Industry Day Questions Answers-RevA.doc

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS A LIST OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE E-6B BLOCK II INDUSTRY DAY ON 18 MAR 10. NOTHING IN THIS DOCUMENT SHALL BE BINDING ON THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL RFP.

1.

Question: Will copies of (1) the Industry Day Presentation, (2) CAPT Roof’s overview, (3) the E-6B Master Modification Schedule and (4) Program Office Organizational Chart be posted on Fedbizopps?

Answer: The Industry Day Presentation has already been posted to Fedbizopps. The Government intends to post Items (2), (3) and (4) to Fedbizopps.

2.

Question: Will there be a separate competition for the Block II Production efforts, or will that be a sole-source follow-on contract to this Block II Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) effort?

Answer: The Acquisition Strategy is a two-part Engineering Change Proposal (ECP). The Government intends to award a follow-on contract for Production sole source to the winner of the NRE contract. However, there is no guarantee that the follow-on contract will be awarded sole-source.

3.

Question: How will the follow-on Production Full Operational Capability (FOC) date affect evaluation of the NRE contract?

Answer: The Government intends to evaluate the realism of the offeror’s proposed schedule for the NRE contract.

4.

Question: When can bidders expect to receive technical data, including aircraft and GFE equipment design data (i.e. envelope drawings, interconnection drawings, LRU and antenna specifications, physical interface drawings, electrical ICDs, etc.)?

Answer: The Government is presently reviewing the Government Furnished Information (GFI) list to insure that all required information has been captured. After the official Request for Proposal (RFP) has been released, the Government will provide the information listed in the final GFI list to offerors who request it. Due to the amount of information involved, the data will be loaded on a compact disk and mailed to requestors.

5.

Question: Will the aircraft and the Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL) be made available for survey?

Answer: The Government intends to host a “tour day” for the SIL and the aircraft. The Government will post the tour day date and time and any applicable instructions for installation access to Fedbizopps when that information becomes available. Please continue to monitor Fedbizopps for additional developments.

6.

Question: Can the Government define “shall not degrade the legacy Take Charge and Move Out (TACAMO) or Airborne Command Post (ABNCP) missions” since any addition of new equipment will have some impact?

Answer: The Government intends to delete this language from the Statement of Work and Specification.

7.

Question: Will an incremental approach to reduce risk be considered (i.e. line of site (los) antennas first, followed by SATCOM at a later date when newer technology becomes available)?

Answer: No.

8.

Question: Will the Government provide the funding profile available, i.e. Fixed Price – buy to budget?

Answer: The Government intends to provide the anticipated contract value from the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) at the time of RFP release.

9.

Question: Attachment 6 lists the LN-251 GPS Antenna. Should this be the LN- 251 GPS/INS unit? Will the antenna for the LN-251 be GFE?

Answer: The Government is presently reviewing the Government Furnished Property (GFP) list to insure that all required property has been captured. The Government intends to include a parts list for the LN-251 as part of the finalized GFP list.

10.

Question: If an alternative antenna is proposed and receives Government concurrence, will it be furnished as Government Furnished Equipment in lieu of the antenna listed in Attachment 6?

Answer: The Government does not intend to provide proposed alternative antennas as GFP.

11.

Question: SOW paragraph 3.2.5.1 requires a Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR). Does the Government anticipate that the contract will have an incentive portion? If so, what tasks will be incentivized? If not, what is the purpose of the CFSR on a FFP contract?

Answer: The Government intends to delete the requirement for the CSFR.

12.

Question: The SOW contains several references to “the performance requirements of the specifications referenced in paragraph 3.1.” This statement is vague. What specific requirements is the Government referring to?

Answer: All of them.

13.

Question: How is the Government going to perform Air-to-Air MR-TCDL LOS testing with only one E-6B aircraft?

Answer: The Government will coordinate the necessary airborne resources and make them available to support testing.

14.

Question: Will the Government provide all the ancillary items for the GFE? Will the Government provide the 270V power supply for the MR-TCDL SATCOM antenna? Will the Government provide equipment mounts/rack adapters?

Answer: The Government is presently reviewing the Government Furnished Property (GFP) list to insure that all required property has been captured. A complete GFE list will be included in final RFP package.

15.

Question: Attachment 6 specifies only one (1) MR-TCDL LOS shipset and one (1) MR-TCDL SATCOM shipset. Will the Government consider providing additional shipsets?

Answer: The Government is presently reviewing the Government Furnished Property (GFP) list to insure that all required property has been captured. The Government intends to provide two (2) MR-TCDL LOS shipsets, two (2) MR-TCDL SATCOM shipsets and NRE spares.

16.

