AERO-I_Additional_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

Question 1: Is or should Iridium Certus be the threshold, because legacy Iridium may go obsolete. Meaning, in case this happens what does the USAF Tanker office consider upgradable? Is it a subtle software update or a repeat of the Aero I current upgrade, replace hardware to support the initiative?

Government Response: The threshold is to replace the current capabilities of the system. The objective can be satisfied with any of the examples provided in this question. Draft SRD 3.3.4 (Growth Path) addresses this. Section L has been updated and the final version will call for a detailed strategy to address Growth Path.

Question 2: What do potential bidders do to ensure Collins helps/supports the required ACA per the draft RFP. Is there a published process [Redacted] missed or is there a preferred Collins contact you can provide all bidders?

Government Response: All potential bidders should contact Collins Aerospace to coordinate the ACA prior to submitting their proposal. The Collins Aerospace POC is Mr. Avinash Yadav, avinash.yadav@rockwellcollins.com, 319-295-1921 – this information will be shared with all bidders.

Question 3: Given Factor 1 (Technical) evaluation criteria is pass/fail and the best value evaluation is based on Past Performance and Price, there is no incentive for a company to propose a solution that meets any of the objective requirements if doing so requires a more expensive solution. Meeting objective vs threshold requirements will only provide value to the government if evaluation criteria exists as part of the best value evaluation. Please clarify how a solution meeting objective requirements can be evaluated more favorably than one that only meets threshold requirements.

Government Response: You are correct. The Government’s evaluation criteria does not value solutions above the threshold requirement. The Government’s primary objective is to meet the delivery schedules in an efficient and cost effective way. The evaluation criteria is based on the primary objective.

Question 4: The requirement for an ACA normally implies that the two parties will be performing under separate contracts. Given that an ACA is established with Rockwell Collins for the exchange of data and sharing of information for this program, it is unclear if the Government’s intention is that Rockwell Collins will provide support for software integration (SOW 3.5) and SIL Testing (SOW 4.1) as additional scope to an existing sustainment prime contract. Or, if a subcontract is needed on this contract to provide Rockwell Collins scope and funding for their support required by this SOW. Please clarify which party is responsible to contract with Rockwell Collins.

Government Response: The ACA is required for technical acceptability. The scope of the Aero- I requirement includes software integration and SIL testing which must be coordinated with Collins Aerospace (SOW 3.5). The Government does not intend to award a separate contract for those services. A subcontract with Collins is the most likely method of accomplishing the contract requirements.