Pre-Solicitation_Q&A's_(Round_2).pdf

Round

New or

Updated

Answer

Para# Ref Title Comment/Question Gov't Answer

We noticed that the time references specified are not consistent across all documents. Recommend using standardized time-references (months, calendar days, working days, etc.) for consistency purposes across proposals.

For any IMS and deliverable time references, we would propose using standard Government Working Days.

Noted. The references to calendar days/months and business days are intentional. Anything 10 days and under is referred to as "business days" and the rest is referred to as "calendar days". The government has reviewed all documents for consistency.

There appear to be several disparities with CDRL references, CDRL numbering, and CDRL delivery timing. Recommend a thorough review and clarification of the CDRL references, numbering, and delivery timing.

Noted. The government has reviewed/updated applicable CDRLs.

1 What is the acquisitions schedule, includiong RFQ and response time?

Milestones are included in the pre-solicitation conference briefing. The government reserves the right to adjust schedule as necesaary.

1 Will a lower cost and more capable Inmarsat solution be considered? No. The government requirement is an Iridium solution.

1 X Will this SATCOM upgrade align with or mirror the Legacy Pacer Crag

Program

No. This is a stand alone TCTO. The Iridium based SATCOM system must be

CNS/ATM compatible, i.e. fully integrated into our datalink network and become the primary method of transmitting ACARS messages in a BLOS configuration.

Control of the SCS is done via Control Display Unit and Interactive Multi-

Functional Display (IMFD) using the Interactive Hand Controller. The pilot

Control Display Unit (CDU-900) in primary mode or the copilot CDU in reversionary mode provides the SRT with aircraft present position, heading, attitude, inertial altitude, and ground speed over an ARINC 429 data bus.

1 Is Rockwell Collins the integrator of this program?

Collins Aersopace is the sole source avionics integrator for the C/KC-135

(SOW 3.5)

What percentage of the SATCOM capability do you expect to operate as safety services/ACARS/Cockpit Voice?

SRD 3.3 states “The Iridium SATCOM radio configuration shall provide at least one data packet channel and one voice channel to perform simultaneous voice and data links for communication.” As a result, the government has not assigned a percentage to voice or data transmissions.

Is the USAF KC-135 Program Office interested in SATCOM service/airtime?

Will the USAF procure directly or through another agency?

No. The government has already made arrangements for service contracts.

2 X

As currently defined in the Draft RFP, all bidders are required to establish bilateral agreements (i.e. Associate Contractor Agreement) with Collins

Aerospace prior to submitting final bids. Furthermore, to ensure compliance with Statement of Work paragraph 3.5 (inclusive of subparagraphs) it is implied that Collins Aerospace will be required to provide price input to each of the competitors. Provided this acquisition approach, can the government confirm

Collins Aerospace is not allowed to respond to this RFP? If not, and if Collins

Aerospace is also a competitor in this competition how will the integrity of the competition be maintained and avoid an apparent conflict of interest?

Collins Aerospace is permitted to submit a proposal if they choose to do so, this acquisition is a full and open competition. Collins Aerospace input is needed for the SIL testing and software integration portion of this effort. Collins

Aerospace has provided the Government with an organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan. The Government is satisfied that the mitigation plan proposed by Collins Aerospace will ensure the integrity of competition and that the mitigation plan will ensure Collins Aerospace pricing data will not prejudice prospective bidders.

2 X If an approach can be defined that does not require a Collins Aerospace ACA to integrate the SATCOM is that an acceptable alternative?

No. A stand alone solution that does not interface with the current avionics is not acceptable to the government. Additionally, it is a technical subfactor element so failure to produce an ACA would render the proposal technically unacceptable and not eligible for award.

1 X001 Type / Ship

To The delivery is stated as "Delivery: + TBC. Please provide definition of "TBC"

TBC stands for To Be Cited. At this time the Government doesn't know the location of all the aircraft; therfore, locations will be cited on each individual order.

1 X

States the X001 CLINs “Delivery shall be 3 per month ARO Order” does this mean no more than three per month and no sooner than 3 months ARO will first install begin in that year as defined in the SOW?

CLIN X001 is for CFT installation (labor only), which is anticipated to be scheduled at a rate of 3 aircraft installed per month. First installation is anticipated to begin in year 2 of the contract.

