Industry_Day_Q A_Unsorted_FBO_13_Oct_2015.pdf

Quest # RFP Doc Section/Para Issue Question Government Response

11 General General Are multiple proposals allowed? Yes. Multiple proposals are acceptable. Please do not allow the proposal quality to be deteriorated due to objective of submitting more than one proposal.

13 General General Who is the Government point of contact to be listed during the DSP5 marketing license?

Government point of contact information will be provided upon request.

14 General General What is the process of engineering changes in regards to the proposal?

The PMA-266 Configuration Management Process is part of the

GFI.

1 RFP N/A Are all the drawings and VTUAV Technical Documents referenced releasable to foreign subcontractors for quote purposes?

Industry Day presentation outlines this "process".

2 RFP N/A The DRAFT RFP does not include training or manuals. Is it the Government’s intent to minimize the operator training differences between the radar in the MQ-8B and the MQ-8C?

Based on the selected RADAR, the training materials will be provided as part of a separate Integration Contract.

10 Will training and interface from MQ-8B be provided as

Government Furnished Equipment?

Training no. Interfaces yes.

8 RFP N/A Contract Structure/Programmatic Are there Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) that preclude all corporate entities, including Joint Ventures, of the MQ-8C Vehicle Original Equipment Manufacturer

(OEM) (Northrop Grumman) and Tactical Control

System (TCS) OEM (Raytheon) from participating in the

MQ-8C Radar competition as a Radar OEM or subcontractor to a Prime Contractor who is

No

35 General General Are foreign corporate partners allowed? Yes.

9 RFP N/A Contract Structure/Programmatic When is the first unit to be delivered? CLIN 0004, for B-kit deliveries, ends 7/3/2017. Deliveries must be made to support Government's notional schedule. IMS reflecting this is to be part of proposal.

10 RFP N/A Contract Structure/Programmatic What are the total units for this proposal? A total of 17 radar systems is being procured. This includes five

(5) Radar systems under the Basic contract, and four (4) each potentially ordered under three (3) options. The Final RFP will include a order/delivery clarification in the SOW.

11 RFP N/A Contract Structure/Programmatic All CLINS are fixed price yet as stated, the integration will be determined by Northrop Grumman AS. The same applies to Integration into the TCS. How do you expect these uncertainties to be bound to enable a fixed price bid?

Each offorer is required to assess their proposal's level of risk, and price this level of risk accordingly in their bid.

12 RFP pages 59-61 and 78-81

MTA a. – ee. 1. Does the Government want detailed plans for each of the items below in separate Annexes?

a. IMS

b. Test & Evaluation Approach

c. Risk Management Plan

d. Production, Manufacturing, and Quality Assurance

Approach

e. Subcontract Management Plan

f. Small Business Subcontract Plan

2. Will the page count of these annexes count against

Please follow Section L of the RFP for guidance.

6 General General Technically Acceptable versus Unacceptable What does go-no-go mean? The minimum technically acceptable elements will be rated based on a pass/fail system. All 31 minimum technically acceptable elements must be met to be considered a technically acceptable proposal.

12 General General Why does the Government have over thirty minimum technically acceptable elements?

The Government intends to purchase a non developmental

Item.

4 RFP General Leveraging overarching Subcontract purchases to obtain lowest proposal price.

Can proposal pricing include subcontractor quotes to leverage Economic Order Quantities (EOQ) purchases being obtained throughout the Company?

Yes. Proposal pricing shall be easily supportable, and reasonable.

25 RFP pages 61 & 80 Factor CC of the 31 MTA's appears to mistakenly refer to paragraphs

7.1 through 7.10 of the SOW.

Should the reference instead be to SOW paragraphs 6.1 through 10?

The RFP will be updated prior to final release.

26 RFP pages 61 & 80 MTA dd. - Small Business Subcontracting Plan Will the government provide Small Business

Subcontracting Goals in terms of percentages?

Government does not have any precise goals.

36 RFP General What are the Small Business goals (HUB%, etc) Government does not have any precise goals.

27 RFP pages 61 & 81 Desired Subfactors Is there Government intention for additional capabilities such as Mine Like Object Detection, Dismount Detection (MDV <2nmi per hour), operation in GPS denied environment, or high resolution SAR and

ISAR imagery (<6”)?

Additional radar modes are given as Desired Technical Subfactor

c. The Gov will give credit to systems that can provide additional capability.

28 RFP Section L, Part

B, 4.0 Volume

4 – Price

Proposal, Please describe the methodology the Government envisions for reconciling the design specific assumptions that effect the FFP development CLINs?

