The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Questions and Answers to draft Request for Proposals FA9101-08-R-0002, dtd 9 Nov 2007
Space Threat Assessment Testbed (STAT)
Arnold AFB TN
| Document |
| Location |
| Reference |
| Question/Comment |
| Response |
| 1. Executive Summary |
| Paragraph 2 |
| “ensure that the handover from development to operations goes smoothly” |
| This transition will be a strong function of AEDC ATA activities and performance. Recommend: that the requirement be changed to The STAT offeror shall make transition from development to operation a priority during all activities and make every reasonable effort to ensure adequate design characteristics, training, and provisioning to allow a smooth transition. |
| The intent is for both contractors to be appropriately incentivized to provide maximum support to one another for the development by holding both responsible for the final outcome. Failures of Government-provided hardware to meet the agreed upon specifications will be taken into account in performance evaluations. |
| 2. Executive Summary |
| Paragraph 3 |
| Reference to flight requirement for TRL 7 |
| Please clarify the specific requirement. The intent appears clear but specific requirement will be difficult to verify without clarification. |
| The intent is for this capability to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements for TRL Level 7 “Prototype near or at planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring the demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment, such as in an aircraft, vehicle or space. Examples include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft.” |
| 3. Executive Summary |
| Paragraph 3 |
| “incentive and performance fees” |
| These should be approached very carefully. STAT is challenged with doing something that has never been done before and the object is to spend the funding available to provide the best (highest technical performance and most affordable to own and operate) facility that can be procured. Incentivising the contractor to reduce cost or cut schedule may become counterproductive but if the provisions are “locked” into the contract they can quickly become difficult to manage for both the government and contractor team. Recommend: Set a satisfaction objective (subjective) that would allow Spiral 2 to be directly awarded to the Spiral 1 team based on success with reasonable fee structure for satisfactory performance. |
| There have been some changes made to the incentive fee structure to attempt to address concerns with minimum performance vs challenging parameters. |
| 4. Executive Summary |
| Paragraph 3 |
| warranties |
| Work actively with the contractor team to establish a sound operational validation test series and let that be it. Warranties will almost certainly cost the project more than they are worth. |
| A warranty is not required for the STAT system. We will require manufacturers’ warranties that are acquired by the contractor during the development be transferred to the Government at FOC. |
| 5. SOO |
| Objective A |
| “affordable” |
| Does affordable refer only to facility procurement or are there objectives for cost of ownership, usage cost for customers, etc? Recommend: that targets be set for all of these in the RFP. |
| No, affordable refers to total cost of ownership, there are estimates of the anticipated annual operations and maintenance budget, and those may be included in the final version. |
| 6. SOO |
| Objective B, C, D |
| These systems engineering factors will be cost drivers to the offerors that understand best what is needed |
| How does the government (AEDC) evaluation team plan to factor this into their cost evaluation process? |
| Will be handled as part of the evaluation factors used to determine technical understanding. |
| 7. |
| STAT Block Diagram |
| The diagram appears to have no isolation valves for the threat systems |
| Is this the intended message of the chart? |
| Notional chart only. Used to depict responsibilities for system development, not technical details of the system |
| 8. |
| Interface provisions for test articles |
| Test article interface |
| Clearly the facility will need to accommodate a large variety of test articles over its lifetime. Recommend: Make a concerted effort to develop an ICD for this interface and coordinate it with the potential user community as early in the process as possible. |
| Duly noted, More information resides in the SRD, section 2.2.2. |
9. PWBS/IMS
Is the schedule provided and CWBS an example, a proposed baseline or a suggested format for guidance?
| Recommend: Government provide a brief explanation of the intended use for the CWBS/IMS provided in the DRFP. Also please relate to Section L 4.2.3.3.1, 200 activities requirement for proposal and L 2.8.2 requirement for all font be at lease 12 point – the example format would appear to become difficult. |
| The schedule should be treated as an example with a proposed baseline. |
| 10. PWBS |
| 1.2.2 |
| SRE short term event or integrated into “living” PM process? |
| Recommend: Government comment on this question as an example of the latitude desired by the contractor. |
| This is not a living document but is a written plan to outline and coordinate the design, assembly, and integration of the STAT components, a complete and multi-functional review of all potential alternatives that may be considered in meeting identified needs. Information to be reviewed: studies, concepts, system level needs, AEDC’s Center Strategic Plan, mission statement, and possible alternative solutions. Information considered for review (for each alternative considered): |
1) Effects on interfacing systems
2) Reliability, availability, and maintainability
3) Logistics supportability training, supply support, calibration, transportation, long lead items, warranty, spare-repair part provisioning, standardization)
4) Risk Analysis/Possible mitigation strategies
5) Life cycle cost estimate and cost benefits analysis (preliminary)
6) Schedule (development, test, fabrication, test facility downtime needed)
7) Environmental, safety, security, energy conservation, quality, human factors
8) Data management (proprietary information, plans, reports, tech data, operating and maintenance instructions)
9) Configuration management approach
10) Design approach (reviews required, specifications, drawings and other information to be developed)
11) Acquisition planning
12) Verification and validation planning
13) Communications and computer systems architectures and formats
| 11. PWBS |
| 1.2.0 |
| SE Risk Mitigation |
| This appears to be a milestone event at contract award vice the initiation of a process. Please comment. |
| Is not a milestone but a place holder in the schedule for contingency $ to cover the cost risk for extended or additional design reviews due to the complexity of the system under development. |
| 12. PWBS |
| 1.2.X |
| SRR, PDR, CDR, VDR |
| The STAT is a complex integration of several major subsystems. Is the intent for these events to be for one or more of the subsystems or the integration of the entire STAT system? |
| Reviews should be held for subsystems as needed (as determined by subsystem level IPTs) to minimize risk. Reviews at the system level are required. |
| 13. PWBS |
| 1.2.6.5.1 |
| Relationship to L 2.3.2.3 |
| Is there a desired relationship between these two items (the Test Compliance Matrix and the System Requirements Matrix)? |
| The Test Compliance Matrix will be developed after contract award to clarify the test requirements necessary to satisfy customer needs and the Test Capabilities Requirements Document (TCRD). |
The System Requirements Matrix, listing the STAT requirements as defined in the SRD, is a deliverable as part of the proposal with the following information: SRD paragraph, if requirement met or exceeded, the requirement value, the IMP reference, verification and justification for claims.