General Comments

Contract Details / Pricing Matrix

1 X001 Receipt

ARO

Implies that the installation time is expected to be 15 hours, not including cure time. Please clarify if 15 hours is total start to finish time, or expected to be total man-hours time. How did the Government determine 15 hours is appropriate for this installation?

All references have been standardized to reflect 30 consecutive hours after receipt of aircraft to include cure time.

1 X002 CFT Travel

Making this a cost reimbursible CLIN negates any opportunity for the CFT

Installation teams to be agile and efficient if travel requires pre-approval by the

Government COR, PCO, or ACO. This would remove the ability for the installer to make arrangements outside the JTR that could be cost beneficial to the Government (i.e. long term apartment leases, etc.). Recommend remove this CLIN entirely and allow proposal of all CFT activities, include travel, as part of the FFP installation CLIN X001. Alternatively, applicability of a Cost-

Reimbursible Travel CLIN could be reduced to non-installation related CLINs

(kit builds, O&A, FA Test, etc.), allowing for flexibility for the CFT Installation execution.

Noted. The government will proceed as currently stated. The documents have been standardized to reflect that the contractor requires coordination with the program office and not approval from the CO. The CFT installations will be at a rate of 3 per month. Per SOW 6.1, the contractor should plan on separate visits for each of the 3 aircraft. The government will attempt to group installations together, but that is dependent on aircraft availability. We already have a CLIN for O&A, kit builds, and FA test.

1 X002

States “Contractor shall provide travel estimate at request of contracting officer”. Also there are no CLINs x002 in the pricing sheet, does this mean the proposal does not have to provide an estimate for travel cost?

CLIN X002 is Cost Reimbursable and should not be included in the Total

Evaluated Price, so no estimate for CLIN X002 is requested.

1 X003

States Prices will be IAW the negotiated rates in the Price Matrix” Page 5 x003

(Over & Above Labor), does this mean we to supply only a rate and not an estimate of hours in the proposal submittal?

Yes

X003 &

X004

Direction provided

The contract states "no work shall be performed until directed by the ACO."

However, the SOW (3.13 & 3.14) states CO and COR. Recommend contract language and SOW scope statements are consistent for who can authorize work.

The contract has been changed to reflect CO and COR. There will not be an

ACO.

X003 &

X004

Pricing

Matrix

CLIN Description for 0103 & 0104 states Over & Above is based on 27 installs, however schedule in SOW states only 26 installs performed in Year 2, please clarify quantity required?

The correct quantity is 27 CFT installs in Year 2 and 35 CFT installs in Year 5.

The government has updated all documents to reflect this.

1 X004

States Prices will be IAW the negotiated rates in the Price Matrix” Page 5 x004

(Over & Above Material), does this mean we supply only a rate and not an estimate of material in the proposal submittal?

Yes

X005 &

X006

Part 4

Evaluation Cost Factors, X005 and X006 have cost of $13,500, does this represent the government estimate of a single Group A and Group B kit?

No. This represents the estimated cost the government will expend to support first article testing. It does not represent a cost to the contractor for material.

1 X010 Integration

CLIN X010 does not have reference in the Pricing Matrix for initial USAF integration (only for FMS Integration). There is also no reference to the applicable scope statements from the SOW. Recommend adding USAF

Integration to the Pricing Matrix, and updating the contract to reference paragraph 3.5 (Software Integration) as well as 4.1 (SIL Testing)

CLIN 0008 (First Article Delivery of Block 40) & CLIN 0009 (First Article Delivery of Block 45) include, but are not limited to, all activities for the NRE, black label

(final configuration) software delivery, integration, all testing activities (SIL, DT

& OT), and certification of 2 US aircraft.

1 X X010 Pricing

Matrix

Does not account for CLIN 0010, it is assumed this is the integration effort that performs the NRE and delivers the black label software to SIL based on the

“Solicitation/Contract Page 10 x010” does a CLIN 0010 need to be added and priced, and is this where all NRE is to be performed for the initial USAF Block

40 and Block 45 solution development?