It is envisioned that each Offeror will provide a list of assumptions that went into their proposal. These assumptions will be assessed against the technical and price volumes for alignment and reasonableness.

29 RFP Section M How are requirements that are not included in the

Minimum Technically Acceptable or Desirable Technical

Subfactors assessed or awarded credit? e.g. 3.2.3.1.11 is a threshold requirement but is not included in either of the technical Subfactors.

The PBS includes all AV,MCS, and RADAR requirements. Some of these items will not be allocated to the RADAR OEM.

30 SOW Section 3 Reference doc Will the PMA-266 documents referenced in SOW paragraph 3 Program Management Requirements (CLIN

0001) be made available to bidders? Examples of the documents include PMA-266 Risk Management Plan and PMA-266 Configuration Management Plan

All referenced documents can be made available upon request.

31 SOW Section 4.6.4 Protection Requirements clarification Is the development of the Anti-Tamper (AT) plan expected at the time of proposal?

No. The Governments expectation is that Bidders have conducted a Critical Program Information (CPI) self-assessment, and determined whether AT requirements are applicable to their system. If so, scope and cost for a CPI assessment and AT plan should be included in the proposal.

32 SOW Section 4.6.4 Protection Requirements clarification Are there Electronic Protection (EP) requirements? No. The Government has not identified EP as a requirement at this time.

33 SOW Section 5.1 If some electrical tests are performed outside of the US what would be the plan to audit and certify the laboratory?

The Government reserves the right to audit overseas labs.

Normally, the Government simply requests documentation from the labs to substantiate their capability.

34 SOW Section 6 Will the government release DD-1423s (aka CDRLs) prior to formal RFP release? A number items in the

SOW are called out using CDRL LG01, which without seeing that CDRL and any associated Data Item

Description (DID) reference, we are unsure if this refers to a contractor format report or if a duplicate CDRL number requires adjustment prior to formal RFP

Draft CDRLs were included in the draft RFP. Final CDRLs will be included in the final RFP. CDRL LG01 is associated with DID DI-

SESS-81759A.

21 General General Is the Development of the ATP (Acceptance Test

Procedure) plan expected to be complete by submission of proposal?

The Government intends to buy an NDI system so the ATP for the NDI item should exist at proposal submission. The ATP may need to be modified based on the Offeror's proposed changes to their NDI design.

35 PBS General Are VTUAV Specifications available for foreign subcontractors?

Industry Day presentation outlines this "process".

38 PBS General The Following paragraphs in the PBS appear to be related to the 31

Minimally Acceptable Technical Elements but were not traced to them in the Industry Day presentation:

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 3.2.8.1, 3.2.8.2, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.2.10.1, 3.2.10.1.1.7.1, 3.2.10.1.1.7.2, 3.2.10.1.1.7.3, 3.2.10.2, 3.2.10.4, 3.2.10.5, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6. 3.4, 3.5, 3.6.3, 3.9.1, 3.9.1.2, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.10, 3.11, 3.11.2, 3.11.3, 3.11.4, 3.12

The requirements contained in these paragraphs are stated as Threshold requirements but not traceable to the 31 Minimally Acceptable Elements nonetheless they appear to be required. Will these paragraphs be traced to / added to the Minimally Acceptable Elements?

An updated trace has been included as part of the final RFP.

PBS General Many PBS paragraphs were viewed by industry as "Design" focused. Did the government intend on specifying detailed Radar design elements in the PBS, such as 3.2.3.1.8 (PRF selection/range)?

The PBS has been revised based on Industry comments.

2 PBS General The <DRAFT> RFP implied the Radome was part of the RADAR

System.

Is the Radome to be included as part of the Radar proposal?

No. The Radome will be included as part of a separate contract.

39 PBS not given Is this requirement strictly for an AESA system? No.

40 PBS not given Variable scan rate and PRI can be automatically optimized by the radar HW , can these requirements be replace with detection requirement?

PBS has been revised.

41 PBS Section 1.2 Part of radar scope of work? Section 1.2 of the PBS is included in the scope of this effort. The components listed at the bottom of page 1 are potential items;

the radar system is not required to contain these items. The capabilities listed on page 2 are requirements.

42 PBS Section 1.2, Table 1-1

The table identifies several mission configurations that will require radar but provides little detail.

Will the final RFP provide a CONOPS or operational vignettes for each mission configuration?

No

43 PBS 1.3 Appendix D is listed as containing classified performance requirements but not provided with the Draft RFP.

Will the Navy publish procedures for obtaining

Appendix D?