| 14. PWBS |
| 1.4.4 |
| 6 Day duration? |
| Chamber Assembly Integration, Assembly, and Test Check-out appears to be questionable. Please discuss the intended scope of this activity. |
| All timeframes on this WBS are notional; they were built with a specific approach in mind and may not be relevant to the integration approach chosen by potential offerors. It is expected that the PWBS will be substantially modified to reflect the approach of each offeror. |
| 15. PWBS |
| 1.5 |
| Please discuss the intended scope. |
| Please discuss the intended scope and content, potential breakout? Several of the activities are scheduled to start well before the contract award, what is the intended activities and accomplishment prior to award? How will these be communicated to the offerors? |
| All timeframes on this WBS are notional; they were built with a specific approach in mind and may not be relevant to the integration approach chosen by potential offerors. It is expected that the PWBS will be substantially modified to reflect the approach of each offeror. |
| 16. PWBS |
| 1.7.1 |
| DACS Risk Mitigation |
| Does the schedule indicate that this will be done before contract final RFP and the results in the RFP? |
| All timeframes on this WBS are notional; they were built with a specific approach in mind and may not be relevant to the integration approach chosen by potential offerors. It is expected that the PWBS will be substantially modified to reflect the approach of each offeror. |
| 17. SRD |
| 1.3.2 |
| Future STAT Spirals |
| Recommend: The government provide any available insight to the thoughts about these. As design guidance for these may be more useful than much of the other information provided in section 1.XX All of section 1.XX could benefit from a little more insight to how the information provided is expected to influence STAT capabilities and characteristics. |
| STAT Spiral 2 is programmed to begin in 2010. It will be a larger test article size capability with a greater emphasis on Operational Test and Evaluation. Commonality of systems, software, components and operations is desired and will be pursued. |
| 18. SRD |
| 2.1.3.1 |
| STAT interfaces |
| How will these AEDC, Information Operations, Space Operations Center, etc. interfaces be communicated during the proposal development period? During the contract execution period? |
| After release of the RFP, all communication will be through the Contracting Officer. After award and during execution of the contract, communication will be through the IPT structure. |
| 19. SRD |
| 2.7.1.1 |
| Operational Availability 80% |
| This appears to be an excellent design goal, but how does the government plan to verify this at the point of FOC and final validation? |
| Operational availability will be judged based on maintenance plans developed as part of the contract |
| 20. SRD |
| 2.1.7.2.1 |
| Subsystem failure |
| Please discuss the meaning of failure: interruption of the nominal operation of any subsystem? The interruption of meaningful test activity? Necessitating that the chamber be brought off line to allow repair? Disruption to the point that the test article be brought of test conditions? |
| Failure is defined as interruption of test activity or anything more serious. If a subsystem can come offline and test conditions can be maintained, then that would not be a failure. |
| 21. SRD |
| 2.1.7.2.4 |
| Maintainability |
| This requirement is an excellent objective but could become a very open-ended cost driver and will drive the most knowledgeable offerors the most. Please discuss the desired approach during proposal and execution phases. |
| Maintainability should be addressed in the design approach and will be evaluated as part of the technical criteria during proposal and handled with trade studies as part of the IPT structure during the execution phase. |
| 22. SRD |
| 2.2.1.2.X and 2.2.1.3X |
| Requirements open-ended |
| Several of these requirements are open ended and TBD by the “Chamber IPT”. It is assumed that both AEDC and ATA involvement/IPT membership is anticipated. How is a project cost estimate expected to be final until these are agreed upon? |
| Requirements should be handled with initial design concepts identifying component systems. Budget is set; cost trades will be handled as part of the IPT structure during the execution phase. IPT membership TBD. |
| 23. SRD |
| 2.2.1.5 |
| Design Criteria |
| Please discuss the difference in design criteria and test validation that AEDC would anticipate between 50,000 hours and 80,000 hours. |
| Criteria will be established on an annual basis for the system as a whole using a statistical variability from the MTBF for each subsystem. |
| 24. SRD |
| 2.2.7.6 |
| Traceability |
| Requirement calls for instrumentation traceable to NIST, should this read calibrations and related processes traceable to NIST? |
| Yes |
| 25. SRD |
| 2.2.9.1 |
| Min. operational cost |
| Recommend that this design requirement be raised to a higher system level that the 2.2.9 “console level”. |
| Yes, this will be relocated. |
| 26. SRD |
| 2.3 |
| Support Equipment |
| Recommend SEQ be used as acronym so it can’t be confused with system engineering |
| Noted |
| 27. SRD |
| 2.4.1.3 |
| Validation of all test |
| Is the anticipated approach for AEDC validation for the government (and/or ATA) to be fully involved in the initial testing or to independently rerun all test operations? Desired scheduling? |
| The Government and AEDC’s Operating Contractor will be fully involved with initial testing and exercise used as a training tool for operators as well. |
| 28. SRD |
| ???? |
| Threats |
| Is there an intent to add/integrate requirements for the threats? By who? When? |
| Yes. The draft classified annex was released 16 Jan 08. Final annex will be ready for release upon publication of the RFP. |