CLIN 0008 (First Article Delivery of Block 40) & CLIN 0009 (First Article Delivery of Block 45) include, but are not limited to, all activities for the NRE, black label

(final configuration) software delivery, integration, all testing activities (SIL, DT

& OT), and certification of 2 US aircraft. CLIN X010 is the integration effort required for the FMS countries as these are not part of the first article deliveries.

Does USAF require Pricing on Optional FMS Integration, Group A, Group B, and Installs?

Yes

1 X If USAF requires pricing on FMS installs where will the installation occur

CONUS or “in country”?

The FMS installations shall be performed OCONUS in the FMS country. FMS countries are France and Turkey - Chile and Singapore have been removed from the requirement and will be reflected in the formal solicitation.

1 X X010 Page 10 States blacklabel software to be delivered to USAF SIL 30 days ARO, is this correct?

X010 is for the FMS integration effort only. The government has changed the delivery requirement for this CLIN to 12 months ARO. The blacklabel (final configuration) software shall be delivered to the FMS country after applicable integration/testing in the Collins Aerospace SIL.

1 X X010

States blacklabel software to be delivered 30 days ARO, for the FMS efforts does each country listed have a SIL? If not is testing only to be done on aircraft during the initial prototype install?

CLIN X010 is intended to cover any additional integration activities that will be required for the FMS countries. Testing will only have to be accomplished in the

Collins Aerospace SIL for France. Turkey will have the same configuration as the US Block 40 aircraft. Chile and Singapore have been removed from the requirement.

Pricing

Matrix Which CLIN does the government prefer to see Management and NRE priced?

NRE is included with CLIN 008 & 009 for the contract year 1. Management should be included in the appropriate CLINs for years 2-5.

2 X Pricing

Matrix General

How would the USG like to see the pricing matrix (Attachment 3) completed, given that the pricing matrix does not appear to be aligned with either aspect of the SOW?

The Pricing Matrix is a protected excel spreadsheet. You will only enter prices/rates in the yellow highlighted areas. The spreadsheet will automatically calculate the total cost. The SOW does not list the Best Estimated Quantity

(BEQ). It only lists the installation schedule in SOW 6. The BEQ is contained in the pricing matrix, which is broken out by contract year. The BEQ reflects sparing for Group B kit.

2 X Pricing

Matrix

Best

Estimated

Material

Costs

Please clarify/confirm the amounts listed in this column are suggested/recommended amounts provided by the government for each category within the CLIN as shown.

That's correct. The pricing matrix contains the BEQ for each year of the contract. CLIN X003 and CLIN X004 are estimates by the government.

2 X Pricing

Matrix

Best

Estimated

Material

Costs

Please clarify/confirm that the yellow highlighted "RATES" column is intended to show the factor by which the offeror would multiply the value provided in the

Best Estimated Materials Costs column.

There was an error with the formula for the "RATE" for CLIN X004. The amount entered should be a percentage to be applied to the government estimate of

O&A Materials.

2 X General

Since this program includes the purchase of COTS products, we assume the sale of all Iridium LRUs (B-Kit components including those needed to support

Non-Recurring Engineering, SIL assets needed to support SIL testing, and those needed for First Article installation) will be Commercial FAR Part 12 pricing, correct?

Yes. CLINs X006 will be priced IAW FAR 12.209 since these CLINs include only COTS items. The acquisition as a whole, however, will be priced IAW

FAR 15.4.

1 X 1 Scope

The scope section references production of Group A and Group B kits

(including spares); however, there is no reference to a quantity of spares.

Please provide the anticipated number of spares.

The scope section has been updated to refelect modification to an estimated

359 US aircraft. The BEQ for Group A kit and Group B kit reflect sparing. The government requirement for sparing is 10% of the Group B kit. The Group A kit does not require sparing.

2 X

3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 &

3.5

What is the correct alignment of production requirements provided in the Draft

RFP to the installations required (per Government Schedule) in the Statement of Work (page 18) and does this account for the SIL units (pages 7-8)

The government schedule in SOW 6 is an estimate of the aircraft to be installed per year. These amounts do not include sparing requirements, which has been clarified in SOW 3.1. There is no sparing for Group A kit and Group B kit requirement was estimated at 10%. The pricing matrix includes the sparing for the Group B kits. The SIL units are not factored into the Group B kit BEQ.