Yes

44 PBS 2.2 This paragraph lists AV and MCS specifications that impact design, installation and operation of the radar system but were not provided as part of the draft RFP.

Will the Navy make these documents available to radar

OEMs?

Yes

8 PBS 3.2.2 Field of Regard What is the ideal field of regard concerning paragraph

3.2.2. of the PBS?

Para 3.2.2. describes the desired, as-installed FOR.

46 PBS 3.2.3 The specification does not list several parameters normally found in maritime radar specifications: Range/Az Resolution; Range/Az

Accuracy or Lat/Long Accuracy; Speed Accuracy & convergence time

Will the Navy be including these parameters in the final specification?

Yes, to the extent plausible. Note: Some elements are co-dependent on the selected antenna size.

47 PBS 3.2.3.1.3 The specification for the Radar System requires the system have the capability to eliminate radar tracks from targets that are on land when operating in any of the maritime surveillance modes. The effects of shoreline objects in the surf are allowable.

Does the Navy want shoreline tracks to be displayed?

Confirm the Navy will not count shoreline tracks as false alarms in the evaluation of all maritime surveillance modes?

Shoreline tracks shall not be counted against false alarm threshold.

48 PBS 3.2.3.1.8

3.2.3.1.9

3.2.3.1.11, 3.2.3.1.13

What is the intention of defining low level functional control and/or parameters? In a modern multi-mode radar providing such control to the operator has a risk of increasing workload and reducing performance.

This is a nonspecific question. Specific concerns should be specified/submitted. Note: The Government's intent was to derive improved "automation", recognizing that the range of selectable values are more than the specific values.

49 PBS 3.2.3.1.8,

3.2.3.1.11, 3.2.3.1.13

The PBS calls for specific radar performance for each Maritime

Mode (e.g. 3.2.3.2.1.4 & 3.2.3.3.1.5) but it also calls for a selection of scan rates, PRF’s and compressed pulse widths (3.2.3.1.8, 3.2.3.1.11, 3.2.3.1.13). These are internal radar mode design parameters that affect everything from detection range to accuracy.

Is it the Navy’s intention for the Radar Supplier to select the baseline radar mode parameters to achieve the system level performance requirements (3.2.3.2.1.4 and

3.2.3.3.1.5) and changes to these parameters are for potential future upgrades?

Please consider removal of design constraints in the system specification.

PBS has been revised.

50 PBS 3.2.3.1.8 to

3.2.3.1.13

These performance specifications have very specific design requirements. Request clarification on what is driving these specific requirements and will these specific numbers be part of the go/no-go criteria?

PBS has been revised.

51 PBS 3.2.3.1.8 Vendor's radar selects ranges and PRF is automatically selected vs selecting PRFs. Outcome still same. Does this satisfy requirement or can requirement be modified accordingly to allow either approach?

PBS has been revised.

52 PBS 3.2.3.1.11 Scan rates should be left to supplier selection for optimum performance.

PBS has been revised.

53 PBS 3.2.3.1.12 The turn-around time spec is a low level design constraint that is part of the radar mode design trade space that also includes the scan rate. The turn around time spec is not required because the

PBS calls for specific radar performance for each Maritime Mode

(e.g. 3.2.3.2.1.4 & 3.2.3.3.1.5) and it defines the total integration time (3.2.3.2.1.3) and the revisit time (3.2.3.2.1.5).

Please consider removal of design constraints in the system specification.

PBS has been revised.

54 PBS 3.2.3.1.12 Please clarify "turn-a-round time" The radar will have a raster scan turn-a-round time less than or equal to 0.35 sec. Is this raster bi-directional or uni-directional?

Bi-Directional

55 PBS 3.2.3.1.13 Should be left to supplier selection for optimum performance

PBS has been revised.

56 PBS 3.2.3.2.1.4 Why is the range resolution specified and it is different than the specified IPR times?

The Government is not specifying a 7.5 m range resolution. This approach ensures the requirement shall not be met using a HRR mode and treating the target as a point source.

57 PBS 3.2.3.3.1.2 A dwell is the input into a tracker. Why specify the scan level Pd when the Pd after 45 seconds is already defined for TWS Pd/Pfa. This was not included in the short range detection above so why here?

PBS has been revised.

61 PBS 3.2.6 Radar HRR Mode Confusion Can you clarify on the HRR Capability? The Performance Based Specification (PBS) outlines the radar system requirements necessary to incorporate a High Range

Resolution (HRR) mode. Note: The Government developed an automated resource control function under a Small Business

Innovative Research (SBIR) activity led by Lambda Science, Inc.

