L-2 H1 Lot VII_VIII Industry Day QA_Final.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted Jul 20, 2022

Attached to: RFP for H-1 Training Device Modernization Program Procurement, Upgrades to AH-1Z and UH-1Y Flight Training Devices
Solicitation number: N6134022R0030
Issued by: Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Att 8 NPSI Datasets and DA.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
Exh A H-1 TDMP Lot 7 ENG_ADMIN CDRLS DRAFT.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2022
Att 6 GFI_GFS List H-1 Lot 7_8.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jul 20, 2022
Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
L-1 H1 Lot VII_VIII Question Form.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jul 20, 2022
L-3 H-1 GFI Request and NDA Form.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2022
H1 Lot 7_8 RFP Final.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
Exh D H-1 TDMP Lot 8 Logistics CDRLs DRAFT.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2022
Att 1 SOW 210044 Rev A H-1.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
L-4 NPSI Sample Datasets and DA.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
Att 4 DIT Form.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
Exh E H-1 TDMP Lot 8 Tech Pubs CDRLs DRAFT.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2022
Exh C H-1 TDMP Lot 8 ENG_ADMIN CDRLS DRAFT.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2022
Att 7 H-1 GFI Request and NDA Form.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2022
Att 3 DD 254 H-1 LOT 7_8.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
Att 9 OT-22-20033 VSER.pdf	PDF	Jul 20, 2022
Att 5 GFP_GFE List H-1 LOT 7_8.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jul 20, 2022
Exh B H-1 TDMP Lot 7 Logistic CDRLs DRAFT.docx	DOCX document	Jul 20, 2022

Show all 18

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Questions

General Information
Offeror Name:	Industry Day Questions
RFP Number:	N6134022R0030