2 X 3.1 Group A and

B kits

Regarding the transceiver, according to the Industry Day Discussions slides 8-

9 May 2018: KC-135 Requirements (Slide 16) Mounting: Transceiver must meet the Dimensions: L-14.930 IN nominal, W-10.210 IN nominal, H-7.380 IN nominal (ARINC 600 form factor 8 MCU). Can the government please clarify the preferred dimensions of the Iridium SATCOM Transceiver requirement? Is there a preference for an 8 MCU transceiver, or is there a preference for a smaller (2 MCU) transceiver?

The dimensions listed are the size of the legacy transceiver. Other than fitting in the same avionics rack slot as the legacy transceiver, the government has no size preference. The replacement can be smaller. If the replacement is smaller, the contractor shall be responsible for the hardware necessary to mount the smaller replacement transceiver.

3.2 & 6-

Table 2

Open Skies

Aircraft

The Open Skies aircraft are identified in section 3.2 for integration; however, they are not specifically called out or detailed in the section 6 -Table 2 and the

Pricing Matrix. Are the two OC-135 aircraft part of the total C/KC-135 US

Aircraft identified in section 6, Table 2; and Section L Pricing? Are the OC-135 aircraft expected to be part of the CFT installs, or the PDM installs?

The two OC-135 aircraft are included in the total requirement identified in section 6 Table 2 and Section L Pricing Matrix. Both OC-135 aircraft are configured with Block 40, so should be inclusive in CLIN 0008.

1 3.3

FMS

Participation

The solicitation is for Block 40 and Block 45; but Chile and Singapore are Block

30, without an integrated Flight Management System (they do not have

GATM). Should Singapore and Chile be excluded, or is the Government requesting a federated installation of an Iridium solution on the Block 30 FMS aircraft for Chile and Singapore?

Chile and Singapore have been removed from the government requirement.

1 3.3

FMS

Participation

Turkey and France are identified as 40.6.3.; however, our last knowledge of the aircraft configurations indicates that is not the latest sofware versions on those models. Should the contractor assume all TCTOs necessary to upgrade to 40.6.3 will have been completed prior to this program, or should the contractor assume this upgrade will include those TCTOs?

Contractor should assume Turkey and France will be upgraded to 40.6.3 before participation in this effort.

Statement of Work (SOW)

1 3.4 Aircraft

Installation

Installation goes through 2024, but AERO-I goes away at the end of 2022; how will the unmodified aircraft cummunicate in 2023 and 2024?

That is outside the scope of this contract. However, the aircraft is equipped with

HF capability.

1 3.3 & 3.4 Aircraft

Installation

The FMS considerations are not accounted for in the Aircraft Integration &

Installation Strategy. What assumptions should be made regarding FMS integration and installation? Will FMS aircraft be modified by the FMS country, or as part of the USAF PDM, or should they be proposed as CFT installations?

If CFT, should the contractor assume installations will take place in CONUS or in-country? Should these be priced separately as options?

FMS installations shall occur in the FMS country via CFT installation. The pricing matrix contains separate optional CLINs designated by country, year, and number of aircraft. It also includes separate optional CLINs for any integration efforts.

1 X

3.4 & 6-

Table 2

Aircraft

Installation

The Government Schedule in Section 6 Table 2 definitely outlines only 134

CFT installations are expected. Should the contractor assume no more than

134 total A/C will be upgraded by the contractor, or is there opportunity for additional quantities if an acceleration of the installation schedule is feasible?

The BEQ for this contract is 134 CFT installations of US Aircraft and 10 CFT installations of FMS aircraft. However, the government reserves the right to adjust the schedule as necessary.

1 X

3.4 & 6-

Table 2

Aircraft

Installation

The SOW states "The contractor shall include utilization of CFT and PDM when building the installation schedule." What does the Government expect from the contractor for scheduling PDM installations? The Contractor should be responsible for scheduling the CFT installations that they are performing, and including engineering support to the Government PDM installations.

Would the Government not be responsible for scheduling organic PDM installations.

The government will accomplish PDM installations on an established schedule.

The contractor will provide Group A and Group B kits to support PDM installation (CLIN X005 & X006). The government will schedule the CFT installations and provide a preliminary schedule to the contractor at the post award conference and a final schedule after the first article deliveries (SOW

6.1).