A potential teaming arrangement exists.

62 PBS 3.2.6 Radar HRR Mode Confusion What do you mean by "shall be capable" of? PBS has been revised.

38 PBS 3.2.6 What is meant by "Shall be capable" in reference to

HRR mode paragraphs?

PBS has been revised.

63 PBS 3.2.6.5

3.2.6.6

HRR Capability, Range Cells, Positioning of the HRR signature These performance specifications have very specific design requirements. Request clarification on what is driving these specific requirements and will these specific numbers be part of the go/no-go criteria?

PBS has been revised.

64 PBS 3.2.8.1.3 Part of radar scope of work? This requirement does not apply to the Radar sub-system.

65 PBS 3.2.8.1.4 This requirement is located under the Radar System Cueing of an

External System Section yet it does not define the Tracker Range or

Azimuth Accuracy that is essential for cueing an EO/IR sensor.

Recommend both parameters be added to the requirement.

This was intended to be a ship LOA measurement for classification requirement - not EO/IR. PBS has been revised.

66 PBS 3.2.8.1.4 A tracker measures the Targets Course and Speed, recommend the requirements specify both parameters.

Heading is the key attribute of interest.

67 PBS 3.2.8.1.4 Some of the parameters required to specify a Target Course

Accuracy are provided (SNR, Convergence Time) but there are also missing parameters like Target Speed and Target Range. Usually convergence time is extended for longer range scenarios.

Recommend Target Speed and Target Range be specified, No change is required. Range Rate and SNR are sufficient criteria.

68 PBS 3.2.8.1.4 Range Rates can be less than 3 knots (even 0) as long as the total target speed is high enough for convergence.

No question was provided. Note: Heading information is the key element.

70 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.1.1

The ability to choose the map background to include World Vector

Shoreline (WVS), World Mercator Map (WMM), Digital Nautical

Chart (DNC) and Operational Navigation Chart (ONC)

If this is part of the TCS will the Navy use the existing

TCS maps?

Yes, as part of the TCS.

72 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.5.1

Is this just a aircraft symbol or is there specific information that is being controlled? Does the customer also want the ground station control location on the display?

This is a TCS integration issue and that the MCS location is usually displayed as the host ship via navigation data provided by the ship.

73 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.5.3

Will the Navy require GUI working groups? Not in this contract, but there will be in following contracts.

74 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.5.4

3.2.10.1.1.5.5

Can the Navy confirm that GUI working groups will be required?

Not in this contract, but there will be in following contracts.

75 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.6 Is this a requirement on the radar. Is the RPP in scope of this effort?

This requirement does not apply to the Radar sub-system. Not in scope for this effort.

77 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.8 Is this a requirement on the radar? Is the RPP in scope of this effort?

This requirement does not apply to the Radar sub-system. Not in scope for this effort.

79 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.11

to

3.2.10.1.1.17

Part of radar scope of work? TCS requirements do not apply to the Radar sub-system.

81 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.19.

Weather detection is listed an Objective overall and mentioned in the Desired Technical Subfactors

Is weather detection a Threshold requirement and part of the 31 Minimal Acceptable Technical Subfactors?

Weather is not one of the 31 MTA Subfactor Elements

84 PBS 3.2.10.1.1.22 This requirement is listed as an Objective in the PWS but was briefed at Industry day as one of the 31 Minimum Technically

Acceptable Elements.

Is this requirement an Objective or one of the 31

Minimally Acceptable Elements?

Additional radar modes are given as Desired Technical Subfactor

c. The Gov will give credit to systems that can provide additional capability.

85 PBS 3.2.10.1.2 Where is the TCS transmitting? Is this a radar system requirement of a TCS requirement? Is the idea that the

EOIR video is displayed in the same application as the radar?

TCS requirements do not apply to the Radar sub-system.

86 PBS 3.2.10.2.1 Are there going to be GUI working groups? Not in this contract, but there will be in following contracts.

87 PBS 3.2.10.3.3 Why both NITF and STANAG 4545? Does every still image get saved in both formats? Also called out is MIL-

STD-2500C what is the correct format?

Paragraph 3.2.10..3.3 is a VTUAV system requirement. It is not applicable to the Radar OEM.

88 PBS 3.2.10.5.1

3.3.1.1

The Radar System shall conform to the Modular Payload

Architecture (MPA) software design to provide for the separation of air vehicle control and Radar Payload control in the VTUAV Air

Vehicle. TCS Software Developers Kit is also called for as a modular payload integration standard.

Do these standard apply to the ground station control part of the radar or airborne portions as well?