Question: SOW paragraph 3.1.1 is confusing. The wording implies that the Block II Contractor must install Block I and IA if the aircraft is not provided in a Block IA configuration. Please clarify.

Answer: The Government intends to reword paragraph 3.1.1 to address this confusion. The Government does not intend for the Block II NRE Contractor to install the Block I and/or IA modifications as part of this contract.

17.

Question: The specification indicates that the E-6B Block IA aircraft is the baseline. Will the Government consider changing the specification to indicate that either the E-6B Block I or the E-6B Block IA is the baseline?

Answer: No. The baseline aircraft for Block II is the Block IA configuration.

18.

Question:

(1) CLIN 0001, Ka SATCOM NRE, has a period of performance of 31 March 2011 to 1 July 2012?

(2) Option CLIN 0101, MR-TCDL LOS NRE, has a period of performance of 30 November 2011 to 1 July 2012?

(3) SRR-2 occurs in April, 2011. How can it cover LOS if LOS NRE is not turned on until November, 2011? Will there be a delta SRR scheduled? If so, when?

(4) SFR occurs in July, 2011. How can it cover LOS if LOS NRE is not turned on until November, 2011?

(5) PDR occurs in November 2011. How can it cover both SATCOM and LOS designs is LOS NRE has just been turned on?

(6) CDR occurs in March, 2012. Will it cover both SATCOM and LOS designs?

Answer:

(1) Section F of the Draft RFP correctly identifies the period of performance for CLIN 0001 as 31 March 2011 to 1 July 2012.

(2), (3), (4), (5) & (6) The Government intends to move the requirements of Option CLIN 0101 into CLIN 0001. The description for Option CLIN 0101 would read “reserved.” This should address all expressed concerns regarding schedule concurrency.

19.

Question: In the Segment Specification, AS-6224 v. 6.0, AS-6198 is dated 8 May 2007. The current version is dated 18 June 2009. Was this the Government’s intent?

Answer: AS-6224 v. 6.0 dated 8 May 2007 is the current signed version on file.

20.

Question: Reference SOW paragraphs 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.3.1.2.3, the requirement to perform a weight and balance prior to aircraft modification has been removed from the SOW. Was this the Government’s intent?

Answer: The Government did not intend to eliminate the requirement to perform a weight and balance prior to aircraft modification from the SOW. The Government intends to include the requirement to perform a weight and balance prior to aircraft modification in the final SOW.

21.

Question: Will the Government consider adding the following language to paragraph 3.3.1.4.2 of the Specification, in order to insure that Transient Protection Module (TPM) measures are compatible with existing support equipment (Test Bench Nuclear Hardness):

“The Block II modification shall provide maintenance access to the MR TCDL EMP protection (circuitry and shielding). This access shall permit Navy maintenance personnel to make periodic assessment of the EMP protection and permit corrective action for any degradation that may have occurred during system use. The MR TCDL integration design shall utilize components consistent with current EMP protection on the E-6B aircraft. It shall permit the assessment to be conducted using the Navy Test Bench Nuclear Hardness (TBNH).”

Will the Government consider adding the following language to paragraph 3.2.6.4 of the SOW, in order to insure that TPM measures are compatible with existing support equipment:

“The Contractor shall test and integrate software necessary to operate TBNH Test Benches in support of any Block II TPM added. The Contractor shall deliver interface cables for the TBNH test set enabling the testing of all Block II TPMs.”

Answer: No. The Government believes the existing wording is sufficient.

22.

Question: Will the Government consider adding the following language to paragraph 3.2.1.2.2 of the Specification in order to clarify the requirements for the display:

“The monitor for displaying the controller/Graphical User Interface (GUI) Java v. 1.5 application shall have a XX inch display with a minimum resolution of YY.”

Answer: The Government will not give specific size and resolution for displaying the controller/GUI Java v. 1.5 application.

23.

Question: Will the Government consider adding defined tasks to the SOW for testing against SIL, GEP and other aircraft? Will the Government consider adding tasks to the SOW to address network integration of the airborne terminals with air-to-air systems, air-to-ground systems (SIL and GEP) and air-to-satelite systems?

Answer: The Government did not identify these testing requirements in the SOW because the Government intends to conduct the testing itself.

24.

Question: will the Government consider a requirement for the MR-TCDL systems to be interoperable with all Navy deployed CDL systems? Will the Navy consider adding tasks to the SOW to address interoperability tests/demonstrations with SIL, GEP and other deployed CDL systems: a.) US DOD Unmanned Systems Interoperability Profile 1 (USIP1) - IP 1.1 27 July 2009 b.) US DOD Unmanned Systems Interoperability Profile 1 (USIP1) - IP 2.1 27 July 2009?

Answer: No. Interoperability with other Navy deployed CDL systems is not a requirement.