211008_METS_Draft_RFP_Govt_Responses Batch I.pdf

Comment

Document (PWS, RFP, Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Comment/Question Government Response

N0001921R0077+DRAFT+METS+

RFP.pdf

F-1 METS

AIRCRAFT

PRODUCTION LOT

DELIVERY

Based on the original RFI (META_DAS_Request_for_Information_20190520_FINAL_R2) it apearred that the initial delivery would begin near 2025 due to T-44 life limit issues. The first replacement aircraft delivery date now begins in December 2023. Is this a hard date or is it possible to deliver the first aircraft in 1st quarter 2025?

The initial META DAS Request for Information highlighted a risk of not achieving the necessary flight-hours in 2025 due to end of service life vice advertising a delivery date. The December 2023 delivery date is a hard requirement in order to mitigate this risk, and funds will be provided beginning fiscal year 2023 for METS procurement.

N0001921R0077+DRAFT+METS+

RFP.pdf

3.0 VOLUME 3

CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE

In this paragraph it describes providing corporate experience of "...delivering manned aircraft at a rate...". If the Offeror (or its partner) produces large unmanned aircraft (i.e. UAS, drone) that are on par with the manufacturing complexity of the proposed training aircraft can that delivery experience be counted? It appears that the requirement for "manned" aircraft is arbitrary considering the similarities of large sophisticated unmanned aircraft in the market.

The Government would like to have further discussion regarding corporate experience during the pre-solicitation conference prior to providing a Government response.

Att- 2+METS+Airplane+Specification +Rev1+13Sep2021

3.1 Airplane If the Offeror brings a demo aircraft to the SPD that is not in the final METS configuration and thus cannot show compliance to some of the various capabilities specificed as requirements, but can show how these features will be incorporated on the proposed METS aircraft is that acceptable? Compliance would be met with the final METS configuration. Will this cause the offerors aircraft to be valued less?

Yes, it is acceptable to bring an SPD aircraft that is not fully representative of the final METS configuration. Yes, you can describe how any AVs that are not currently incorporated within the written proposal. No, an AV that is not present in the SPD aircraft will not be valued less just because you do not have a fully representative SPD aircraft.

Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.1, System Performance Demonstration, will be revised within the Final RFP to state, "Explicitly state which AVs are included within the SPD aircraft as compared to those specified in Table 2 and Paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3"

Section M, Paragraph II.A.1 Design Approach, specifically states; "For those “shall” AVs specified in Table 2, the Offeror will not be adversely impacted if those “shall” AVs cannot be assessed as part of the SPD."

For the requirements specified in Paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3, the Offeror shall complete Attachment L-1 (Verification Matrix) per section L.

Att- 2+METS+Airplane+Specification +Rev1+13Sept221.pdf

3.1.7.2 Oxygen

System AV-041

Is it acceptable to provide a quick donning oxygen mask with smoke googles in lieu of "full-face" - see AV041 "The METS shall be equipped with full-face, quick-donning oxygen masks for both pilot stations and the jump seat station"?

METS requirement number AV-041 is a hard requirement. The full-face mask has superior performance over goggles in a smoke-filled cockpit and cabin. Furthermore, this requirement aligns with the current mask in the T-44C Pegasus which incorporates the Sweep-On® Fullface™ oxygen mask P/N 174660-23.

Att- 2+METS+Airplane+Specification +Rev1+13Sept221.pdf

3.1.13.14 Angle of

Attack (AOA) Indexer System

Is it acceptable to provide a visual indication of angle of attack on the pilot primary flight display (PFD) and the copilot's PFD in lieu of the angle of attack displayed on the MFD?

The terminology, Multi-Function Display (MFD), is a generic term used to identify a digital display per METS requirement AV-059 vice stating a specific manufacturer's nomenclature, such as primary flight display. Display of an Angle Of Attack (AOA) indication specifically on an MFD is a should-statement in METS requirement AV-094. Requirements for the actual display of an AOA indication are listed in AV-092 and AV-093.

No, METS requirement AV-092 is a hard requirement to locate the AOA indexer on the glare shield for each pilot. The AOA indicator can be displayed on the MFD per AV-094.

Att- 2+METS+Airplane+Specification +Rev1+13Sept221.pdf

3.1.13.14 Angle of

Attack (AOA) Indexer System

If the AOA is provided on the PFDs as described above also shows indexed values is it also required to be displayed on separate AOA indexers above the glareshield for the pilot and copilot?

No, METS requirement AV-092 is a hard requirement to locate the AOA indexer on the glare shield for each pilot. The requirement is to display the AOA indication on the AOA indexer per AV-092 and on an AOA indicator per AV-093. The AOA indicator can be displayed on the MFD per AV-094.

N0001921R0077+DRAFT+METS+

RFP.pdf

52.228-16

PERFORMANCE

AND PAYMENT

BONDS--OTHER

THAN

CONSTRUCTION

(NOV 2006)

Is there leeway in the requirement for "(b) The Contractor shall furnish a performance bond (Standard Form 1418) for the protection of the Government in an amount equal to 70% of contract price for CLINs 0001, 0101, and 0201 to cover all aircraft."? We would like request that the 70% performance bond be against on CLIN 001 (10 aircraft) only.

The draft solicitation affords offerors the opportunity to either participate in Government financing pursuant to 52.232-30 or the ability to invoice for payment for each aircraft at the time of the aircraft acceptance. Pursuant to the formula stipulated under 52.232-30, significant financing payments (70% of the CLIN price) can be invoiced in advance of aircraft delivery under each lot of aircraft. In light of the above, NAVAIR maintains that the Contractor shall furnish a performance bond (Standard Form 1418) for the protection of the Government in an amount equal to 70% of the aircraft CLIN contract price for each aircraft lot.

N0001921R0077+DRAFT+METS+

RFP.pdf

5252.245-9520

ASSOCIATE

CONTRACTOR

CLAUSE (NAVAIR)

(OCT 2005) - ALT I

(AUG 2003)

Will an RFP be released for the Ground Based Training System (GBTS) requirement?

Do you know the timing as to when it will be released?

Yes, an RFP will be released for the GBTS requirement following the award of the aircraft procurement. Please use notice ID N6134021R00700001 to follow information related to GBTS at sam.gov.

N0001921R0077+DRAFT+METS+

RFP.pdf

5252.245-9520

ASSOCIATE

CONTRACTOR

CLAUSE (NAVAIR)

(OCT 2005) - ALT I

(AUG 2003)

Will an RFP be released for the Combined Logisitics System (CLS) requirement? Do you know the timing as to when it will be released?

Yes, an RFP will be released for the CLS requirement following the award of the aircraft procurement. This effort is still in the market research phase.

NA NA If the Offerror's aircraft has additional capabilites that are not listed in the aircraft specification/requirements for METS how are those evaluated for competitive advantage or are they counted at all?

Only the METS requirements listed in Sections L and M will be evaluated. Other capabilities not listed in Sections L and M, including those listed in the aircraft specification or otherwise, will not be evaluated.

METS Q&A Sheet