| 29. SRD |
| 2.5.1.6.2 |
| Television cameras |
| 4 x x x x “installed throughout the facility.” Is the desire for these to be easily movable to various locations or just located at mutually desired spots? |
| All DACS requirements in the Draft RFP are being changed/removed for the final RFP. The intent was for the cameras to be static. |
| Recommend that data items be clearly related to the SOO requirements by number. |
| Noted |
| 31. Appendix A |
| References |
| Is the intent for all the references identified in the RFP to be in the list and will all appropriate revisions be in the library? When anticipated? |
| All references, or links to them, are included in the bidder’s library currently, and they will be updated to reflect any changes in the final RFP at release. |
| 32. M |
| 2.3.3 |
| Clarification |
| Please briefly elaborate and clarify this requirement. |
| Section M does not have a 2.3.3 paragraph. |
| 33. M |
| 003 |
| Surveys and oral discussions |
| Recommend that the government plan on visits to key sites and oral discussions with offering contractors/teams. |
| Para 2.6, Section M, states that discussions will be held if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. In addition, Para 4 also states the Government may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential. |
| 34. L |
| 2.7 |
| CWBS / IMS |
| Recommend that the CWBS and related IMS not be counted in the page count. Make this an attachment. It will likely need to be regularly updated and will be less cumbersome to reference and manage if a separate document. |
| Noted, we are analyzing what to include and not include in the page counts. |
| 35. L |
| 7.4.1 |
| Cross reference matrix |
| This table (Cross Reference Matrix – Table 2.2) will likely be a useful management tool and therefore probably should be given a CDRL. Consider it becoming an attachment. |
| The included Cross Reference Matrix was for our own internal use only; the referenced cross reference matrix is a document to be generated by the offerors as a “guide” to their proposal. |
| 36. L |
| 4.2.3.2.1 |
| Contractor developed and proposed SRD |
| The government has provided a Draft SRD. How constrained should the contractor be by this draft when developing their proposed SRD? |
| The SRD will not be draft when included with the RFP. Potential offerors will then develop and present their proposed System Specification Document based on their implementation scheme. |
| 37. L |
| 4.2.3.2.3 |
| System Requirements Matrix |
| How does this relate to the SRD DID? Recommend that the two be reconciled and therefore let the data submission after contract award refine the proposal information. |
| Noted |
| 38. L |
| 4.2.5.3 |
| Integrated Master Schedule |
| How does this relate to the IMS DID? Recommend that the two be reconciled and allow the most logical progression from the proposal to the program execution. |
| Noted |
| 39. L |
| 4.2.5.3.3 and 4.2.5.3.4 |
| Chapter 1 |
| Both of these requirements start with a reference to Chapter 1, please identify what the Chapter 1 reference is. |
| The Chapter 1 reference is the way the IMS is to be submitted. See section 4.2.5.3.3.1. |
| 40. L |
| 4.2.5.3.4.1.6 |
| IMS activities |
| Please clarify this requirement. |
| The section will be deleted. |
| 41. L |
| 4.2.5.3.4.1.8 |
| IMS activities |
| A few efforts such as program management, system engineering, risk management and preparation of monthly reports (Status, EVMS, etc) will likely extend over the entire 4 year effort. If broken up into 90 day blocks they will require ~ 16 activities each – guidance? |
| This requirement is addressed in the CDRL submissions. |
| 42. L |
| 4.3 |
| Proposal Risk |
| The requirement appears to be an explanation of the term Proposal Risk. All risk items that carry over into the execution phase become Program Risk. Recommend dropping the term Proposal Risk. It may add more confusion than clarity. |
| The paragraph has been rewritten to be more clear. |
| 43. L |
| 7.2 |
| Exceptions |
| The RFP repeatedly says that all proposal must be fully compliant and then L 7.2 defines exceptions, are exceptions acceptable if adequately justified? |
| Para 7.2, Section L, states, “…Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation.” Therefore, your rationale for the exception will be taken into consideration. |
| 44. Data Items |
| DIDs and CDRLs |
| Is the intent to have both for each item or one or the other for each and only one for each data item? |
| A CDRL is a list of the data requirements that are authorized to be acquired for a specific acquisition. A DID defines the data required by the contractor; it specifically defines the data content, format, preparation instructions, and intended use. Therefore, each CDRL will have a DID. |
| 45. WBS-Schedule |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Has something fundamental changed about Spiral 1, given the fact that we see tasks scheduled out to 2013? |
| The program is funded to be a 6-year effort (FY08-FY13); the WBS is for reference only |
| 46. WBS-Schedule |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Is the Spiral 2 structure of the project still planned for? |
| Yes, but not as a part of this contract |
| 47. Section L |
| 6 |
| Volume III: Cost |
| Do you have a target cost in mind for this RFP? |
| Yes, the allocated budget will be part of the final RFP. |
| 48. Section L |
| 4.2.5.3.4.1.11 |
| Completion of SRR, PDR, CDR, and TRR |
| What are the expectations from each type of design review? |
| Technical review criteria is governed by AEDC Standard SE-1. |
| 49. Executive Summary |
| N/A |
| The release of this notice, subsequent updates, and the draft RFP does not obligate the USG to release a final RFP or award a contract. |
| When do you expect to release the final RFP? |
How long of a response period do you anticipate?
