and how many aircraft are to be used? |
| Offerors should be able to meet the requirements for all aircraft listed in the MACH performance specification. Proposals should include details in their test plan. |
| 45 |
| P-Spec |
| 59 |
| 4.9.9 |
| What is the pass/ fail criteria for this? It is assumed that pink noise will be used during this test. |
| Testing in accordance with ANSI3.2 |
| 46 |
| P-Spec |
| 59 |
| 4.10.1 |
| There is no need to perform this test with multiple microphones. Are both subjects to have the ANR off during the second half of the test or just one subject? |
| To verify equipment compatibility, we may conduct testing with all microphones found in the equipment list. |
| 47 |
| P-Spec |
| 59 |
| 4.10.2 |
| This test will be difficult to perform as written for ANR earplugs. Feed-forward/ Feedback ANR systems are inherently more stable and forcing instability will be a challenge. |
| Noted |
| 48 |
| P-Spec |
| 59 |
| 4.10.3 |
| For what duration is the spike to be applied? Suggest 10 seconds. What noise source? Suggest pink noise. |
| Noted - Offerors should include these details in their proposal |
| 49 |
| P-Spec |
| 60 |
| 4.10.7 |
| Is the battery life indicator required to be a voltage meter? 3.6.7 asks for percent of remaining battery life. |
| The verbiage was based on known technology to the government team. If the contractor has a superior method of measuring and displaying battery life it should be included in their proposal. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 50 |
| P-Spec |
| 60 |
| 4.12.2 |
| There are no requirements listed. Suggest using requirements from AHNR spec. |
| IAW MIL-STD-461 |
| 51 |
| P-Spec |
| 58 |
| 4.9.8 |
| ANSI S3.36 describes the manikin and does not have a procedure for conduction verification of 3-D audio. |
| Unable to verify where this question was directed- it appears someone on the contractor team did not have an updated copy of the specification. |
| 52 |
| P-Spec |
| 63 |
| 4.12.21.3 |
| The performance specifications of the chem. Warfare equipment are not provided. Suggest using the compatibility test protocol from AHNR. |
| Negative- the MACH will not be allowed to hinder the CBRN equipment |
| 53 |
| P-Spec |
| 63 |
| 4.12.21.4 |
| MIL-STD-464 refers to a classified document, MIL-STD-2165. A copy of this standard needs to be provided. |
| Noted |
| 54 |
| P-Spec |
| 65 |
| 5.1 |
| The packaging requirements should be included here. |
| Noted |
| 55 |
| P-Spec |
| 66 |
| 6.0 |
| These reference documents should be included in Section 2 if they are cited in the text. |
| Noted- these documents are not cited in the spec, but were deemed useful for reference |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 3.4.2 |
| Head Supported Weight identifies a helmet Threshold weight of 3.0 lb. and an Objective weight of 2.5 lb. Given the requirement stated in para 3.4.3.2 Fatigue and reference to Fig. 2 USAARL head-supported mass v. longitudinal center of mass placement curve, it is assumed that not only the standalone MACH helmet system be compliant within this requirement but also the MACH helmet + any of the HMDs / helmet-mounted equipment referenced in Appendix A. Is it the Government’s intent to furnish Mass / CG reference data for all HMDs / helmet-mounted equipment identified in Appendix A in the release of the final RFP package? |
| The weight requirement only applies to the MACH system, independent of any HMDs. |
The Specification requires that the MACH when worn with any of the HMDs comply with Fig. 2 USAARL in 3.4.3.2
The government will not furnish CG data for the HMD equipment in Appendix A. The contractor should propose what equipment will be needed to perform the testing.
