Q A's01 13Jul.doc

Industry Questions

BAA N00019-07-R-0095

#01

Q1.

“In reading the document it is not completely clear whether the Navy is looking for a weapon that has both ship launch capability AND aircraft launch capability or just the latter as a ship-based solution. Can you please clarify?”

A1.

The system(s) will operate from ships, with potential sea-based Naval aircraft, launch capability, and will be capable of defeating targets at standoff ranges” (the current language), which means ships must be included and aircraft launch could be a potential as well.

Q2.

“Does NAVAIR have a specific definition on the following two terms cited in the draft BAA, or can it provide further clarification on the use of the two terms?”

- Affordable Weapons Systems (AWS)

- Weapon Family of Systems (WFoS) A2.

Affordable Weapons Systems (AWS): AWS is a generic term used in this BAA for those systems which meet the criteria of section 3.0. Task 4.1 requires the offerors to specifically define AWS(s) in terms of mission concept analysis and mission analysis. Task 4.0 calls for the offeror to develop conceptual design(s) that lead to the offeror’s determination of what AWS(s) can be. Task 4.2.2 requires the offeror to define the AWS(s) in terms of flyaway cost and the other details cited there in. Task 4.4 requires the offerors to specifically define their AWS(s) in terms of Best Material Approach(es).

Weapon Family of Systems (WFoS) - This represents the projected collection of weapon systems available to defeat the representative target sets in section 3.3 at the time of potential AWS implementation (2016). Section 4.1.2 of the BAA asks the offerors to consider metrics that describe how their AWS approach performs as part of array of weapons as opposed to as a single solution.

Q3.

“Volume II, Section II, paragraph (8), requires a small business plan.

In order to avoid using valuable page space, can a contractor only need to reference its current approved 2007 Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan already on file with NAVAIR to fulfill this requirement?”

A3.

Yes.

Q4. Would/could NAVAIR make available as GFI missile performance data from what are viewed as the currently best available alternatives to meet the stated requirements so that a single organization could use a common and established mission analysis approach that could be used as a mechanism for identifying baseline solution performance gaps, to do comparative studies, and as well as a tool to iterate to a solution that meets the stated requirements.

A4. We do not intend to furnish as GFI information regarding current or to be procured systems. Whatever approach(es) the offeror uses for mission concept analysis and/or mission analysis (including performance knowledge, assumptions and supporting data), the offeror shall document their approach and rationale.

Q5. The total flyaway cost target for the AWS is $250,000 per unit. The question is this: if a weapon consists of a reusable delivery vehicle combined with multiple independently targetable weapons how many missions should be assumed for the delivery vehicle for its useful life? For example, if the "bus" costs $350,000 but can fly (on average) six sorties before it is shot-down or otherwise fails to return for reuse can its cost be amortized over six missions at $58,333 per mission.

A5. No, this can be discussed at the Pre-Proposal Conference.

Q6. Does the AWS need to use existing shipboard launch systems (e.g. standard missile launchers) or may an AWS specific box launcher be used if it does not require anything more than trivial modification to the ship (e.g. it only needs mounting brackets welded to the deck)?

A6. Offerors are encouraged to limit impact of integration on ships and aircraft. Ship modifications are rarely trivial. Deck space tends to be fully utilized on existing ships either physically or by zones of action, e.g. radar beams, firing zones, and helicopter operations to name a few. Additionally, with the move towards "stealth," deck mounted structures are no longer as simple as before. The capability to interface with existing ship mission planning systems for loading of targeting data or other mission loads would also have to be separately provided.

Q7. The BAA provides rough guidance for annual quantities. The BAA forecasts 1200 units per year. However, if a solution provides an AWS where the delivery vehicle provides for multiple target kills (e.g. like a fighter aircraft vs. a missile) should the 1200 number be interpreted as 1200 target kills or 1200 delivery vehicles?

A7. The 1200 units per year is used to calculate the fly-away cost. It does not necessarily translate into the number of targets that could be engaged in any time period. The functional area analysis would show the available number of weapons and targets that can be used to engage them.

Q8. Our planned solution is capable of submarine launch but the BAA does not mention submarine delivery. Should submarine launch (like

Tomahawk) be considered in the proposal or is it not of interest to NAVAIR?

A8. Submarine launch is not the focus of this BAA.

Q9. Will the government provide to the bidders, all government owned data, reports, and analysis previously conducted on the ONR Affordable Weapon System Program?

A9. No.

Q10. Task 2 seems to ask for a Flyaway Cost analysis of the notional point of departure design prior to assessing the best material approaches in Task 3. While you might be able to assess the relative costs of alternative approaches (i.e. low, medium, high) and detailed flyway cost analysis is probably not creditable until after the "best material approaches" analysis (Task 3) is complete. Can you provide a better understanding and more amplification on your desires for the flyaway cost analysis in Task 2? Or is this activity more appropriate for Task 3?