The RFP is scheduled to be released by the end of February. There will be a 45 day response period.
| 50. SRD |
| N/A |
| General |
| Many attachments and references are not provided (i.e. SOW Att. 19, AEDC CM-1, AEDC SE-1, Att. 10, 14-15, 716,…) |
| Included in bidder's library (located in the STAT Community of Practice, Air Force Knowledge Now) |
| 51. Section L |
| 4.2.4.1 |
| A detailed description of the transition approach, addressing all aspects and activities of transition from development to a full-sustainment capability. |
| What is the customers schedule constraint for beginning and end of transition? |
| The only schedule constraints are IOC (at end of FY10) and FOC (at the end of FY13) |
| 52. Section L |
| 6.4.3.98 |
| Provide cost information using the Excel spreadsheet formats provided for WBS levels 1-3. Offerors may insert additional lower-level WBS elements as needed but must ensure imbedded formulas and summary totals continue to function properly after the insertion of any lower-level elements. Information in the Excel spreadsheets must agree and balance with MS Project information and the Cost Summary by Cost Elements (Table 6.4.3). (Note: The spreadsheet is still under development and will be provided upon completion.) |
| Cost Summary by Cost Element Spreadsheet - When will this be available? |
| The cost model was released on 17 Dec 07, Amendment 01 to the draft RFP. |
| 53. Section L |
| N/A |
| General |
| What is the desired frequency of PMRs and where are they to be conducted? |
| Potential offerors should identify the frequency, and their approach will be part of the feasibility evaluation of the proposal |
| 54. SRD |
| N/A |
| General (Sec. 2.1.2 for example) |
| Unless otherwise noted, are requirements assumed to be threshold? |
| No, there are 3 types of requirements: KPPs, thresholds, and objectives. Offerors must meet the KPPs to be technically acceptable. Requirements with threshholds and objectives are less important than KPPs, but are more important than all other requirements. |
| 55. SRD |
| N/A |
| General (Sec. 2.1.2 for example) |
| Many requirements are not verifiable. Please provide verifiable requirements. |
| These requirements reflect the intent to deliver a useful capability. While they may not be easily verified, an offeror's approach to achieve these will be used in the evaluation of their proposal. |
| 56. Section L |
| 4.2.2.3.4 |
| Describe the plans and activities to address mechanical, electrical, software and functional interoperability/interface requirements with internal/external systems/subsystems, suppliers, subcontractors, AEDC support contractor, and other Government organizations. |
| What are the interfaces between what PC is responsible for (safety, facilities operations) and what the on site contractor (ATA) will do? |
| Refer to updated block diagram which will be included in Final RFP. Offerors will propose the interfaces and will develop their RFP based on that concept. Final specifications and interfaces will be identified and baselined at the System Requirements Review (SRR). |
| 57. SRD |
| 2.5.1.8 (e.g.) |
| Control Room Equipment. The Control Room will be equipped with a video display system that incorporates three overhead projectors driven by a video processor that allows display of any STAT system computer or video signal on display screens mounted on the control room wall. A facility intercom system shall also be provided. |
| What relevant infrastructure (equipment, network, offices, structure) currently exists at the facility? 2.5.1.8 given as example of where this is unclear. |
| The only relevant infrastructure to be considered is the Space Systems Effects Facility (SSEF), Building 1088. |
58.
| What role will PC have in the facility preparation and maintenance? |
| While the AEDC operating contractor is contracted for facility operations, the successful offeror will be responsible for maintaining the system up to FOC. |
59.
| What are the software interfaces between the AEDC and PC? |
| Defined as part of the IPT structure. AEDC’s operating contractor will develop the DACS; the main software interface will be the interface between the source controls and the DACS and between the SOC connectivity and the DACS. Configuration management (CM) will meet AEDC standards. |
| 60. SRD |
| 2.2.1.2.5 |
| The Vacuum Chamber will be housed in a Class 10000 Cleanroom provided by the Government. All externally mounted systems shall be capable of operating in this environment (THRESHOLD). |
| Clean room – What size is it and what additional GFE will need to be housed? (Sec 2.2.1.2.5 states that the clean room is provided by the Gov. and that the vac chamber is housed in it.) |
| TBD as part of the development effort. |
| 61. Sec. L |
| 4.2.2.7.2 |
| "Identify how ESOH requirements will be met, including the elimination/minimization of hazardous materials and, if not possible, the minimization of ESOH risk." |
| Does this only apply to contractor haz mat or existing customer haz mat? If so, please provide clear definition of existing customer haz mat. |
| Existing materials currently meet all HazMat requirements. Anything introduced to the facility will be required to meet the same HazMat requirements. |
| 62. Sec. L |
| 4.2.5.9 |
| "The offeror shall describe an effective approach for coordinating day-to-day efforts/tasks/activities with the AEDC support contractor." |
| What are the support contractor's constraints and current capabilities? |
| AEDC’s operating contractor is constrained by their award-fee contract. Capabilities are adequate to develop and operate space simulation facilities. |
| 63. SRD |
| 2.1.5.2 |
| The offeror’s modular design and integration shall preclude long-term dependence on closed or proprietary interface standards, technologies, products, or architectures. Secure or classified data systems shall also conform to the modular design approach as much as practical. The design shall provide sufficient growth and open interface standards to allow future reconfiguration and addition of new capabilities without large-scale redesign of the system. (THRESHOLD). |
| What constraints are there with respect to examination of the hardware being tested? |
| There will be no constraints regarding examination of the unclassified surrogate test article that will be used during the development of STAT. |
| 64. SRD |
| 2.1.5.2 |
| The offeror’s modular design and integration shall preclude long-term dependence on closed or proprietary interface standards, technologies, products, or architectures. Secure or classified data systems shall also conform to the modular design approach as much as practical. The design shall provide sufficient growth and open interface standards to allow future reconfiguration and addition of new capabilities without large-scale redesign of the system. (THRESHOLD). |