Standards apply to both ground station and air vehicle, however neither are Radar OEM functions. Air vehicle separation is taken care of by the PIU vs. VMC.

94 PBS 3.3.4 1. Please clarify if 4607 is for detections and 4676 for tracks.

2. Is the HRR Mode Data Format 4607?

3. Is ISAR Mode Data Format 4607?

4. In regards to data formats and limited downlink bandwidth, some of the standard formats consume unnecessary data link bandwidth. Does the Navy envision minimizing the data link bandwidth and converting to standard messages in the ground control

The Radar System is required to provide data in the formats specified in the PBS. The specific constraints may be addressed thru a variety of features, and/or architectures.

96 PBS 3.3.5

3.3.6

Not radar requirements The PBS includes all AV,MCS, and RADAR requirements. Some of these items will not be allocated to the RADAR OEM.

97 PBS 3.6 The requirements contained in this heading appear to be related to the Anti-Tamper Minimally Acceptable Technical Element, though no Specification paragraphs were noted at Industry day.

Can the Navy confirm that these specification paragraphs are related to the Minimally Acceptable

Technical Element "Anti-Tamper"?

Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 are related to the Minimally Acceptable

Technical Elements R and Q.

98 PBS 3.6.1 Will the Navy require zeroize to be accomplished in a specified time? Also does the media need to be recoverable after the zeroize?

PBS will be updated prior to Final RFP release.

99 PBS 3.6.3.1 Will the Navy establish a requirement for sustaining the

IA? How often are builds going to be needed? Will contractor handle both TCS radar application and air or just air?

No. This effort is not part of this contract.

101 PBS 3.7.3, 3.7.3.1,

3.7.3.2, 3.7.3.3, 3.7.4, 3.7.4.1, 3.7.4.2, 3.7.5, 3.7.6, 3.7.7, 3.7.8, and

3.7.9

The requirements contained in these headings appear to be related to the 'Fire Scout Radar Integration/Air Worthiness' Minimally

Acceptable Technical Element, though no Specification paragraphs were noted at Industry day.

Can the Navy confirm that these specification paragraphs are related to the Minimally Acceptable

Technical Element 'Fire Scout Radar Integration/Air

Worthiness"?

Requirements in Section 3.7 are related to the Minimally

Acceptable Technical Element S "All Weather Capability" and

Element T "Airworthiness".

103 PBS 3.7.20 Clarification required? Government can provide info on Mission Oriented Protective

Posture IV and standard protective equipment.

104 PBS 3.8.1.1,

3.8.1.2

Predicted? Government prefers measured data, but will accept predictions if measurements are not available.

105 PBS 3.9.1.2.2,

3.9.1.2.3

Part of radar scope of work? These requirements do not directly apply to the Radar sub-system, however the Radar can not in any way prevent the Air

Vehicle from meeting these requirements.

106 PBS 3.9.1.2.4 Which temperature? To be discussed Desire is to report temp for fault detection and/or status.

107 PBS 3.10.2 Part of radar scope of work? These requirements do not directly apply to the Radar sub-system, however the Radar can not in any way prevent the Air

Vehicle from meeting these requirements.

108 PBS 3.11.1.3 Part of radar scope of work? These requirements do not directly apply to the Radar sub-system, however the Radar can not in any way prevent the Air

Vehicle from meeting these requirements.

110 PBS 3.11.2.1 Can the Navy verify that the environment is no worse than what is defined in paragraph 3.7?

Yes

114 PBS 3.11.4.3 Clarification required. Where do we get the requirements from?

Requirements for items to be marked are identified in DFARS

252.211-7003 and SOW par 4.3.5.6. Format of acceptable machine-readable markings are listed in Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, MIL-STD-130N, referenced in PBS par

3.11.4.2.

115 PBS 3.12.1 For foreign subcontractor how do these regulations apply?

Yes, the regulations do apply.

116 PBS 3.13 There doesn’t appear to be a requirement defining the AIS interface.

Will the Navy provide an AIS interface? This interface is part of the Digital ICD.

117 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.1.4.1 Test requires detailed definition iaw MIL-HDBK-781, predicted or actual?

Not a RADAR OEM requirement. Test requires actual data over a period of time in a SIL or during flight testing.

120 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.2.3 Define conditions PBS has been updated.

121 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.3.2.1.4 The requirement is for "calculated" so it should be A

(3.2.3.2.1 is D)

PBS has been updated.

122 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.3.2.1.5 Same as above PBS has been updated.

124 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.10.1.1.2 The table call for the Radar System to provide automatic AIS track-to-radar track associations (as available).