1 X 3.4 Aircraft

Installation

The OCONUS USAF A/C do not appear to be accounted for within the SOW

(Eielson, Hickam, Mildenhall). Will the OCONUS USAF A/C be modified as

CFT or PDM? If CFT, should the contractor assume they will be modified at the owning unit location (i.e. Alaska, Hawaii, England)?

The government intent is that all USAF aircraft will be modified in CONUS.

However, OCONUS travel may be required to support aircraft in Alaska, Hawaii, England, and Japan. Since CFT Travel (CLIN X002) is Cost

Reimbursable, the location should not affect the price proposal.

2 X 3.5c Software

Integration

The SOW states that 4 test lines at Collins Aerospace's SIL will be modified to enable over-the-air transmission testing to the CNS/ATM and TACC. Is 4 test lines a hard requirement? If testing can be accomplished on fewer than 4 test lines, would the Government consider proposals to modify fewer than 4 test lines?

No. Modification of 4 test lines is a government requirement.

1 3.11.1 PDR

There is a disparity between the referenced document and the CDRL number for item (f) under the Entry Criteria lists "System Security Management Plan

(Final) (A011)." The SSMP is listed as A007 while the SEMP is listed as A011.

Please confirm the the proper document required for entry to the PDR (Is it the

System Security Management Plan - A007 or the SEMP - A011?)

Depending upon the answer, the corresponding DD Form 1423-1, block 5, may need updated for the SOW reference.

Noted. The government has updated the SOW paragraph 3.11.1 to reflect delivery of CDRL A007.

3.13 &

3.14 O&A

Typically there is a formal O&A process put in place by DCMA. The SOW states O&A requests must be submitted to the CO and COR; however, the authorization is stated as having to come from the CO, and then the Contract states authorization is from the ACO. Please provide some clarification of the intended approval process. Recommend a formal O&A process be coordinated with DCMA, and provided by the Government.

There will not be an ACO. The government has updated the RFP to reflect.

1 4.2 FCA/SVR

The SOW references the FCA/SVR to take place prior to the TRR. Typically the FCA would come after SIL and/or prototype testing, and before LRIP.

Please provide clarification of which TRR is intended, and/or a better description of the timing anticipated for the FCA/SVR.

FCA/SVR will occur before the TRR detailed in SOW 4.2. This schedules it between SIL testing and first article installation.

1 4.3 TRR

The SOW defines this as a Test Readiness Review; however, the requirements read much more like an Aircraft Modification Readiness Review.

Within our processes there are several different Test Readiness Reviews (FQT-

TRR, GTRR, FTRR, etc.). Please clarify which Test Readiness Review this is describing.

The TRR defined in SOW 4.3 covers Aircraft Test and Aircraft Modification

Readiness Review (AMRR). The government has updated the SOW reference to clarify.

1 4.3 TRR

CDRL A015 indicates that the final delivery of the SRVM will be 7 days prior to

TRR but this CDRL is not listed in SOW 4.3. Please clarify to which TRR the

SRVM is due 7 days prior. This may require update to the CDRL A015 DD

Form 1423 Block 5 and/or update of the SOW Section 4.3 to call out CDRL

A015.

The government has changed SOW 3.11.2 to indicate delivery of CDRL A015 draft and SOW 4.3 to include delivery of final CDRL A015.

1 4.4.c DT/OT

This section provides instructions for the initial "First Article" installations of the system onto the aircraft as well as support for the performance of

Developmental Test and Operational Test. It does not provide detailed information as to the intended scope the contractor will provide in support of the Government's DT/OT testing. Please clarify the requirements for support of

DT and OT for the first two A/C installations. What is the intend of 4.4(d)?

What durations does the Government expect for DT and OT?

Contractor support for DT shall include on-site installation and test. Support for

OT will be phone support.

1 6,Table 2 Installation

There appears to be some disparity regarding the quantities of installs between the SOW Table 2 (indicates 26 A/C in contract Year 2 & 36 in Year 4) and the

Section L Pricing matrix (indicates 27 in year 2 & 35 in Year 4). Please clarify the quantities desired and ensure they match across all RFP documentation

(SOW, Section L, SRD).