| Can the facility be locked down only during classified equipment use, or will it be constructed/operated always in a classified mode? |
| There will be a closed SCI area. The remaining areas will be held as Temporary Secure Work Area (TSWA) in an unclassified mode with the ability to secure. |
| 65. DD254, Atch 3 |
| N/A |
| General |
| What is the expected turnaround time for clearance once billet requests are submitted? Is there a billet constraint from the customer? |
| AEDC expects to provide two billets, justified on a need-to-know basis. Turnaround time cannot be identified, as a separate agency is in charge of clearance investigations. |
| 66. SRD |
| 2.2.3.2 |
| STAT System Data. The contractor shall provide a 1 GigaBit/sec Ethernet connection to a STAT system computer allowing transfer of all STAT system data to the SOC. (THRESHOLD) |
| How much bandwidth is needed between the STAT and the SOC? Will the WAN connections be provided by the Contractor or by AEDC? |
| Fiber connections to SDREN will be provided by the Government. Any switches, routers, encrypters will also be provided by the Government. The 1 GigaBit/sec Ethernet requirement is to ensure the contractor uses gigabit ethernet inside the STAT facility. Actual data transfers to the SOC will take place at a much lower data rate. |
| 67. SRD |
| 2.5.1 |
| The contractor shall provide a Data Acquisition and Control System to monitor and control the entire STAT system. This Data Acquisition and Control System shall be composed of a Chamber Monitoring and Control System (CMACS), Source Supervisor Control Systems (SSCS), Test Article Data Acquisition System (TADAS), Cryogenic/Vacuum/Heater Control System, Chamber Wiring System, Contamination Monitoring System, Pressure/Temperature Measurement System, Control Room Display Equipment, Networking System, and Electrical Systems. Requirements for these systems are discussed below. |
| Will the hosts in the SSCS, CMACS, DACS, TADAS, Cryogenci/Vacuum/Heater Control System, and Control Room all be in the same physical location or near each other? |
| This will be up to the developer of the DACS, AEDC’s Operating Contractor. It is possible that all systems could be co-located. |
| 68. SRD |
| 2.5.1.1.1.4 |
| I/O Type parameter indicates the origin of the data. Values for this parameter can be "A/D" which indicates the analog/digital I/O subsystem is the origin, "ETHERNET" for data acquired via Ethernet, or “Reflective” for data acquired over reflective memory. |
| What are the physical connection of the “reflective memory” network? Can it be Ethernet, if so, will it be UDP Broadcast or UDP Multicast, or other protocol? |
| The majority of all AEDC DACS use reflective memory to distribute real-time data between computers systems for archiving, display, and control purposes. This is desired for the STAT DACS. The reflective memory uses optical fiber for physical connections between nodes. |
| 69. SRD |
| 2.2.3.2 |
| STAT System Data. The contractor shall provide a 1 GigaBit/sec Ethernet connection to a STAT system computer allowing transfer of all STAT system data to the SOC. |
| What other types of data will be flowing from the STAT to the SOC? Real-Time Test? Real-Time Video? Near Real-Time Test Data? Non-Real-Time Test Data? |
| Contractor design should accommodate any type of data that would be transmitted with the Concept of Operations statements in the SRD as a guideline. It is not anticipated that there will be an initial need for anything other than near-real-time test data and non-real-time test data. |
70.
| Does the contractor need to provide a Protection Distribution System infrastructure(fiber, copper, conduit)? |
| The Government provides. |
71.
| Can the contractor use existing AEDC infrastructure(fiber, copper, conduit) if available? |
| Yes. Fiber connections from the STAT facility to the AEDC Central Computing facility exist and may be used by the contractor. Infrastructure within the STAT facility does not exist and will be provided by the contractor. |
| 72. Section L |
| 4.2.2.3.3 |
| Describe how the system/software design will accommodate growth for upgraded and future capabilities over the STAT Spiral 1 life cycle. |
| What are the desired future capabilities? |
| Scalability to accommodate full-size test article (satellite) testing and to include additional or upgraded sources |
| 73. SRD |
| 1.2.5.2 |
| Laser blinding and heating systems capable of temporarily or permanently degrading or destroying satellite subsystems, thus interfering with satellite mission performance. |
| Uniformity of illumination of the test article must be ± x %? |
| Discussed in the classified SRD |
| 74. SRD |
| 1.2.5.2 |
| Laser blinding and heating systems capable of temporarily or permanently degrading or destroying satellite subsystems, thus interfering with satellite mission performance. |
| Thermal Upset - Is flood loading of entire test article surface required? |
| Discussed in the classified SRD |
| 75. SRD |
| 1.2.5.2 |
| Laser blinding and heating systems capable of temporarily or permanently degrading or destroying satellite subsystems, thus interfering with satellite mission performance. |
| Thermal Upset - Is there a specific wavelength(s) that must be used? |
| Discussed in the classified SRD |
| 76. SRD |
| 1.2.5.2 |
| Laser blinding and heating systems capable of temporarily or permanently degrading or destroying satellite subsystems, thus interfering with satellite mission performance. |
| Thermal Upset - Is there interest in loading specific localized areas on the test article to see the response? |
| Discussed in the classified SRD |
| 77. SRD |
| 1.2.5.2 |
| Laser blinding and heating systems capable of temporarily or permanently degrading or destroying satellite subsystems, thus interfering with satellite mission performance. |
| Blinding - Is flood loading of entire test article surface required? |
| Discussed in the classified SRD |
| 78. SRD |
| 2.2.9.1 |
| The STAT design shall address applicable Human Systems Integration (HSI) domains (manpower, personnel, training, human factors engineering, environment, safety, occupational health, personnel survivability, and habitability) to optimize total system performance, and minimize total operational cost (THRESHOLD). |
| Will a Laser Safety Officer be provided by the customer during operations? |
| Yes |
79.
| Does the dwell time on the test article match the time for test article to be in FOV from the ground during orbit? |
| Discussed in the classified SRD |
| 80. SRD |
| 2.2.4.2.7 |
| The proton environment at the test article shall have at least two simultaneous energies, 5 keV – 50 keV and 50 keV – 200 keV. (THRESHOLD) |
| What is the time scale? |
Does this preclude the rastering of selected beams What about variation of beam energies over short time periods SRD has been revised to state the simultaneous energy requirements and what is acceptable for techniques such as rastering.