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| B-1 |
| B |
| 2 |
| CLIN 0001 |
| Historically, SDD efforts are priced as CPIF/CPAF/CPFF. Is the government willing to consider a cost type contract for this phase of the MACH? |
| Responses to government RFI issued and the maturity level of the technology supports an FPIF type development contract. |
| B-2 |
| B |
| 2 |
| CLIN 0003 |
| Why are the Kickoff meeting and the quarterly PMRs/TIMs separately priced? As separate CLINs these can contribute to contract payment and administration workload. In addition, there is no acceptance criteria for satisfactory completion. The SOO identifies several other reviews/meetings which do not have separate CLINs identified. Recommend including all reviews in their parent CLINs; i.e., CLIN 0001 for SDD, CLIN 1010 for LRIP, and CLINs 2001 and 3001 for FRP. |
| CLIN 0001 now encompasses all SDD meetings. |
| General question: For SDD Option CLINs 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, is it recognized that training, test, CDRLs, etc., will need to be included during the pricing of these options? |
| As part of SDD all requirements in section 4 of the SOO are applicable to the SDD options. CLIN descriptions have been clarified in section B of the model contract. |
| Providing FPIS pricing for IOT&E, LRIP and FRP units extending out 4-5 years before completion of most development activities entails a significant economic risk. Would the government consider allowing price negotiations when IOT&E, LRIP and FRP options are invoked? |
| Under an FPIS contract, re-negotiations of the initial target prices are expected and will occur utilizing the process and in the timeframe established in the Section I FPIS clause 52.216-17. |
| B-5 |
| B |
| 5 |
| CLIN 1008 |
| BEQs are specified for JHMCS and PNVG compatibility, yet there are no corresponding CLINs for developing these modules/interfaces similar to the option CLINs for the AH-1W and AH-64 Tracker and Sighting System Modules and the Night Vision Cueing and Display Module. Is JHMCS and PNVG Module/Interface SDD part of CLIN 0001 and not options? Do we assume that compatibility with all equipment listed in Appendix A is part of CLIN 0001 with the exception of the AH-1W, AH-64 and Night Vision Modules, since they are SDD option CLINs 1001, 1002 and 1003? |
| Compatibility of all equipment listed in Appendix A of the performance specification are part of CLIN 0001 with the exception of the individual development option CLINs identified in section B. |
| B-6 |
| B |
| 5 |
| CLIN 1010 |
| CLIN 1010 identifies a BEQ maximum at 260 LRIP units. Page 17 of 30, Clause F007 Shipment address for LRIP units accounts for only 250. Should 260 LRIP units be identified to the various shipment addresses? |
| Clause F0007 has been updated. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| B-7 |
| B |
| 5, 6 |
| CLINS 1010, 2001 |
| SOO Para 6.11 requires implementation of an integrated logistics support strategy sufficient to field and sustain the MACH system. Training assets and test equipment may be covered under the general SDD CLIN, but neither the LRIP CLIN 1010 nor the FRP CLIN 2001 allow for purchasing any peculiar tools/support equipment/test equipment, initial spare parts, or stand-up costs for field (including ship board and bare base locations) or depot maintenance locations. Additional CLINs should be added, or these CLINs need to be expanded to cover more than just the production unit costs. |
| See 3.2.9 of the Performance Specification with regard to special tooling. |
It is not the intent of the government to purchase initial spares during the first production options. Spares purchases will be completed after a failure analysis has been accomplished once the system has been completely fielded. DLA will purchase spares based upon this analysis.
No additional CLINs are necessary.