The correct quantity is 27 CFT installs in Year 2 and 35 CFT installs in Year 5.

The government has updated all documents to reflect this.

1 6.1

CFT

Installation

The Installation schedule is left open ended in the SOW and will need to be more clearly defined in order to provide an accurate proposal. Will the government provide the installation schedule with locations and number of aircraft with the RFP?

The precise location cannot be determined until a contract is awarded and the

Block 40 and Block 45 first articles have been delivered. After that point, the government will coordinate a schedule to install 3 aircraft per month based on mission availability. (SOW 6.1) Since CFT Travel (CLIN X003) is Cost

Reimbursable, the location of the install should not affect the Total Evaluated

Price.

1 6.1

CFT

Installation

The SOW states the installation shall not exceed 30 hours after receipt of each aircraft, to include sealant cure time. Please clarify the intent of this statement.

Is it 30 total hours or 30 man-hours? How did the Government determine the number of hours is appropriate for this installation, and does the 30 hour requirement apply to the 2 initial prototype installations as well?

The government requirement for each CFT installation shall not exceed 30 consecutive hours. This does not include the aircraft involved with the first article deliveries.

1 6.1.1 Disposition

Instructions

The SOW states the contractor will be responsible for shipping the removed components (antenna and transciever) to the DLA Distribution Center at

Warner Robins AFB. Since the CFT installations are taking place on USAF bases; would it not be more logical for the base supply to send the removed components to the DLA Distribution Center?

The contractor shall be responsible for the packaging and shipping to the government-specified destination. The destination and final dispostion instructions have been updated in the SOW and will be provided in the formal solicitation release.

1 6.1.3 Travel

There appears to be some disparity between the travel instructions provided in the SOW, and the model contract. The SOW states that the contractor shall not travel without coordination with the PO, and only after a travel request has been made to the CO; however, it also states that the contractor shall be responsible for travel to and from each location. The model contract has CLIN

X002 as a Cost Reimbursible CLIN. Please clarify the intent for the contractor to be responsible for travel to and from the CFT locations, if the Program Office and Contracting Officer must approve all travel. Recommend making CFT travel part of the FFP Installation CLIN X001, to avoid confusion and excessive administrative burden associated with the Government approval process, and to allow CFT teams the flexibility to manage the installations efficiently.

Noted. The government will proceed as currently stated. For clarification, the contractor is responsible to make the travel arrangements to and from each location after coordination with (not approval from) the Program Office.

2 X Attachme nt 3

Where in the production plan are the Open Skies aircraft installations captured?

The two OC-135 aircraft are included in the total requirement identified in section 6 Table 2 and Section L Pricing Matrix. Until the contract is awarded and the first article deliveries have been made, we cannot determine whether

Open Skies aircraft would be accomplished via PDM installation or CFT installation.

1 3.3.1.2

Interface

Configuratio ns

The following is a "will" but is labeled with a T=O implying requirement:

SAT#1 on the Interphone Audio Control Panel (IACP) will be used to select the replacement SATCOM service (T=O). Recommend updating "Will" to "Shall":

SAT#1 on the Interphone Audio Control Panel (IACP) shall be used to select the replacement SATCOM service (T=O).

Noted. The government will proceed as currently stated.

Systems Requirements Document (SRD)

1 X 3.3.4 Growth Path States an objective is growth path to IRIDIUM NEXT, all satellites in orbit are part of the NEXT constellation is this a reference to the CERTUS capability?

Yes. The growth path is to Certus Broadband capability.

2 X 3.3.4 Growth Path

Note that the Iridium Next constellation of satellites is active now, so all legacy

(“Block 1”) Iridium flight deck hardware solutions offered will operate over the

Next satellites. Iridium offers a new IP-based solution (called Certus

Broadband) over the Next satellites. Please note that an additional Iridium antenna dedicated to Certus would be required for higher throughput speeds

(in addition to the “Block 1” Iridium voice and Iridium Safety Service antenna).

Is the required growth path to support Iridium Certus Broadband?

Yes, the intention of this program is to replace the current capabilities of the existing INMARSAT SATCOM system, including matching current throughput speeds. The growth path includes all modifications necessary to support Iridium

Certus Broadband.