81.
Proportional acceleration factors Limiting beam rates to 3x-5x ambient (UV solar exposure) Charged particle intensities vary widely over short time periods Uniformity of the exposure is a concern and should be addressed in the design approach.
| 82. SRD |
| 2.2.5.1 |
| Outgassing and Redeposition |
| Under what conditions will contamination be introduced? |
Effects are very deposition-rate sensitive. Also, What is the expectation of cleanliness given the desired use of outgassing sources?
Contamination will be introduced in the vacuum cryogenic environment. Contamination of anything other than the intended target (test article) should be eliminated and or minimized. The approach for contamination source shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal and defined in their design approach.
| 83. SRD |
| 2.2.1.4.6 |
| The vibration isolators shall be designed to operate at any height within their normal operating height range. The maximum travel for the fully down position shall be 0.5 in. or less (THRESHOLD). The normal operating position shall be 0.13 to 0.25 in. (OBJECTIVE). |
| Why does height of chamber need to be controlled so precisely? |
| Test article alignment issues. |
84.
| Have you considered the effects of secondary scattering of energy from certain sources? |
| Unwanted scattering components should be controlled and addressed in the design approach. |
| 85. SRD |
| 2.1.7.2.4 |
| System shall be designed to be maintainable allowing for any system to be operational within seven days after any failure (THRESHOLD). |
| Probably more of a factor of Supply Chain Management than anything else. Is this requirement solely based on maintenance time assuming spares are available and relief will be given for SCM issues? If we prepare our bid with enough spares to meet this requirement without relief then it will be extremely expensive. |
| The requirement has changed; this no longer applies. |
| 86. SRD |
| 2.1.7.4 |
| Training. The Contractor shall train the AEDC Operating Contractor staff to properly operate and maintain the STAT Spiral 1 System prior to Final Operational Capability (FOC), and provide all necessary training materials to establish a continuing STAT Spiral 1 training program (THRESHOLD). |
| Does this include source data for change management? Will PC be the change agent or will the customer take over change management? |
What kind of training is desired? CBT, Classroom, Simulation?
This requirement was changed. The successful offeror is responsible for CM until transfer to operations. Offerors should define what is their recommended approach for training and this will be part of the proposal evaluations.
| 87. SRD |
| 2.2.8.1.1 |
| STAT shall include health monitoring systems to support diagnostics/prognostics, using a combination of built-in test (BIT) and fault isolation (THRESHOLD). |
| Diagnostics and prognostics are not the same thing. Prognostics could be a very expensive application here given the time and resources needed to accumulate the data required to come up with the prognostic software. Diagnostics and BIT, on the other hand, while still expensive will be much more manageable for this application. If the customer truly desires a prognostic capability it would be better to decide in concert with the customer which systems are candidates for this capability…in order to limit the expense and provide the biggest effect on availability. |
| Diagnostics is what the system should do; prognostics predicts failure. We will change the requirement to reflect diagnostics only. |
| 88. Sec. L |
| 4.2.2.5.3.1 |
| Integrating maintenance and logistics processes and reporting systems that support STAT maintenance by the AEDC operating contractor. |
| What are the process and reporting constraints of the AEDC Operator? |
| AEDC Standards govern and define the processes. Constraints are financial, and the design should address life cycle cost. |
| 89. Sec. L |
| 4.2.2.5.4 |
| Factors that demonstrate the ease of maintenance, improved diagnostics, and increased system reliability to minimize the support and maintenance required. |
| Improved over what? Current systems at the customer? If so, what is the current status? |
| Design should identify unique approach for improved diagnostics (non-standard). The system does not exist, and there is no current status. |
| 90. SRD |
| Cover |
| Distribution Statement C |
| Although this document was on an open server AEDC requests limited distribution. |
| Yes, we do request limited distribution. The final SRD will be located in the bidder’s library on the STAT CoP, Air Force Knowledge Now. |
| 91. SRD |
| 2.2.1.1.6 |
| 2.2.1.1.6 The STAT Chamber System shall provide an overall line-of-sight jitter of less than ± 50 microradians from any simulation source to the test article (OBJECTIVE). |
| What is interface vibration? Also, this requirement appears to be tight. What is the driver? |
| Vibrational input to the chamber will be defined at PDR. Vibrational input to the chamber from surrounding areas will be measured by the AEDC support contractor prior to the Systems Requirements Review (SRR). The intent of the requirement is NOT meant to drive a seismic mass. |
| 92. SRD |
| 2.2.1.2.1 |
| 2.2.1.2.1 The Vacuum Chamber shall be sized to house the liquid nitrogen-cooled Cryoliner defined in Section 3.2.1.3. The Chamber shall have sufficient penetrations for the systems defined in Sections 3.2.4, 3.2.5, and Appendix A with vacuum isolation valves and/or windows, as necessary (THRESHOLD). In addition, the vacuum shell shall have vacuum instrumentation penetrations for all internal cabling. Furthermore, the vacuum shell shall have additional ports for cryopumps, turbopumps, and for future growth (OBJECTIVE). The port sizes and locations will be determined by the Chamber IPT. |
| Is the Chamber IPT the bidder's or the customer's? If it is the customer's, when will the sizes and locations be determined and what assumptions would you like us to make in order to bid this? |
| The offeror will chair the IPT, but it will be made up of representatives from the Government and AEDC’s Operating Contractor. For the purposes of proposal preparations, assume that all Systems Engineering decisions proposed by the IPT chair will be accepted. |