| B-8 |
| B |
| 6 |
| CLIN 1012 |
| The requirement for a full re-procurement data package seems unnecessary considering the Government will have competitive pricing from all offerors covering high rate production unit price and pricing for FRP units from the successful offeror. Consideration should be given to eliminate this CLIN. |
| Noted, but government requirement remains. |
| B-9 |
| B |
| 10 |
| Clause B031 |
| Should CLIN 1008 be listed under this clause as it is identified as FPIS within the CLIN structure of Section B? |
| Clause B031 has been corrected. |
| F-1 |
| F |
| 15 |
| CLIN 0003 |
| CLIN 0003 identifies delivery of the kickoff meeting as 10 days after receipt of order (DARO). Page 16 of 30, Clause F002 Period of Performance identifies the period of performance as 20 DARO. Which is correct? |
| Para 4.9.1 of the SOO has been revised to reflect the timing of the kickoff meeting. CLIN 0003 has been deleted as the kickoff meeting is to be part of CLIN 0001. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| F-2 |
| F |
| 16 |
| F001 |
| CLIN 1010 which is for LRIP units shows a POP starting prior to completion of IOT&E which includes the support provided in CLIN 1009. Is this in error? Will a Government Milestone C be required to exercise the LRIP Option requiring IOT&E results as a prerequisite to conducting the Milestone C decision? Should the Period of Performance for the LRIP and beyond CLINs be adjusted to account for this? |
| LRIP period of performance has been corrected in section F clause, F001. |
Currently this is not an ACAT program and a formal MS C is not required. The government will however, conduct a decision review prior to entering LRIP.
| F-3 |
| F |
| 16 |
| F001 and F002 |
| The delivery dates for option quantities are firm calendar dates even though there is no guarantee this contract will be awarded on schedule, SDD will proceed on schedule, funds will be available when needed, etc. Should these deliveries be tied to completion of SDD and IOT&E rather than the calendar? |
| Firm dates are necessary to ensure pricing proposals received are as accurate as possible. |
| What is the Government’s projection for funds available for incremental obligation during the two years of SDD? If possible, a breakout by month or quarter is needed to properly phase and schedule SDD efforts and to properly create the program integrated master schedule. |
| Our anticipated funding is provided at attachment L-13. Section I Clause 252.232-7007 para J has been modified to include the amount that will be available for the SDD effort upon contract award. |
| L-1 |
| L |
| 1 |
| 2.1.4.b |
| Does this mean that tasks a subcontractor, having less than 10% of the work (which is not considered a team member), will not be evaluated? Example could be small business tasks. |
| Team members not completing more than 10% of the work may be included as team members at the prime’s discretion. (Sec L para 2.1.4 (a) –(2)) |
Contributions by small business will be evaluated under subfactor 1.5 and the small business subcontracting plan.
| L-2 |
| L |
| 2 |
| 2.2 |
| This area identifies Microsoft Project 2000. Section H, Page 21 of 30, Clause PSK-H002 identifies Microsoft Project 4.0. Please clarify which version compatibility is required. Recommend aligning sections with same version. |
| Changed to read MS Project 2002 throughout the RFP. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| L-3 |
| L |
| 3 |
| 2.3.1 |
| This section identifies the Draft Performance Specification (DPS). Section 4.1 of the SOO identifies MACH Performance Specification PRF-TA-MACH-001-07. Recommend updated to the latest version of this document. |
| Sec L, para 2.3.1 has been updated. |
| L-4 |
| L |
| 6 |
| 4.1.3 |
| Is PS the Performance Specification? Recommend standardizing how the Performance Specification is referred to and whether reference is to the Government Performance Specification or the Contractor Performance Specification. |
| Reference is to the government performance specification throughout the RFP. |
| L-5 |
| L |
| 7 |
| 5.1 |
| Section L, Para 5.1 indicates tradeoffs of KSA and OSA which would change the P-Spec. Is the contractor to revise the Spec and deliver the revision with the proposal using the same format as provided? The AF prepared spec has a collection of threshold/objective requirements that may not represent the offered system. Will the revision require track changes. Is the Contractor Performance Spec what will be Attachment 1 to the Model Contract when submitted with the proposal? |
| The government is not asking for a contractor performance specification. The offerors must propose a solution the meets the government specification as provided. |
All tradeoffs should be identified and explained per par 5.1.1 and attachment L-7
| L-6 |
| L |
| 8 |
| 5.3 |
| Parts of this section are stated as tasks. Recommend these tasks be included in the SOW instead of proposal instructions. |
| Para 5.3 has been revised. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
PS 3.2.3, PS 3.2.10,
L6.3, L-8 Para 1, 2 The maintenance philosophy is unclear. Maintenance Planning (L8-1, para 1) states that mx action and support structure must be aligned with government requirements and maintenance concept, but the government mx concept is not specified. Recommend inclusion of the mx concept in the specification.
