Clarifications IAE RFP_SOO(2Oct08).pdf

Clarifications IAE RFP & SOO ‐ 2 Oct 2008 Page 1

Clarifications to IAE RFP & SOO 2 Oct 2008

Please note an RFP Amendment will be issued for those items that require such a change.

1. SOO, Paragraph 3.1.2.5 - While we understand the merits of EVM reporting, we question the requirement on a FFP/FPIF/FPIST contract. Rigorous EVM adds significant resource burdens to the effort. We also note that CDRLs A021 and A022 will provide comprehensive financial and schedule information to the government. Would the Government consider removing the EVM requirement?

The Milestone Decision Authority has requested the use of EVM for the IAE effort, however, to allow us to make a sound business case analysis on whether or not to seek a waiver on the use of EVM for this effort look for the addition of EVM in Section L, para 9.4.1, under COST ELEMENTS, Prime Contractor, Indirect Costs, Other Indirect Costs, of the IAE solicitation requesting that industry provide separate pricing data for EVM.

2. SOO, Paragraphs 3.1.4.4.1 and 3.1.4.5 - Does CDRL A019 include the training materials developed under these two paragraphs or is a CDRL for the required data missing from the

RFP?

No, CDRL A019 is the training plan. Training curriculum, to include training materials, is developed under CLIN B016.

3. SOO, Paragraphs 3.1.4.4, 3.1.4.4.1, and 3.1.4.5 - What purposes do these tasks served for them to be included in the SDD phase of the effort? The tasks would seem to fit more appropriately into the LRIP or FRP Option and be limited to the contractor that successfully wins the downselect. (Why use limited SDD resources to develop training materials for an IAE that is not down selected?) Note, there seems to be an inconsistency between the delivery time (45 days prior to SVR) required by CDRL A019 and the delivery time stated in

3.1.4.5 (90 days before FRP delivery). Would the Government consider moving these training related Paragraphs to go with either the LRIP or the FRP Option?

Quality and completeness of the training plan will be considered during the downselect process;

see Section H, page 24, b. Subfactor 1.2 – Management.

4. SOO, Paragraphs 3.1.6.3.1 and 3.1.6.3.2 - Please reconsider the value of developing the Technical Order to 90% completion during the SDD phase of the contract and before downselect. Would the Government consider revising the requirement to achieve 30% completion during the SDD phase?

The Government will revise the requirement to 60% completion during the SDD phase of the contract and before downselect.

5. SOO, Paragraphs 3.1.5.1 and 3.1.6.2 - In these paragraphs, the Government requires the contractor to support Government working groups. Please specify the frequency and location for these meetings.

Clarifications IAE RFP & SOO ‐ 2 Oct 2008 Page 2

The TPWG and LWG meetings will occur on a quarterly basis at the contractor’s facility in conjunction with PMRs as much as possible.

6. (Section F, page 19 of 35 CLINS 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004) LRIP CLINs reflect a period of performance from 1 Nov 11 to 31 Mar 13 (17 mos). SOO Para 4.1.2 shows the duration of the LRIP options as 15 mos. Which is correct?

Assuming a Mar 09 contract award, the current period of performance of the LRIP CLINs is 17 months. The SOO will be changed accordingly. (See Amendment ‐0002)

7. (Section F, page 19 of 35 CLINS 1003) CLIN 1003 shows the end date of IOT&E as 31 Mar

13. If IOT&E LRIP units are delivered by 31 Jun 12 (CLIN 1002), and IOT&E commences immediately following delivery (1Jul 12), this is a 9 mos period of performance. Section L, Para 7.1.4b identifies 6 mos for IOT&E. Which is correct?

The estimated PoP of IOT&E is 9 months. Section L, Para 7.1.4b will be changed accordingly. (See Amendment ‐0002)

8. (Section L, page 11 of 17 para 7.1.1) This paragraph tasks the offeror to use the SOO and PS to develop the CSOW that correlates to the CWBS and PS. Please clarify what is meant by “the documents shall identify on the right hand side of the page any changes made to the Government documents (i.e., “track changes”). Is the RFP asking the offeror to modify the SOO into a CSOW and use the track changes feature?

Track changes feature is not required. If changes are made they should be documented in a change matrix which identifies location, change, and rationale for change.

9. (Section M, page 1 of 10, para II.A) Clause 5352.291-9008 Evaluation of Offers, identifies that offers will be evaluated on the basis of the unit prices offered for the quantity assigned as the best estimated quantity (BEQ) in the schedule for CLINs 1002, 2003, 3001, 4001, 4002 and 4003. Section I Clause 52.216-19 Order Limitations identifies minimum and maximum order quantities by CLIN. Where is BEQ identified? For each IAE unit procurement option CLIN in Section B, the descriptive data requires pricing at the maximum order quantity identified in Section I. Please clarify.