A10. Task 2 is asking for cost estimates for your Conceptual Design(s). The Flyaway cost estimates for Task 2 should be at the appropriate detail based on the maturity of the potential Conceptual Design(s). It is expected we will see estimates developed as high level rough order of magnitudes (ROMs) using parametrics and analogies as well as detailed build-ups. Range estimates with confidence bands around technical and cost assumptions would be acceptable. Task 3 is expected to produce more detailed estimates for the offerors PSC(s).

Q11. Task 3 seems to be the task that actually nails down the cost-performance trade and settles in on a solution set. Although at this point, it appears the solution set is still a paper concept. However, Task 3 asks for things that are more closely associated with more mature designs. Can you expand on your desires for service life, environmental limits, reliability, and system's operational tempo? Are these items more appropriate for a future phase? Also, Task 3 asks for a prescribed test program to certify the system. Do we have a system at this point? I would think the government would assess the potentially multiple inputs (Best Material Approaches and Risk assessments) from the contractors and then issue a set of requirements for a competitive development phase.....which would then require a prescribed test program.

A11. The Navy is seeking to understand the art of the possible within the constraints of paragraph 3.0. For phase II option of the BAA the offeror shall provide the assumptions used to arrive at the offerors PSC(s), including service life, environmental limits, reliability, and system's operational tempo. We anticipate the level of detail to be appropriate for the maturity of the PSC(s). We anticipate that in developing PSC(s), an offeror must have some idea of what the operating environment, OPTEMPO, and broad CONOPs, test program, etc are; thus, the Government needs to know the offeror took into consideration all the necessary factors, assumed or otherwise, in the preparation of the offeror’s PSC(s).

Q12. Task 4 asks for a manufacturing readiness level assessment. Again, is this premature as the government has not yet established a set of requirements for what AWS is in the future? Is a Technology Readiness Level assessment more realistic?

A12. The Navy is seeking to understand the art of the possible within the constraints of the BAA; thus giving industry an opportunity to provide their view of what AWS(s) could be. While offerors are still in a paper concept during Task 4, they are also proposing a PSC(s) based upon a year or more of analysis, including technologies to support their approach(es). The Navy needs to have a confidence level that manufacturing technology is present to provide that capability or can be matured to provide the capabilities being suggested within a the schedule cited in the BAA.

Q13. A 22 August response date seems very aggressive. Considering that the first announcement on this program was 29 May, a 3 month turnaround is very quick for this scope of activity. This effort appears to seek out-of-the-box thinking and potentially creative teaming relationships.

The current timeline does not allow industry ample exploratory time to investigate other interested partners and negotiate the necessary teaming agreements and business relationships. Considering this program is funded with FY08 dollars, is the rush to proposal warranted? We would suggest the final BAA be released on 20 Aug with a due date of 1 Oct. This will give industry 30 days after the Industry Day to explore partnering and define the business relationships and allow PEO(W)time to make changes to the BAA based on inputs and Q&A from industry at the Industry Day. A 45 day turn around on the proposal will get you a better product, especially from teams that need to coordinate responses from multiple sites. Additionally, it will give all a better feel for the probability of funding as we near the new fiscal year. Nobody likes spending a bunch of time and money on a program that doesn't happen (for whatever reason).

A13. The schedule is as stated in the BAA solicitation.

Q14. Volume 1 asks for Affordable Weapon Flyaway Cost. The contractor is to demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements. Is this in reference to past performance? Are you looking for historical data? Or is this a process volume (i.e. this is how I'll do it)? It seems premature for me to propose a creditable Flyaway Cost on something I have not done the Mission Analysis, Systems Architecture, Best Material Approaches Analysis, or a Risk Assessment on. Could you please amplify?

A14. The Volume 1 cost estimates is not in reference to past performance, or historical data. Volume 1 is asking for cost estimates for your Conceptual Design(s). The Flyaway cost estimates for Volume 1 should be at the appropriate detail based on the maturity of the potential solution(s). It is expected we will see estimates developed as high level ROMs using parametric and analogies as well as detailed build-ups.

Q15. Volume 2 (Technical Volume) asks for manufacturing readiness. Should this be more along the lines of a study effort? I could propose manufacturing readiness if we were at the point of a point design. Or are you looking for a methodology of how we determine manufacturing readiness?

A15. The Navy is seeking to understand the art of the possible within the constraints of the BAA; thus giving industry an opportunity to provide their view of what AWS(s) could be. While offerors are still in a paper concept during Task 4, they are also proposing a PSC(s) based upon a year or more of analysis, including technologies to support their approach(es). The Navy needs to have a confidence level that manufacturing technology is present to provide that capability or can be matured to provide the capabilities being suggested within the schedule cited in the BAA.