Sec L, Par 6.3 and PS 3.2.10 discuss an organizational maintenance environment only. However, Attch L-8, para 2 indicates that a Repair Level Analysis is required for each item (inferring the repair levels are not yet known) and PS para 3.2.3 indicates that the unit should be supportable by DLA, the military depots and multiple services (does not specify supply and/or maintenance).
The overall Mx concept should be clearly defined to allow cost estimations for fielding plans to be developed.
The intent of L8-1 was to establish that the government would like a maintenance concept similar or better to the current Helmet Systems in the inventory. A helmet design that requires 10 hrs of maintenance per flight would likely be unacceptable (based on the tradeoffs) to the government.
The vendor should develop and propose a maintenance concept for their design that will be the most beneficial to the government.
The MACH System will be inspected, maintained and repaired at the organizational level (unit, squadron). Depots that overhaul aircraft will have a life support shop because the aircraft overhauled must be test flown and the flight crews require the standard life support equipment.
After the initial distribution of MACH to the users by the 648 AESS through the manufacturer, DLA will be responsible for the purchasing, stocking, replenishing and distribution of MACH to the users. The 648 AESS will retain the engineering support responsibilities. The introduction of MACH into the Air Force shall not create an increase in manpower requirements for the user. A decrease in manpower requirements for MACH while attractive is an objective.
| L-8 |
| L |
| 8 |
| 5.1.1, Atch L-7 |
| Any tradeoffs from the Atch L-7 should also be included in the spec. However, there are no instructions to submit a revised spec. |
| No revised p-spec will be entertained. Tradeoffs shall be documented in your technical proposal as discussed in para 5.1.1. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| L-9 |
| L |
| 8 |
| 5.1.2 |
| Summaries of test data may not provide substantial information of the maturity/pedigree of the design. The actual test data may be necessary. An offeror may want to include actual test data/reports with the technical proposal. However, this may increase the page count. Recommend Section L allow attaching actual test reports as annexes to the technical proposal without counting it in the page count. |
| Specific testing data, should they be necessary during evaluation, will be requested via formal evaluation notice. |
| L-10 |
| L |
| 11 |
| 9.2.1(a) |
| This section identifies teaming partners as 20% of work vs. 2.1.4 in Section L states 10%. |
| Para 9.2.1(a) has been corrected. |
| L-11 |
| L |
| 15 |
| Atch L-1 |
| The RCRM does not match the paragraph numbering within Section L. For example, Corporate Experience is listed as Para 8 in the RCRM, but as Para 4.3 in Section L. Also, the CPS is identified as Para 5.1 in the RCRM, but is not identified in Section L within the Technical Volume. Section J of the draft RFP identifies the Performance Specification as Attachment 1 to the contract. Also, Small Business Participation, Past Performance and Cost/Price are identified as paragraphs 9,10, and 11 in the RCRM. In the Section L, they are paragraphs 8, 9, and 10, respectively. Recommend update of the RCRM to match Section L and Section J. |
| RCRM has been updated. |
| L-12 |
| L |
| 19 |
| Atch L-3 |
| Subsection (d), 2nd paragraph. The text states “The Objective is a brief statement of desired results, and is to be traceable to the SOO.” While traceability to the SOO is OK, the narrative should be traceable to the SOW, which is a contract document. |
| This has been corrected. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| L-13 |
| L |
| 21 |
| 3 (not numbered) |
| “The activities and tasks will be sufficient to account for the entire program under contract.” How much of the government activities must be included in the IMS? (e.g., Gov’t test activities, Milestone C decisions) Are there assumptions the offeror should use to account for Government activities within the IMS? |
| The offeror should only identify all government contractor meetings which have been identified in the SOO and as called for in CDRL A010. |
PS 3.2.13,
L-7, 3.2.16
