Pre-Solicitation_Questions_-_Post_to_FBO_(Updated).pdf

Para#

Reference Title Comment/Question Gov't Answer

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.

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.

Will a lower cost and more capable Inmarsat solution be considered?

No. The government requirement is an Iridium solution.

Will this SATCOM upgrade align with or mirror the Legacy

Pacer Crag Program No. This is a stand alone TCTO

Is Rockwell Collins the integrator of this program?

Collins Aersopace is the 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.

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 a/c; therfore, locations will be cited on each individual order.

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. (SOW 6.1)

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 will be standardized to reflect 30 consecutive hours after receipt of aircraft to include cure time. (SOW 6.1)

General Comments

Contract Details / Pricing Matrix

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 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.

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.

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 will be 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.

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 Page 57 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.

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 software delivery, integration, all testing activities (SIL, DT & OT), and certification of 2 aircraft.

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 software delivery, integration, all testing activities (SIL, DT & OT), and certification of 2 aircraft.

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

Yes

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 (France, Turkey, Chile, or Singapore).

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 and yes, that would be delivered 30 days ARO. However, no SIL delivery is required for the FMS aircraft.

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?

Testing will not be accomplished in the SIL for

FMS countries. CLIN X010 is intended to cover any required testing activities for the FMS countries, which is planned to occur on the aircraft in the FMS country. All FMS aircraft will be required to be upgraded to Block 40 or Block

45 prior to participation in this effort.

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.

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 BEQ for Group A kit and Group B kit reflect sparing

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. Both OC-135 aircraft are configured with Block 40, so should be inclusive in CLIN 0008.

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?

All FMS aircraft will be required to upgrade to

Block 40 or Block 45 before participation in this effort.

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.

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.

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.

Statement of Work (SOW)

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. However, the government reserves the right to adjust the schedule as necessary.

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 0005 & 0006).

The government will schedule the CFT installations and provide a schedule to the contractor (SOW 6.1).

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 contractor shall assume all USAF aircraft will be modified in CONUS. Since CFT Travel

(CLIN X002) is Cost Reimbursable, any change to this assumption shall not affect the price proposal.

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 will update the RFP to reflect.

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.

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 will update the SOW reference to clarify.

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 will change SOW 3.11.2 to indicate delivery of CDRL A015 draft and SOW

4.3 to include delivery of final CDRL A015.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 will be provided in the formal solicitation release.

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.

3.3.1.2 Interface

Configurations

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.

3.3.4

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.

3.6

System

Environmental

Requirements

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.

3.6

System

Environmental

Requirements

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.

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.

3.10.1 Statutory

Requirements

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 will correct SRD 3.10.1

3.10.3 Certification

Requirements

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 will update SRD 3.10.3.

Section L

Systems Requirements Document (SRD)

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.

Section 2.3.6 states "The technical volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal" and "The past performance and price evaluation will utilize information from each’s respective volume for the evaluation, but may also utilize information from other volumes as well." If you have attachments that apply to multiple volumes, then place those attachments in each volume it applies to.

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)

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.

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.

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 and PCO will update contract documents.

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 will update the SOW to reflect 2 deliveries.

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 will update the CDRL to reflect one delivery.

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.

Noted. The government will update the SOW and CDRL for consistency and to reflect two (2) deliveries.

Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL)

Section M