2 X 3.4.1 Mounting

Location

According to the Industry Day Discussions slides 8-9 May 2018: KC-135

Requirements (Slide 16) Mounting: Transceiver must mount in SATCOM 2 location. Can the government please clarify the exact mounting location of the

Iridium SATCOM Transceiver requirement, SATCOM 1 or SATCOM 2 location?

The government requirements have changed since the initial Industry Day. The transceiver must mount in SATCOM 1 location per SRD 3.4.1 which states

"The SATCOM replacement transceiver shall be mounted in the same position as the legacy satellite transceiver in the electronics cabinet. The SATCOM transceiver size shall allow for proper airflow and circulation to prevent overheating."

1 3.6

System

Environment al

Requiremen ts

The SRD states that the system "shall comply" with the environmental criteria tailored to the C/KC-135 environment as detailed in Table 1; however, it also states that the system will leverage Commercial-Off-The-shelf (COTS) Iridium systems to the maximimum extent possible. Will the government accept DO-

160G EMI compliance in lieu of MIL-STD-461G given the SRD requirement in

3.8 which states the SATCOM replacement system shall leverage COTS

Iridium Systems? If not, once the specific sections of MIL-STD-461G are defined, will the government accept a "Test and Declare" strategy for the MIL-

STD-461G tests?

The contractor will need to include a plan covering how they will meet MIL-STD-

461G if the contractor's solution does not already comply.

1 3.6

System

Environment al

Requiremen ts

The SRD states that the system shall achieve equipment emission and susceptibility requirements IAW with MIL-STD-461(G). What sections of MIL-

STD-461G are required? Please clarify which sections and specific test levels are required from MIL-STD-461G. As written, the requirement implies all sections of MIL-STD-461G apply and at the highest test levels.

The government will add a MIL-STD-461G section to in the SRD.

2 X 3.6

System

Environment al

Requiremen ts

Can the Government provide the specific sections and specific test levels that will be required from MIL-STD-461G in the final Government response to

Industry questions? Does the Government intend to reissue updated draft

RFP documents with changes before the RFP?

No - the government will not provide specific MIL-STD-461G testing requirements in the response to questions. However, it will be provided in the final solicitation package. The government does not intend to release updated draft RFP documents before the final solicitation.

1 X 3.6

DO-160

Table

The DO-160 table test method / procedure has some ambiguity. DO-160 table:

If the table doesn't specify which component is to be tested, are we to assume it applies to all components, and if it does specify, then it only applies to the component called out? (i.e. Waterproofness says "test antenna per paragraph

10.3.3"). Does this mean the transciever does not have to be tested for waterproofness?

The government will clarify the DO-160G testing table in the SRD as part of the final solicitation package.

2 X 3.6

DO-160

Table

Can the Government clarify the DO-160G Testing Table in the final

Government response to Industry questions? Does the Government intend to reissue updated draft RFP documents with changes before the RFP?

No - the government will not clarify the DO-160G testing table in the response to questions. However, it will be provided in the final solicitation package. The government does not intend to release updated draft RFP documents before the final solicitation.

1 3.10.1

Statutory

Requiremen ts

The statement is a duplicate of the 3.10.2 Regulatory Requirements statement.

Recommend updating the 3.10.1 statement for applicability to the Statutory

Requirements. "No additional statutory requirements identified except for any outlined in the previous sections."

Noted. The government has updated SRD 3.10.1

1 3.10.3

Certification

Requiremen ts

The SRD lists the required certifications and their respective guidance. Does the Government expect the contractor to acquire the Specrtum Certification, or to provide necessary test results for the government to acquire the certification?

The contractor is expected to supply necessary test results for the government to acquire the Spectrum Certification. The government has updated SRD

3.10.3.

Section L

1 X 2.3.3 Binding

Section 2.3.3 says all attachments shall be separately bound in three ring binders. Section 2.5 says each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three ring binder. How is the contractor expected to bind volumes that contain multiple attachments? Please provide clear consistent requirements for binding of the sections, volumes, attachments, etc.

The government intent is that attachments are contained within the relevant volume. Section L 2.3.3 has been updated to reflect "The attachments identified in the table shall be bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary, within the related volume."

2.2.2.sub

.2

Small

Business

Must have minimum 8% Small Business participation. Does the Government intend to apply the 8% small business participation across the entire contract value, or only to certain sections/CLINs of the contract?