| Both of these references state that manning authorizations (presumably organic) shall not increase based on MACH logistics functions. L-7 even has the objective that “Manning for the MACH system will reduce current authorized manning levels.” The contractor has no control over Air Force manning levels. Even if mx and logistics tasks are reduced, that does not guarantee that individual organizations will reduce their authorizations. Reduction of manning levels is an internal government objective. The contractor effort should be limited to minimizing/reducing maintenance and logistics tasks to the extent possible. |
| The intent of the objective in L-7 is to show the contractor that a low maintenance helmet would be beneficial to the government and a favorable design feature within a proposal. If a contractor can demonstrate that a proposed design reduces the required labor hours by a measurable factor the objective will be met. |
| L-15 |
| L |
| 22 |
| Last (not numbered) |
| Recommend deletion of last paragraph. Resource loading will be a best guess for risk and critical path areas and will change with a high degree of certainty during the course of the program. Durations also will be a best estimate. These risk areas should be adequately addressed in the risk mitigation section of the proposal. Time-phasing of hours and resource loading, while good-intentioned, will in all likelihood change several times due to changing priorities and critical path areas. |
| This paragraph has been updated, but not deleted entirely. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| L-16 |
| L |
| 23 |
| Atch L-5 |
| Can a matrix covering the information on the PPI form be used rather than the form itself since the form is long and cumbersome to work with? |
| No |
| L-17 |
| L |
| 32 |
| Atch L-7, Number 3.2.1 |
| Equipment compatibility is identified as a KPP, yet several equipments are development options within the contract. Compatibility would not be achieved for these KPP items unless those development options were exercised and executed. It would seem the requirement cannot be fully achieved if the options aren’t exercised. Recommend accounting for this in this KPP requirement area. Same comment for Number 3.2.2 regarding F-35 HMDs. |
| Section M provision M002, Evaluation Criteria, para (2) (a) specifically states that the technical subfactor will be met in part when the design approach has the potential to meet all KPPs. The technical evaluation will encompass the SDD options and therefore includes an evaluation of the potential for offerors to meet the compatibility KPP and F-35 KSA. |
| L-18 |
| L |
| 41 |
| L046 |
| Recommend the time for providing Cost and Pricing be extended to thirty days from date of government request. |
| Change has been made as requested. |
| L-19 |
| L |
| 42 |
| Atch L-7, Number 3.4.5 |
| This requirement would not be achievable without exercise of the SDD Option CLIN 1005. Recommend this be identified within this requirements; e.g., “applicable if Option CLIN 1005 is exercised.” |
| Section M provision M002, Evaluation Criteria, para (2) (a) specifically states that the technical subfactor will be met in part when the design approach has the potential to meet all KPPs, and as many of the KSAs, and OSAs as possible. The technical evaluation will encompass the SDD options, to include this KSA. |
| L-20 |
| L |
| 48 |
| Atch L-8 |
| Atch L-8, Logistics Management Information Summaries, does not include any reference to technical orders, data, or maintenance manuals. TO reviews and publication are a key emphasis during SDD (See SOO paras 4.9 and Atch L-7, para 3.2.1.4, OSA 39) Should it be assumed that TOs/MX data should be addressed under Maintenance Planning (Atch L-8, para 1)? |
| Yes |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| L-21 |
| L |
| 52-54 |
| Atch L-11 |
| FPIS for Option quantities – what is the Government’s intent to reset the FPIS prices; that is, will they become FPIF or FFP prices and when and under what criteria will they be reset? |
| This information is provided in section I Clause 52.216-17. |
| L-22 |
| L |
| 55 |
| Atch L-13 |
| SDD funds available in FY2010 – since this period comes after the majority of the SDD schedule, should we assume these funds will be available to support IOT&E and LRIP? |
| L-13 has been updated. |
RDT&E funds are anticipated to be used for IOT&E purposes.