	#	Document
(PWS, RFP, Attachment)	Reference Paragraph	Question	Answer
	1	RFP	L Para 3.0 p73	Section 3.0 states, “ The Volume/Factor cover sheet, if used, and any included table of contents pages, if used, will not be considered as part of the page limit and will not be evaluated.” Will the acronym list and the revision page also be excluded from the page limit?	Yes, Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3 of the RFP has been updated.
	2	RFP	L.1, Part A, Subparagraph 2.4 Hyperlinks, p73	Section L.1, Part A, Subparagraph 2.4 HYPERLINKS states, « The offeror shall not use hyperlinks in proposal volumes.» Question : This Offeror interprets « hyperlinks » to mean as clickable URLs that connect the reader to websites outside of the proposal volume. Will the Government permit Offerors to use live cross references within the proposal volume that reference the Reviewers to other sections in the proposal?	No, the RFP is correct and no clickable URLs regardless of the linked location are allowed.
	3	RFP	L.1, Part A, Subparagraph 7. (GFI) p76	Are Offerors required to fill out a GFI Request Form ? If so, will the Government provide the form ? Will the Government provide the GFI during the draft stage of the proposal ?	No, a special form to request the GFI is not required. The GFI list will be provided with the RFP. Specific GFI documents are available by request via email.
	4	RFP	Section L 2.2 and 4.1 p72	Reference sub-paragraphs below : Which process should we utilize to submit the solicitation ? Sec 4.1 states to use PIEE and Section 2.2 states to use DoD Safe.	PIEE will be used for submission. Section L, Part A, Paragraph 2.2 has been updated
	5	RFP	CLINs 0600, 0601, 0602, 0700, 0701, 0702, 1600, 1601, 1602	CLINs 0600, 0601, 0602 seem to duplicated, as well as CLINs 0700, 0701, and 0702. Please clarify whether this order of CLINs is correct.	The order of these CLINs are correct. The CLINs all specify different upgrade requirements and are not duplicates. Please see Section C of the RFP for SOW requirements.
	6	RFP	L.1, Part A, Subparagraph 5. Solicitation Questions, p75	Section L.1, Part A, Subparagraph 5. Solicitation Questions shows the due date for questions as 24 August 2021. What is the correct due date ?	Please plan for 45 days after the final RFP is issued.
	7	RFP	L.1, Part B, Subparagraph 1.1 and Subparagraph 2.3, line item “b.” p76	Section L, Part B, Subparagraph 1.1 and Subparagraph 2.3 both ask Offerors to address assumptions, conditions, exceptions, deviations, and requests for waivers. Should Offerors address these items in both the Technical and Price Volumes or in only one of those Volumes ? If so, which Volume ?	These items are to be addressed in their repsective Technical and Price Volumne, which are separate volumes.
	8	SOW 210044	3.2.1.8 p24	SOW 210044, Paragraph 3.2.1.8 lists device 2F277-2. Should that device be listed as 2F227-2? If 2F227-2 is the correct device, we recommend this section simply state: “The contractor shall replace the external control light panels to meet the requirements listed in PRF 20037 for all devices.”	The SOW has been changed to reflect 2F227-2.
	9			For the Aechelon Visual ICD we are interested in what this visual system returns in terms of “Height of Terrain” and “Line of Sight” requests. In general the ICD would provide us with this information as well as all the visual return information.	Please reach out to Aechelon for assistance. The contract in which Aechelon was a subcontractor (Lot V), the ICD was not a deliverable.
	10			For the Aero COPTER GTR Model the request is just for general information on the interface to the simulation and controls subsystems.	Please reach out to Bell Helicopter for assistance.
	11	RFP	Section L.3	It is understood in Sections L & M that the Government only wants the contractors to provide a proposed solution for the two devices currently at K-Bay. With the amount of requirements and different configurations for each of the remaining devices, we believe a longer proposal that discusses the top-level solutions for the other training devices as weel would provide the Government with additinal detail to make a Best Value award for the H-1 trainers.	The Government has reviewed industry comments post the site visit and has updated section L & M.
	12	General	Industry Day	During the Industry Day, the Government noted that the anticipated period for delivering the proposal would be 30-days. Due to the number of devices and the amount of quotes that will need to be received from various vendors and other companies, can the proposal due date be increased to 45 or 60 days after RFP release?	The RFP will be due in 45 days from issuance.
	13	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.14	Should Container Design (3.2.1.15) and Grounding System (3.2.1.16) be indented under 3.2.1.14, becoming 3.2.1.14.1 and 3.2.1.14.2?	Yes. SOW has been updated.
	14	SOW	SOW 3.1.3.1.1	With a DBA for each aircraft defined, do all of the devices match the cockpit hardware and software configruation of the respective aircraft, except for the items identified as TECRs and DRs?	Yes, all of the devices match the cockpit hardware and software configruation of the respective aircraft, except for the items identified as TECRs and DRs
	15	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.6.2 and 3.2.1.6.3	Can the Government further define the difference between an IOS Monitor Replacement and an IOS Monitor Upgrade? What is the intent of Upgrading a monitor without Replacing it?	Yes, there is not a difference. It is now labeled IOS Monitor Replacement.
	16	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.4, PRF 3.1.11.1.x	Do any of the devices have current Link 16 capabilities? Does the TEN include all of the required Link 16 messages?	No devices currently have Link 16 capabilities. The TEN has all of the required Link 16 messages listed in the H-1 Performance Specification, under Increment One. The messages listed under Increment Two, are currently in work under the ADTVE group.
	17	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.5, PRF 3.1.12	Which devices currently have a DORT capability? Does the existing DORT meet the requirements of the PRF?	Only 2F227-2, 2F227-3, and 2F227-4 have DORT capability. They meet existing DORT requirements of the PRF.
	18	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.7.6 and 3.2.1.7.7	Which, if any, of the trainers use only one computer to drive both the existing control loading system (CLS) and the secondary cockpit shaker systems?	2F227-2, 2F227-3, 2F227-4
	19	PRF	PRF 3.1.4.1.2	Please provide a list of the surface ships and aircraft that need to include airwake effects? The TEN has the capability to add hundreds of different types of ships and aircraft.	All ships and aircraft modeled in the TEN require airwake effects.
	20	PRF	PRF 3.1.3 and others	Except for the listed TECRs and DRs, do all the trainers meet all the PRF requirements called out in the PRF 3.1.3.x? These are very broad reaching requirements.	Yes.
	21	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.10.a/b	Does the Government have rights to all the source code and data files needed to modify the ATG system, including: trimmers, scripts, criteria data, plot files, configuration files, etc.	Yes.
	22	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.10, PRF 3.1.8.1.2	Does the existing ATG system meet all of the PRF requirements?	The results do not perfectly meet the specification but they were satisfactory to the previous contracts expectations. The ATG test itself works.
	23	SOW	SOW 3.2.1.10	Is there a User’s Guide for the existing ATG system for the different types of devices?	The ATG is an automated test. The Test Procedures detail how to run the ATGs.
	24	PRF	PRF A.3.2.1.1	Which version of CIGI is currently implemented on each of the 16 devices?	None of the trainers at Camp Pendleton have CIGI. They have their own interface to connect to VITAL. 2F227-2, 2F227-3, 2F227-4 utilize CIGI Version 3.
	25		General	Is there any source code on any device that is proprietary for which the Government does not have GPR? Host, IOS, CLS, Cockpit Shaker, I/O, ATG, etc.	No.
	26		Industry Day	At the Industry Day, the Government Team discussed that their preference would be for the contractor to perform the modifications to each device in a smaller phased approach, instead of all mods to one trainer at the same time. This may increase the overall downtime for a device. How would the Government want the contractor to bid this effort?	Per the final issued RFP.
	27		General	Are any of the devices CLASSIFIED? What restrictions are there on facility access for contractor personnel without an active clearance, for CLASSIFIED or UNCLASSIFIED devices?	Yes. Devices connected to ADVTE are classified. All H-1 trainings at MCAS New River and Camp Pendleton are connected to ADVTE. Please see Attachment 3, DD254 and SOW 3.1.2 for security questions.
	28		General	Which devices have not been delivered yet?