The government requirement is for at least 8% of the offeror's price proposal.

(Section L 3.2.4 and SOW 3)

2 X 2.2.1.a

Subfactor 1:

Aircraft

Installation

& Integration

Strategy

2.2.1.a. states the approach shall meet the system requirments specifications listed in the SRD paragraph 3 and Appendix A. Then specifically references in parenthases, SOW 3, SOW 3.5, and SOW 4). Can you clarify which specific sub-paragraphs within SOW 3 and SOW 4 should be included in the technical writing? Is it all of them, or only certain ones?

Section L 3.2.3. has been updated to clarify the SOW paragraphs that should be sepcifically addressed. In addition to the 6 items already listed from the

SRD, SOW 3 Requirements, SOW 3.5 Software Integration, SOW 4.1 SIL testing and SOW 4.4 DT/OT should be addressed.

2 X 2.3.2.2 Relevancy

Assessment

Please clarify/confirm that the use of the term “heavy aircraft” is a reference to aircraft capable of 300,000 lb or greater takeoff weights as identified by the

FAA (ref AC 90-23G).

Will change requirement to be heavy and large. The government defines a heavy aircraft as capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or greater and a large aircraft as capable of more that 41,000 pounds maximum certified takeoff weight up to 300,000 pounds.

2 X 2.3.2.2 Relevancy

Assessment

Considering the focus of the KC-135 AERO-I Replacement work is integration and installation, which is not affected by aircraft size/type but rather the system itself, would the government consider performance of work "very relevant" if supporting aircraft other than "heavy aircraft" as defined above?

Will change requirement to be heavy and large. The government defines a heavy aircraft as capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or greater and a large aircraft as capable of more that 41,000 pounds maximum certified takeoff weight up to 300,000 pounds.

2 X 2.3.2.2 Relevancy

Assessment

Can the USG provide insight into past performance evaluations for programs that are significantly similar in type (SATCOM installation) but on lower Max

Takeoff Weight military or civilian aircraft?

The government has changed the aircraft category to include large aircraft.

1 General

There does not appear to be any format indicators for the CDRLs. Please specify the proper anticipated format. Recommend contractor format where applicable.

Noted. The government will specify what format is required in each of the DD

1423's.

1 General

There is some disparity regarding the deliverable dates. Some places specify business days and some indicate calendar days and some are not specific.

Please provide consistency as to the delivery dates. Recommend using

Government working days where possible.

Noted. The references to calendar days/months and business days are intentional. Anything 10 days and under is referred to as "business days" and the rest is referred to as "calendar days". The government has reviewed all documents for consistency.

1 General Solicitation/Contract Page 8 x007 references CDRLs A001-A036, my assumption is this should be A001 – A043 as noted in SOW and 1423s?

Noted. The government has updated all documents.

1 A007 CDRLs -

(SSP)

CDRL A007, block 16 implies that there will be two (2) deliveries of the SSP but the SOW only lists A007 in association with Section 3.10.1 for the SRR.

Please reveiw the CDRL references for accuracy of references to SOW paragraphs. For this instance, we recommend updating the SOW Section

3.11.1 to call out A007, and update CDRL A007 to list SOW 3.11.1 in Section

5.

Noted, the government has updated the SOW to reflect 2 deliveries.

1 A034 CDRLs -

(SVD)

CDRL A034 - Software Version Description (SVD) calls for a single delivery in block 14 but lists both a Draft and Final (2 deliveries) in Block 16. Please review the CDRLs and references for accuracy of references to the SOW paragraphs, as well as the anticipated number of deliveries.

Noted, the government has updated the CDRL to reflect one delivery.

1 A023 CDRLs -

(AT)P

CDRL A023 is unclear as to the number and timing of deliveries for this item. In

Block 16, the description of the submissions (Block 10,12,13) list both a Draft and a Final and both are scheduled for 30 business days prior to TRR. Please review the CDRLs and references for accuracy of references to the SOW paragraphs, as well as the anticipated number of deliveries. Please clarify the

ATP delivery schedule.

N+A1:G86oted. The government will update the SOW and CDRL for consistency and to reflect two (2) deliveries.

Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL)

Section M