| L-23 |
| L |
| 55 |
| Atch L-13 |
| Does the funding profile cover CLINs 0001-0004 and Option CLINs 1001-1009 or just the basic CLINs 0001 thru 0004? Please clarify which CLINs are funded by the funding profile. |
| The funding profile for RDT&E is intended to cover the basic contract’s SDD phase (none of the SDD options) and IOT&E. |
| L-24 |
| L |
| 55 |
| Atch L-13 |
| Funding profile identified in Section L-13 provides the development phase funding profile. Does this funding cover CLINs 0001 - 0004 only or are Options 1001 – 1009 expected to be funded within this profile? Will 1010 – 1012, 2001 – 2005 and 3001 - 3005 be funded through Production funding? Please clarify. |
| The funding profile for RDT&E is intended to cover the basic contract’s SDD phase (none of the SDD options) and IOT&E. |
| M-1 |
| M |
| 3 |
| C(2)(d) |
| Refers to “sound, effective, and timely approach for the T&E activities identified in Section L, Para 5.4” This should probably refer to Para 5.3 since this is the test paragraph. |
| This has been updated. |
| It appears the paragraphs iii and iv under Relevance contain the same, duplicative wording. Should this be corrected? |
| Para iii has been updated. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| Will proposed prices be adjusted by the Government in any way (i.e., based on risk analyses or perceived weaknesses) to reach a best value decision? |
| No |
| M-4 |
| M |
| 8 |
| M001. f. |
| Para states: “The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated by total price for the SSD and Production….” Please clarify that both LRIP and FRP (both options) are included, but no further life cycle cost estimate is required. |
| This paragraph has been revised to clearly spell out the makeup of the Total Evaluated Price. |
| M-5 |
| M |
| 3 |
| M002, c, (2) (a) |
| Section M states “potential to meet all KPPs.” Section L, Atch L-7 states KPPs are “Absolute must meet requirements, non tradable”. Are KPPs tradable or not? There seems to be a conflict with SOO paragraph 4.4.5 that discusses CAIV and tradeoffs and Section L, Atch L-7 which alludes to tradeoffs and updating the prioritized requirements. Please explain what requirements are “tradeable” or are all requirements the minimum acceptable as stated in Para 3.1.1 of the Spec? |
| KPPs are not tradable. |
At a minimum, all KSA and OSA thresholds should be attempted to be met. If the offeror feels these thresholds cannot be met, at that point trade space arguments should be presented for those specific KSAs or OSAs.
No changes will be made, as the government does not see a conflict in the language.