| 93. SRD |
| 2.2.1.2.3 |
| The Vacuum Shell shall provide the following interfaces for the Government-provided Vacuum System. The Vacuum System interface ports shall penetrate the Vacuum Shell at locations and sizes determined by the Chamber IPT. The contractor shall provide vacuum bellows for the roughing pump port with sufficient range to accommodate the vertical travel of any Vibration Isolation System. The Chamber Vacuum Shell shall have ports for ion gauges and a residual gas analyzer to be provided by the Government (THRESHOLD). |
| Is the Chamber IPT the bidder's or the customer's? If it is the customer's, when will the sizes and locations be determined and what assumptions would you like us to make in order to bid this? |
| The successful offeror will chair the IPT, but it will be made up of representatives from the Government and AEDC’s Operating Contractor. For the purposes of proposal preparations, assume that all Systems Engineering decisions proposed by the IPT chair will be accepted. |
| 94. SRD |
| 2.2.1.2.4 |
| The Vacuum Shell shall provide interfaces for the Government-provided Liquid Nitrogen System. The specific interfaces will be determined by Chamber IPT. The location of the supply and return lines will be determined by the Chamber IPT. The transfer lines for joining the bayonet fittings will have flexibility for installation and for isolation of external vibrations (THRESHOLD). |
| When will the interface definition be provided? Also, what is the external vibration level? |
| The interface definition for input vibration will be provided as part of the developmental effort by the IPT and defined at PDR. The external vibration is not known at this time but will be provided by the AEDC operating contractor before the Systems Requirements Review (SRR). |
| 95. SRD |
| 2.2.1.3.5 |
| The Cryoliner shall have removable end panels on each end, one of which interfaces with the penetrations for the simulation systems defined in Section 3.2.4, 3.2.5 and Appendix A (OBJECTIVE). |
| Need interface definition |
| Offerors shall address in their design approach. |
| 96. SRD |
| 2.2.1.3.6 |
| The Cryoliner shall also interface to the liquid nitrogen supply as defined by the chamber system IPT and return with bellows to accommodate thermal contraction during cooldown and warmup (THRESHOLD). |
| Need interface definition |
| Offerors shall address in their design approach. |
| 97. SRD |
| 2.2.1.3.7 |
| The Chamber Cryoliner shall provide internal mounting interfaces for all diagnostic system described in Section 3.2.8.1. and for the Test Article Positioning System described in Section 3.2.2.2. This system shall be cooled from the liner LN2 circuits with supply lines interfaced to separate Government-supplied circuits isolated with Government-supplied, vacuum-jacketed valves (THRESHOLD). |
| Need interface definition |
| Offerors shall address in their design approach. |
| 98. SRD |
| 2.2.1.4.1 |
| Control of relative vibrational movements between all critical simulation systems, diagnostic system, and the test article shall rely on mounting all components to a common structure isolated from external vibration sources. All internally mounted systems shall be mounted directly to the vacuum shell or indirectly through common structure attached to the vacuum shell or Cryoliner. Externally, the vacuum shell must be stiffened to control rigid body motion and/or flexure as well as shell panel vibration between stiffening rings and other reinforcing structural members (THRESHOLD). Care must be taken to tie all chamber components, including access port and head, with adequate structure to minimize relative motion (OBJECTIVE). |
| Please provide the stiffness and rigid body motion specifications and external vibration source PSD. |
| Offerors shall address in their design approach. |
| 99. SRD |
| 2.2.1.4.3 |
| The vertical natural frequency shall be less than 0.5 Hz. The horizontal natural frequency shall be less than 0.5 Hz. |
| Is this specification of the entire vacuum chamber? |
| Specification applies to the sources delivering the environment to the test article. |
| 100. SRD |
| 2.2.1.4.9.1 |
| Three tri-axial Seismic accelerometer sets will be provided to measure the vibration of the building floor, chamber, and isolated bench. These accelerometers shall have sensitivity greater than or equal to 1 V/g and sensitive over the 0.2 Hz to 2 kHz range. |
| What is the amplitude range? |
| +/- 5 g peak |
| 101. SRD |
| 2.2.1.4.9.2 |
| A dynamic data system will be provided to simultaneously sample all accelerometers, pressure, and position channels at a 16 bit resolution and 20 kHz rate. |
| Need interface definition |
| This system will interface to the Government-provided DACS system; the revised SRD more clearly defines this requirement and specifies that an ICD will be required between the prime contractor and the Government to define these interfaces. |
| 102. SRD |
| 2.2.1.4.9.3 |
| The data acquisition system will display and record real-time data. |
| Is this the Government system described in 2.2.1.4.9? |
| This system is the Dynamic data system referred to in 2.2.1.4.9.2. |
| 103. SRD |
| 2.2.1.5.1 |
| STAT shall meet a service life of 40 years at 1,300 hours per year operated per planned Air Force (AF) usage. (THRESHOLD). |
| Is this realistic and does this presume planned maintenance and replacements? How do you propose to verify the service life requirement? |
| Offerors should address the service life in their design approach. |
| 104. SRD |
| 2.2.2.2.2 |
| TAPS shall provide the ability to vary the angle of incidence to the Solar Simulation System in one axis to simulate realistic orbital solar incidence in real time (THRESHOLD) |
| Over what range? |
| Offerors shall address in their design approach. |
| 105. SRD |
| 2.2.2.2.3 |
| TAPS shall provide the ability to vary the angle of incidence to the other Natural Environment Simulation Systems in multiple axis to simulate realistic orbital incidence in real time (OBJECTIVE) |
| Over what range? Is req’t for motion of sat alone or separate motions of sources – if so how many combinations and what range? |
| Offerors shall address in their design approach. |