When will they be delivered?

When will data be delivered for these devices?

What will be the pricing requirements for the modification efforts on devices for which we don't have data?	2F226-3 and 2F227-5 devices and data will be delivered to Futenma Japan 1st qtr FY24. All data necessary for proposing is provided.
	29		General	Are there any other mods currently going on to the devices that will change the documentation or source code that was provided at the Industry Day?	GFI provided will be represenative of what the current systems are.
	30		General	Which devices connect to the ADVTE?	All devices located at MCAS New River, Yuma, and Camp Pendleton.
	31		General	Which UH-1Y devices connect to a MCAT device?	The Y at MCAS New River
	32		General	Can a copy of the Final SOW and PRF be provided with Track Changes turned on to aid the contractors in identifying the changes since the DRAFT was released?	No, final documents are released as clean copies w/ no track changes
	33		General	If the RFP documents are provided in PDF format, please make sure they are saved in a searchable format.	Will coordinate with contracts and ensure the RFP is in a searchable format.
	34		General	Please provide current “as-run” versions of all TTPRRs; including visual, CL, and QTG results.	Test Procedures will be provided for the Bell/FSI and Veraxx developed devices after Post Award Conference.
	35	PRF	PRF 3.3.1	Please provide the current MTBF for each trainer (PRF 3.3.1). Will the government be providing the data used to calculate the existing MTBF assessments so that the equipment added or modified can be properly reflected within the overall context of the entire device configuration?	The current MTBF for each trainer is 166 hours as specified in the PRF. Government does not provide data used to calculate MTBF. See paragraph 3.2.2.13.1 of the SOW for FRACAS information.
	36	PRF	PR 3.1.2	What is the definition or intent of "modes" in "The training devices shall have the same modes as the 2F197-1 device"?	The "modes" are the various trainer states, such as "freeze" and "flight" modes, that the training devices must contain. These modes already exist in all of the training devices and there is no expectation to modify their performance, which is why it was not originally fully defined. Revision A of the performance specification fully defines these modes.
	37		General	Of the 16 Flight Training Devices, which are Bell devices and which are Veraxx devices?	The 2F227-2, 2F227-3, and 2F227-4 AH-1Z Flight Training Devices (FTDs) are the only devices built by Veraxx. The remaining 13 devices were built by Bell and Flight Safety.
	38	PRF	3.1.8.1.1 Blade Element Rotor Modeling	Which of the devices, if any, currently include a blade element modeling approach within the flight dynamics model in software? Will the GFS packages (MFS and COPTER) contain blade element modeling functionality?	All of the devices currently contain a Blade Element Rotor Model (BERM). The devices originally manufactured by Bell contain the COPTER model. The devices manufactured by Veraxx contain the MFS model. The GFS packages (MFS and COPTER GPR) will contain blade element modelling functionality.
	39	PRF	3.1.8.1.2 Automated Test Guide (ATG) Functionality	Which of the devices, if any, currently include ATG functionality for the flight dynamics in software?	All of the devices have ATG functionality for flight dynamics.
	40	GFI	General	Within the released GFI data, the folder for the 2F227 Veraxx manufactured devices appears to be missing key PDAL drawings. Specifically this folder contains the following subfolder: C:\xxx\H-1 Lot 7-8\2F227\SN2 - New River NC - Veraxx\PDMAL Within this folder, a drawing list is included “PDAL_Drawing_List.xlsx”. This listing identifies approximately 220+ Veraxx drawings and 190 + ISM drawings. However, within the actual drawing folders a few of the Veraxx drawings are missing and only approximately 40 of the ISM drawings are included. Specifically missing are the ISM mechanical assembly drawings which would provide insight into cockpit structures, control loading, motion, and flight controls and linkage systems. Can the government please provide the missing drawings identified within the attached ( modified) file?	The Government has determined the information requested in this question is not required for proposal purposes. This information will be released upon contract award.
	41		General	Does the Government intend to mandate the use of the COPTER Aero model for devices 2F196-1, 2F196B-2, 2F196B-3, 2F196B-4, 2F206-1, 2F226-1, 2F226-2, 2F197-1, 2F197B-2, 2F215-1, and 2F227-1.?	Yes, as stated in Statement of Work requirement 3.2.1.7.4.1
	42		General	What is the FAA level of the training devices?	There is no FAA level for the H-1 trainers. The fidelity requirements for Lots VII and VIII are defined in the specification. The FAA fidelity level is not applicable.

&"Times New Roman,Regular"&10Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) Support Services RFP Question Submittal Form &"Times New Roman,Regular"&10RFP #: N68520-21-R-0005

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Jul 20, 2022.