The BEQ is the minimum quantities identified in Section I Clause 52.216-19 Order Limitations.

10. (SOO, page 8, 3.1.6.3) This paragraph requires TO In Process Reviews. The Technical Order CDRL is included in Exhibit B associated with the LRIP contract option. Should CDRL B015 be moved to Exhibit A? Also, since CDRL B017 Logistics Management Information provides much of the source data for Technical Order development, should it also be moved to Exhibit A?

No, to both questions.

11. (SOO, page 5-6, 3.1.3.8.6) This paragraph and the associated subparagraphs discuss the Engineering Data Package and In-Process Reviews. However, the Product Drawings and Associated Lists CDRL B007 & D006 are not funded as a CDRL in Exhibit A during the Ejection Seat IAE SDD effort. In addition, these drawings and lists are not included as part of the Rotor/Fixed Wing SDD Option. To accomplish the required task(s), recommend Exhibits A and C CDRL listings be updated to include the drawings and associated lists data item.

The Government does not want the engineering data package delivered until FRP. However, development needs to be initiated during SDD. The Government will fund for the engineering labor associated with package development in SDD, but the cost of the intellectual property will not be funded for until FRP. The Government envisions the rotor/fixed wing ensemble drawings will be modifications of the ejection seat ensemble drawings.

12. (Section L page 10 of 17 para 4.3) This paragraph requests a life cycle cost projection for 75,568 IAEs procured through 2030. Since IAEs will have different functional configurations based on the type of aircraft platform and mission, what breakout by platform, mission, ensemble should be used for this LCC projection? Differing configurations will have differing operational mission length requirements, reliabilities, maintenance requirements, etc., which translate to life cycle costs. Please provide a breakdown for this quantity.

See table below for breakout by ensemble type and year

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22+ FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 TOTAL

EJECTION SEAT AIRCRAFT

Total Quantity 2,548 2,818 2,978 2,978 2,978 2,978 2,978 2,978 3,058 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 3,064 56,932 Requirement Remaining 43,024 40,686 38,348 36,010 33,672 31,334 28,996 26,658 24,240 21,816 19,392 16,968 14,544 12,120 9,696 7,272 4,848 2,424 0

Quantity (assumes 10% of requirement)

0 255 282 298 298 298 298 298 298 306 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 5,394

Quantity 2,548 3,073 3,260 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,356 3,370 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 3,371 ----

Quantity 0 243 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,003 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 1,001 17,274 Requirement Remaining 17,274 17,031 16,028 15,025 14,022 13,019 12,016 11,013 10,010 9,009 8,008 7,007 6,006 5,005 4,004 3,003 2,002 1,001 0

Quantity (assumes 10% of requirement)

0 0 25 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 1,641

Quantity 0 243 1,028 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,104 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102 1,102

Quantity 0 184 92 92 93 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 1,357 Requirement Remaining 1,357 1,173 1,081 989 896 832 768 704 640 576 512 448 384 320 256 192 128 64 0

Quantity (assumes 10% of previous year's requirement)

0 0 19 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 140

Quantity 0 184 111 102 103 74 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

Quantity 2,548 3,500 4,399 4,482 4,483 4,454 4,451 4,451 4,531 4,543 4,544 4,544 4,544 4,544 4,544 4,544 4,544 4,544 4,544 71,168

Total

FIXED WING AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION

PRODUCTION ROM

Spares

Total

TOTAL IAE

Initial Requirement

Spares

Total

ROTARY WING AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION

Initial Requirement

Spares

Clarifications IAE RFP & SOO ‐ 2 Oct 2008 Page 3

Clarifications IAE RFP & SOO ‐ 2 Oct 2008 Page 4

13. (Section I, page 32 of 35, Clause 52.216-9) CLIN 2003 is for Rotary and Fixed Wing LRIP units. Section I identifies a min (25) and a max (50) order quantities for CLIN 2003. Since this CLIN is for both Rotor and Fixed Wing IAE LRIP units, is there a quantity breakdown for rotary and fixed wing ensembles required?

Rotor wing quantities required for IOT&E is 25 (min) – 50 (max), with an additional 12 required for fixed wing IOT&E. Section I will be changed to reflect quantities of 37 (min) and 62 (max). (See Amendment ‐0002)

14. (Section K, page 2 of 8, Clause 52.230-01) This cost accounting standards notices and certification clause identifies it does not apply to small businesses. Since this RFP is for a small business set-aside, is this clause applicable and should it be removed? Also, Para 9.3 of Section L requests the prime Offeror indicate whether it has a Government approved cost accounting system. Is this applicable based on the not in Clause 52.230-01.

Clause 52.230-01 is will be deleted. (See Amendment ‐0002)

Para 9.3 of Clause YA-L001 is still applicable and does not rely on the application of Clause 52.230-01.