Will the MQ-8C have an external AIS receiver to provide the AIS data or will the radar be required to provide an

AIS receiver?

Yes, the MQ-8C has an external AIS receiver.

127 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.10.1.1.9 to

3.2.10.1.1.18

"D" alone is more appropriate No change noted/required.

128 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.10.1.2 Not radar requirement TCS requirements do not apply to the Radar sub-system

129 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.10.3.1 "D" alone is more appropriate No change noted/required.

130 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.14.3 "A" alone is more appropriate No change noted/required.

132 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.2.15.1-3 IFF Interrogator required The government agrees that an interrogator is required if this is to be tested.

134 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.3.5.1.1 AV requirement These requirements do not directly apply to the Radar sub-system, however the Radar can not in any way prevent the Air

Vehicle from meeting these requirements.

135 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.3.5.1.2 Definition agree, verification column is blank for this item

136 PBS

Verification

Matrix

3.7.24.3 AV requirement These requirements do not directly apply to the Radar sub-system, however the Radar can not in any way prevent the Air

Vehicle from meeting these requirements.

139 DD Form

Attachment 3 Vendor's radar hardware is typically unclassified. Is there any hardware potentially classified?

The Government has made provisions to accommodate classified requirements, if required.

140 WBS Attachment 4 Some elements in the WBS provided appear to imply that a radar system has already been selected. Is this an example only? (e.g., Beam Steering Control Module)

WBS provided in Attachment 4 is an example only.

37 RFP General Will future radar installations be cut-in's or retrofits? The government projects that installations will be a mix of both.

20 RFP General Any electronic protection requirements? No Electronic Protection (EP) requirement.

22 General General Is the Government opposed to paying for non-recurring engineering to make minor modifications to initial product for meeting competition requirements?

No

28 PBS General Where is the radar system performance, for the purposes of meeting the evaluation criteria, being assessed (lab environment, or contractor assumed installation location?

Contractor installation assumptions may be made to support technical performance.

30 General General Can Human Machine Interface (HMI) efforts from this contract be leveraged to support future training?

Yes.

15 RFP pages 59 & 78 MTA a. - Capable of meeting the FOR requirements as specified in the Performance Specification para 3.2.2

1. Please clarify the Go/No-Go evaluation criteria for the FOV requirement. For example, is the Go/No-Go

Criteria based on how the radar is mounted in Air

Vehicle or “ideally mounted; free standing”?

2. Does the evaluation criteria include the +5° of Air

Vehicle Pitch?

The PBS is written for the Installed performance. The evaluation criteria is that the proposed solution, irrespective of mounting location on the aircraft, will support achieving the installed system performance.

19 RFP pages 59 & 78 Factor N of the 31 MTA's refers to paragraph 3.2.10.1.1.22 of the

PBS. That paragraph refers to "SAU 07000 messages.", but there is no definition or other reference to SAU or SAU messages in the draft RFP document set.

Can you resolve please? As well, that paragraph of the

PBS is listed as an Objective requirement. Please resolve whether this Objective requirement is intended to be included in the 31 MTA requirements.

SAU 07000 is part of the GFI. PBS has been updated.

21 RFP pages 60 & 79 MTA s. - Capable of meeting the performance requirements above in the weather conditions specified in the Performance

Specification para 3.7.11.1.1-2, 3.7.11.1.2.1-2

Please clarify the differences between radar performance in Para 3.7.11.1 Operational Rain and the performance specified in 3.2.3.2.2 Short Range

Detection. It appears paragraph 3.7.11.1 is an environmental requirement and is not intended to drive the power aperture of the radar.

The radar must be capable of meeting Minimum Technically

Acceptable subfactors in the Rain conditions defined in PBS section 3.7.11. Note: Para 3.7.11.1 is an environmental requirement.

22 RFP pages 60 & 79 Factor u RFP asks for MFHBOMF. The reference paragraph in the Performance Specification refers to MTBF. For the proposal, does the Govt expect to see both MFHBOMF and MTBF calculations? Please provide C72-6100-013, Revision B, System Specification for the Vertical Take-off And Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

System (VTUAV) for the definition of MFHBOMF.

PBS has been updated.

23 RFP page 60 & 79 MTA w. - Integrated Master Schedule Can the government please clarify that the Offeror's

IMS should only include events A, D, and H (those three bold-faced items listed in Sec. L) or the other events identified in the list, but subject to separate contracts with the ACA contractors (NGC-AS & Raytheon). It appears that the government desires an IMS that can be integrated into an overall program-level execution

IMS. In this case, and government desires such, can you provide notional time periods for completion of those non-Offeror events so as to allow visibility into the overall program flow of events, accomplishments, and criteria?