| M-6 |
| M |
| 3 |
| M002, c, (2) (a) |
| KSA thresholds are more important than OSA objectives. There is no text that provides the importance of meeting KPP objectives or KSA objectives. |
| M002, c, (2) (a) has been updated |
| EX-1 |
| CDRL Exhibits A, B, C |
| 1 |
| 3.b.(1) |
| Paragraph identifies that deliverables shall be in Microsoft Word 2000 (or latest version available). Section L, Para. 2.2 identifies Microsoft Word 2003. Recommend CDRL prefaces be updated to reflect Microsoft Word 2003 to be consistent. |
| Section L para 2.2 has been updated. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| EX-2 |
| CDRL Exhibits A, B, C |
| 1 |
| 3.b.(2)(c) |
| This paragraph identifies Microsoft Office 2003 Professional. Section H, Clause PSK-H002 identifies Microsoft Office 95. Recommend the H clause be updated to reflect MS Office 2003 for consistency. |
| Section H, Clause PSK-H002 has been updated. |
| Block 16 |
| First and subsequent submissions instructions are not provided, nor is the frequency of submission. |
| Will be delivered 30 days prior to provisioning conference (contained in CDRL A004). |
| CDRL identifies monthly submissions of the CWBS. Since the CWBS is not likely to change and is included as Attachment 4 to the contract (per Section J), recommend this CDRL item be deleted. |
| Submissions are on a “as required basis” according to CDRL A027. |
| EX-5 |
| CDRL Exhibits A and B |
| Exhibit A (A011) and Exhibit B (B006) |
| Blocks 10,11,12 |
| FRACAS report timelines are different. Government comments due 5 days after receipt of full report in Development, but 3 days after receipt in LRIP. Is this intentional? |
| B006 has been updated to reflect 5 days. |
| EX-6 |
| CDRL Exhibit A, B, C |
| Preface |
| 5 |
| Paragraph states, “The critical data items are the only items tracked for quality...” Where are “critical data items” identified? |
| Critical data items will be identified in provisioning data by the contractor. |
| This CDRL is for Design-To-Cost/Life Cycle Cost and Variance Analysis. This typically requires design and affordability goals to be established for the system in question. For this CDRL to be useful, will these goals be identified or will this CDRL be deleted? Goals should included SDD, production and sustainment to account for design to cost and life cycle cost. |
| This CDRL has been removed. |
| Question Number |
| Section |
| Page |
| Paragraph |
| Questions |
| GOVT Response/Comments/Notes |
| 1 |
| SOO |
| 1, 10 |
| 1.1, 8 |
| Section 1.1 states the scope for SDD & initial production. Section 8 is for Full Rate Production (FRP). There are also CLINS for FRP. Recommend full rate production be added to Para 1.1. |
| Paragraph 1.1 has been updated. |
| 2 |
| SOO |
| 1 |
| 4.1.1 |
| Will the AH-1W tracker and sighting system interface spec be provided to propose and prepare for the AH-1W interface SDD effort? |
| Yes, this spec will be provided. |
| 3 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.1.2 |
| Will the AH-65 tracker and sighting system interface spec be provided to propose and prepare for the AH-64 interface SDD effort? |
| Yes, this spec will be provided. |
| 4 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.1.3 |
| Will the NVCD helmet mounted display system interface specification be provided to propose and prepare for the NVCD interface SDD effort? |
| The NVCD does not have an official specification to provide. The System Requirements Document will be provided for you to propose against. |
| 5 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.1.4 |
| Will the F-35 helmet mounted display system interface specification be provided to propose and prepare for the F-35 HMD interface SDD effort? |
| Yes, the design specification will be included. |
| 6 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.1.5 |
| Para 4.1.5 identifies the SDD option to design, fabricate, qualify, manufacture and produce a maxillofacial shield. Section B of the draft RFP, page 4 of 30, CLIN 1005 description identifies development of an interface for compatibility with the maxillofacial shield module. Is the requirement to develop an interface, the maxillofacial shield of both? If both, recommend updating the CLIN 1005 description. |
| The requirement is to develop an interface that is compatible with the existing maxillofacial shield if possible. However, it is not the government’s intent to restrict the design of the MACH system base on the currently used maxillofacial shield. If a new maxillofacial shield needs to be developed in order to interface with your design than the government would like to pursue that option. |
| 7 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.1.6 |
| Para 4.1.6 identifies the SDD option to design, fabricate, qualify, manufacture and produce an audio system capable of independent volume control. Section B of the draft RFP, page 4 of 30, CLIN 1006 descriptive data identifies the development of an interface for compatibility with the Independent Volume Control Module. Is the requirement to develop the interface, the Independent Volume Control Module, or both? If both, recommend updating the CLIN 1006 description to reflect this. |
| It is the intent of the option to develop the hardware which will provide Independent Volume Control capability. The CLIN has been updated. |
| 8 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.1.7 |
| Para 4.1.7 identifies the SDD option to design, fabricate, qualify, manufacture and produce an integrated external audio system. Section B of the draft RFP, page 4 of 30, CLIN 1007 descriptive data identifies development of an interface for compatibility with the External Audio Module. Is the requirement to develop the interface, the External Audio Module or both? If both, recommend updating the CLIN 1007 description to reflect this. |
| The requirement is to develop an interface that is compatible with the existing external audio devices if possible. |
If a new external audio device needs to be developed in order to interface with your design than the government may like to pursue that option (depending on proposed tradeoffs).