| 106. SRD |
| 2.2.3.1.1 |
| General Requirements. The contractor shall provide a secure data link between the STAT system and the Secret Defense Research Engineering Network (SDREN) to allow for transfer of classified (up to SECRET) data between the Satellite Operations Center (SOC) and various computer systems in the STAT system. Connections for system data, test article data, test article control, and STAT system control shall be provided. |
| Please provide complete data on connection type, BW, classifications, control functions |
| Should be addressed in the offeror's design approach, and it is up to the offeror to define the SOC requirements. |
| 107. SRD |
| 2.2.3.1.3 |
| SOC Hardware Connectivity. The contractor shall provide all fiber/copper/conduit hardware to connect the STAT system to the SOC SDREN connection. Additionally, all encryption hardware required to meet SDREN requirements shall be provided by the contractor. (THRESHOLD) |
| Where is the document on SDREN Standards located? |
| The successful offeror’s communication lead should know the SDREN standards. The encryption hardware will be provided by the Government. |
| 108. SRD |
| 2.2.3.2 |
| STAT System Data. The contractor shall provide a 1 GigaBit/sec Ethernet connection to a STAT system computer allowing transfer of all STAT system data to the SOC. (THRESHOLD) |
| Where is the STAT system computer to be located? |
| The STAT system computer corresponds to the DACS described in 2.5. A computer within the DACS will interface to the SOC. This computer will be located within the STAT facility. |
| 109. SRD |
| 2.2.3.3 |
| Test Article Data. The contractor shall provide a 1 GigaBit/sec Ethernet connection to test article ground test hardware, provided by a STAT system customer, allowing transfer of all STAT test article data to the SOC. (THRESHOLD) |
| Where is the customer computer to be located? |
| The customer’s computer will be located within the STAT facility. Possible locations include the control room or clean room. |
| 110. SRD |
| 2.2.4.2.7 |
| The proton environment at the test article shall have at least two simultaneous energies, 5 keV – 50 keV and 50 keV – 200 keV. (THRESHOLD) |
| Is it necessary for the beams to be operated simultaneously or could they be alternated on some time scale? |
| For the new threshold in this area they MUST be simultaneous. See the Objective for allowances of time scale. Note that the energy bands and fluences have changed slightly as well. |
| 111. SRD |
| 2.2.4.2.8 |
| The proton environment at the test article shall have at least four simultaneous energies, 0 – 20 keV, 20 keV – 80 keV, 80 keV – 200 keV, and 200 keV – 500 keV. Additional simultaneous energies are desired. (OBJECTIVE) |
| Is it necessary for the beams to be operated simultaneously or could they be alternated on some time scale? |
| For the new threshold in this area they MUST be simultaneous. See the Objective for allowances of time scale. Note that the energy bands and fluences have changed slightly as well. |
| 112. SRD |
| 2.2.4.3.6 |
| The electron environment at the test article shall have at least two simultaneous energies, 5 keV – 50 keV and 50 keV – 200 keV. (THRESHOLD) |
| Is it necessary for the beams to be operated simultaneously or could they be alternated on some time scale? |
| For the new threshold in this area they MUST be simultaneous. See the Objective for allowances of time scale. Note that the energy bands and fluences have changed slightly as well. |
| 113. SRD |
| 2.2.4.3.7 |
| The electron environment at the test article shall have at least four simultaneous energies, 0 – 20 keV, 20 keV – 80 keV, 80 keV – 200 keV, and 200 keV – 500 keV. Additional simultaneous energies are desired. (OBJECTIVE) |
| Is it necessary for the beams to be operated simultaneously or could they be alternated on some time scale? |
| For the new threshold in this area they MUST be simultaneous. See the Objective for allowances of time scale. Note that the energy bands and fluences have changed slightly as well. |
| 114. SRD |
| 2.2.5.1 |
| Outgassing and Redeposition |
| Please provide an explanation of the methods for outgassing. |
| Should be addressed in the offeror's design approach. |
| 115. SRD |
| 2.2.7.5 |
| A computer interface, acceptable to the Government, for each simulation system will be provided that allows a STAT system computer, provided by the Government, to transmit set point commands to each simulation system to control the simulation system output over the full operating range. Additionally, the computer interface shall provide the STAT system computer with simulation system output status and health status information detailing the current simulation system output, ancillary measurements, and general health. Information on this computer interface shall be updated at a rate of at least 2 Hz. An interface control document will be developed jointly by the IPT and provided to the Government at PDR detailing this interface. |
| Is additional control and monitoring outside local control computer to be provided to Government? |
| Additional control & monitoring shall be provided by the DACS (now GFE), specifically the Source Supervisor Control System (SSCS) system, which is a system of the DACS. |
| 116. SRD |
| 2.2.7.6 |
| Instrumentation, traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), shall be provided to validate, in-situ, the output of each simulation system. The Government prefers instrumentation that is deployed into the test article operating space, during testing, to validate simulation system output. However, if the contractor can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Government, the feasibility of measurements outside the test article operating space that validate the simulation system output, this measurement method will be accepted. The contractor shall provide any signal conditioning required for this information and supply and output of this instrumentation to a STAT system computer, provided by the Government. |
| This appears to require the contractor to have a local computer that takes and conditions diagnostic data – then relays formatted data to Government. Is this the intent? |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.