Contractor's IMS should include events A, D, H, and be consistent with the Government's notional schedule in Figure 1 of the RFP.

24 RFP pages 61 & 80 MTA bb. - Subcontractor management Will the Government require specific subcontractor quotes based on the quantities in the RFP or can the contractor leverage purchasing agreements for larger quantities based on procurement history?

The Contractor shall provide sufficient justification for their proposed price.

1 RFP L We consider this question proprietary because it can infer we are offering a classified mode; we request this question not be made public.

We assume a classified section will be required with this proposal; will the page count in the the classified submittal count against the 90 page limit of the corresponding unclassified volume?

Yes, the classified section will count against the 90 page limit.

2 SOW Sec 6 The Logistics Requirements (SoW section 6) in the RFP does not discuss the intended Maintenance Concept

(i.e. Organizational to Depot, Organizational to

Intermediate to Depot, etc.), or specify to what depth/level (WRA, SRA, piece-part) the deliverable

Logistics data is required. Full data to the piece-part level can be an obvious cost-driver. Can NAVAIR/PMA-

266 provide some further guidance here?

The government's intent is to accept the recommended

Maintenance Concept of the offeror. The government does not want to stand up a new support capability for system maintenance.

3 PWS Para 3.8.1.3 [T] The Radar System Operational Availability shall be equal to or greater than 90%. AO is calculated as: AO = Uptime / Uptime +

Downtime. Uptime is that time when the system is considered to be ready for use and is either operating, in standby, or off. Downtime is the time the system is down for repair resulting from operational mission hardware failures and/or for restoration from operational mission software faults, including off-board logistic delays.

Downtime also includes scheduled maintenance time that prevents the system from performing its assigned mission

The Operational Availability requirement for 90% Ao requires a calculation that includes logistics delay time.

This is a function of sparing level that is not discussed in the RFP or PWS. Can NAVAIR/PMA-266 provide some basic operational assumptions (e.g. expected total fleet size and annual flight hours per aircraft) that would permit some preliminary spares analysis and recommended sparing levels to support the Ao?

The government's intent is to have the contractor make reasonable assumptions to factors outside of their control.

4 RFP Sec L, Part B

2.1q

a. Critical Program Information: Provide a validated Critical

Program Information (CPI) assessment or completed CPI

Assessment (Attachment 9).

Critical Program Information. Is it the government’s intent that the contractor provide a draft CPI assessment with the proposal, or to describe the processes, procedures and capabilities to comply with

SOW paragraph 4.6.6? If the former, does the draft CPI assessment count against the page count of the technical volume?

The government's intent is for the contractor to provide either a draft CPI assessment with the proposal or one which has been accepted by a DoD service previously. This will not count against the page count of the technical volume since it will be submitted as an attachment.

5 RFP Sec L, Part B para 2.1x

a. Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP): The

Contractor shall provide a SEMP for the analysis of technical and operational capabilities for the RADAR system. The SEMP shall include plans for the technical analysis of such impacts as thermal, size, weight and power as specified in the SOW para 4.3, 4.3.1.

Historically a SEMP is delivered as a WP in the execution of the progrma not as part of the proposal response. While the SOW states the SEMP as a WP delivery, section L relects the actual document. A completed SEMP would take up a substantial portion of the 90 page limit for the technical volume.

Is it the government’s intent that the contractor provide a draft System Engineering Management Plan with the proposal, or to describe the processes, procedures and capabilities to comply with SOW paragraph 4.3.1? If the former, does the draft SEMP report count against the page count of the technical volume?

It is the government's intent to have the contractor describe the processes, procedures, and capabilities to comply with SOW paragraph 4.3 and 4.3.1. If the contractor would like to include these items as attachments to the Technical Volume as substantiating artifacts, they will not go against the 90 page limit.

6 RFP Sec L, Part B, Para 2.1y

a. Test & Evaluation Approach: The contractor shall develop and submit an Electromagnetic Environment Effects Integration and

Analysis E3IAR report. The E3IAR shall provide the design measures and test data required to be collected for the evaluation of the

RADAR System as specified in the SOW para 5.2, and specification paragraphs 4.0, and 4.1-2 including all appendices.

Test and Evaluation Approach. Is it the government’s intent that the contractor provide a draft

Electromagnetic Environment Effects Integration and

Analysis E3IAR report with the proposal, or to describe the processes, procedures and capabilities to comply with SOW paragraph 5.2? If the former, does the draft

E3IAR report count against the page count of the technical volume?