| The RFP does not provide clear distinction between the activities of DT&E, Operational Assessment and IOT&E but it invokes all three of these test related cycles. Please clarify. |
| We are requesting the contractor to perform all DT&E activities in accordance with section 4 of the performance specification. The contractor will not be conducting OA or IOT&E activities, but we are requesting they be available for instructional purposes. |
| 10 |
| SOO |
| 2,8 |
| 4.3.1, 6.5 |
| Refers to inclusion of “an effective cost control and reporting system.” Although the CWBS, CSOW, IMP and IMS contribute to this, they are not normally the primary vehicles. Since this is a fixed price effort, is effective cost control and reporting a valid requirement? |
| Sections 4.3.1 and 6.5 of the SOO have been updated. |
| 11 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.3.3 |
| EVMS requirements reference CDRLs A013-A014, which don’t match. (A013 is reserved and unspecified, A014 is training-related). Also, is this EVMS SOO requirement valid for a fixed price contract? |
| The EVMS requirement has been removed from the SOO. |
| 12 |
| SOO |
| 2 |
| 4.3.3 |
| Para 4.3.3 requires employing EVM principles IAW ANSI/EIA-748. Is this appropriate for Fixed Price contracts? |
| The EVMS requirement has been removed from the SOO. |
| 13 |
| SOO |
| 3 |
| 4.3.4 |
| Para 4.3.4 requires implementing effective security measures to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure. Will there be protection required above “For Official Use Only” on the MACH program? Does the Government expect classified information covered under a DD254? Please clarify. |
| The government does not expect classified material on this program. However, more sensitive information may be encountered when interacting with other systems. |
| 14 |
| SOO |
| 3 |
| 4.4.2 |
| Para 4.4.2 requires establishment of TPMs for each technical parameter in the RFP. Is it the Government’s intention to have a TPM for every parameter in the Performance Specification? Or will a subset of TPMs be agreed between the contractor and Government at the SRR which may include KPPs and a few priority threshold requirements? If it is every parameter, this could incur increased administrative cost due to the many performance parameters. |
| It is not the government’s intent to have a TPM for every parameter in the performance specification. At a minimum, TPMs should be established for all the KPPs. Additional TPM will be established the government and contractor at the SRR. |
| 15 |
| SOO |
| 3 |
| 4.4.5 |
| CAIV implies that the customer is willing to trade off schedule and/or technical performance to keep costs down. How will this be accomplished since the Performance Specification states that Threshold requirements are the minimum acceptable level of performance and must be met? What areas are trade-offs being considered? This paragraph also requests demonstrating that the MACH system has an affordable production and fielding cost. Against what affordability goals or parameters should we provide this assessment? Please clarify. |
| Performance is more important than cost as specified in the RFP. In addition, all KPP thresholds must be met. |
KSA and OSA thresholds should also be attempted to be met. The government is willing to entertain trade space arguments with regard to KSAs and OSAs. Relative importance of these performance parameters are defined in the RFP Section L, Attachment L-7.
| 16 |
| SOO |
| 3 |
| 4.4.5 |
| Para states: “Demonstrate that the MACH system has an affordable production and fielding cost.” In SDD, do you require initial fielding costs only, or is the requirement really for fielding AND sustainment as indicated in para 4.7.1? (Note: The CLINs in section M do not include initial fielding OR sustainment costs. See question 13. ) |
| The requirement is for production, fielding, and sustainment. Para 4.4.5 of the SOO has been updated. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.