It is the government's intent to have the contractor describe the processes, procedures, and capabilities to comply with SOW paragraph 5.2. If the contractor would like to include these items as attachments to the Technical Volume as substantiating artifacts, they will not go against the 90 page limit.

7 RFP Sec L, Part B para 2.1z

z. Risk Management: The Contractor shall conduct risk assessments and provide mitigation plans for each identified risk factor as specified in the SOW para 3.3.

Does the government require the contractors response to Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.1 z regarding risk to include a complete risk plan, register, metrics, etc. OR is it intended for the contractor to describe his approach to meeting the requirements to SOW paragraph 3.3?

The government's intent is to have the contractor describe his approach to meeting the requirements. If the contractor would like to include these items as attachments to the Technical

Volume as substantiating artifacts, they will not go against the

90 page limit.

8 SOW Para 11 Data

Accession List

1. The Contractor shall propose the format of the DAL. 2. Data acquired from sub-tier Subcontractors/Suppliers should be included in the same manner as data prepared by the Subcontractor.3. The list shall identify the Government data rights using the following codes: “UR” = Unlimited Rights “LR” = Limited Rights

“RR” = Restricted Rights (Computer Software Only)

Past experience has shown Government Purpose Rights allows industry proprietary information to be freely shared throughout and only within government agencies.

Was there an intention to include Government Purpose

Rights (GPR) as an option in the data accession list?

(SOW section 11)

The government's intent was to include GPR as an option in the

DAL.

9 RFP Att 4, PWBS

Index

With respect to RFP Attachment 4, PWBS Index. The supplied PWBS contains PWBS Element Names that appear specific to a particular radar. SOW paragraph 3.4 states, in part, “The Contractor shall maintain the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and

CWBS dictionary using the WBS, provided as Government Furnished

Information, as a baseline….”

Is ATT 4 to the RFP provided simply as an example to industry of a PWBS? To remain compliant with Mil

881c, is it intended for the offeror to tailor the government-furnished PWBS so that it corresponds to the system architecture of the offeror’s system?

Attachment 4 is an example. The PWBS will need to be tailored to correspond with the offeror's system.

10 PWS Para 1.2 Paragraph 1.2 of the Performance Specification defines a radar system as follows: The Radar System may consist of the following components:A radar set consisting of an antenna, pedestal, receiver-transmitter, and a data processor; A radome to protect the antenna and pedestal;Software residing on the host vehicle for interfacing to the radar set;Software residing in the TCS for display of radar information and radar control for the operator.

While it is clear that the radome has been removed from the 5 systems that will be delivered under CLIN 2, the final RFP does not explicitly state whether radomes will be delivered under Option CLINs 6, 8, and 10.

Please clarify whether radar systems delivered under

Option CLINs 6, 8, and 10 will be delivered with radomes.

Option CLINs 6, 8, and 10 will not be delivered with radomes.

The radomes will be designed and delivered under the integration effort.

11 SOW Para 4.1 Paragraph 4.1 of the SOW states that the RADAR

System test kits do not include radomes. Paragraph

3.7.2 of the Performance Specification states that unless otherwise specified, for Radar Systems requiring a radome, the radome shall be installed for all environmental testing. Please resolve/clarify this apparent disconnect.

The Performance Specification is for the radar system as installed on the MQ-8C. The radome will be part of the integration effort.

12 PWS 3.72 3.7.2 [T] Unless otherwise specified, for Radar Systems requiring a radome, the radome shall be installed for all environmental testing.

Typically pre-delivery (contractor level) environmental testing is not performed with a radome.

Section 3.7.2 states that all environmental testing will be conducted with a radome and currently there is no radome base program RFP requirement.(SOW section

4.1) How can compliance to this requirmente be achieved without a radome?

The Performance Specification is for the radar system as installed on the MQ-8C. The radome will be part of the integration effort.

13 PWS 3.7.17 With respect to paragraphs 3.7.17.1 Operational Icing and 3.7.17.2 Ice Loading. Are these radome, rather than radar system specifications? If they are radar system specifications, how will they be evaluated absent a radome?

The Performance Specification is for the radar system as installed on the MQ-8C, which in the case of this specification, is meant for the external portions of the radar (i.e -the radome).

14 RFP Sec L, Part A,

2.0 Proposal

Format

Is a table considered a graph or text? If the proposal cannot be understood without the information contained in the table, it should be part of the 90 page limit. If the table provides enhancing information, such as a Bill of

Materials, it would be more appropriate to consider that as an attachment.