Industry_questions_FINAL_31_AUG.docx

Industry Questions

1. The initial NRE phase is 1 year in duration, and then a FMF Application Platform Integration Support phase that is 5 years in duration. While the initial period of performance the NRE CLIN (CLIN 0001) is the base year of the contract; there are 4 option years for NRE (CLINs 0101, 0201, 0301 & 0401), should the completion of the NRE extend beyond 12 months. The FMF Application Platform Integration is also an Option CLIN (CLIN 0002) and is 5 years in duration. However, it will not be exercised until the completion of the NRE. What contractor activities are included in the FMF Application Platform Integration Support. The ONLY contractor activity included in the Application Platform Integration Support is the Software Recompiling (SOW paragraph 3.12). Does this phase only include recompilation of the UOC(s) for each new platform? Yes. For purposes of estimating this task, for how many platforms will this task be performed? For informational purposes, the $200K identified in Section L on page 103 for CLIN 0002, Software Recompiling is fully inclusive of expected industry burdens, fees, taxes, and other associated costs and is estimated to accommodate 6 recompiles. Beyond recompilation, are all other integration support activities separately contracted? Yes, other integration support activities will be captured/executed by other future contracting efforts

2. Is this going to be a military certification (as opposed to FAA certification)?

Is it correct that the Navy is responsible for the aircraft certification, and the contractor’s responsibility is to supply CO-178C artifacts to support that certification?

Is the Navy responsible for certification of each new platform?

Will the contractor be contracted separately to support each new certification as required? Platform certification for RNP RNAV capability will be performed by USN as a follow-on activity and is outside the scope of this Requirement. Certification expectations for the FMF software application itself are detailed in Section L, Part B, 2.0 Technical Approach of the RFP. Contractor responsibilities for platform integration are limited to those set out in SOW section 3.12.

3. Does a unique safety case need to be made for each platform? No. Refer to section 3.3 of the SOW: “For this section, the term ‘System’ is restricted to the FMF Application as it affects the safety of an aircraft upon integration. Safety-related aspects of an integrated aircraft, including computing hardware, not related to FMF Application functionality, are deferred to the integration efforts”.

4. The Government Specification for FMF Software Application states that the FMF shall output command signals for use by an autopilot/flight director. Does this mean either or both? What are the inputs expected by the autopilot/flight director? The “/” in “autopilot/flight director” means “and/or” (autopilot and/or flight director) This requirement was adapted from RTCA DO-236 and was intentionally modified to acknowledge that the FMF Application will only provide the underlying data necessary to generate autopilot/flight director command signals, vice the command signals themselves, which will be generated in other layers of the software architecture during platform integration.

5. What suite of sensors should the FMF be built for? GPS? INU? Air Data Computer? ILS? DME? VOR? ADF? TACAN? Doppler Velocity? Radar Altimeter? Will all of these be in a Dual configuration (never single or triple?)? Will all platforms be equipped with the same configuration of sensors? Will all of one type (e.g. GPSs) all have the same interface? As stated in section 3.2.2.1.1.6 of the Government Spec, “The software SHALL estimate the position using a Precise Positioning Service GPS as the primary sensor input. Note: This requirement does not preclude use of other navigation sensors or combinations of sensors to supplement the PPS GPS. It is the software manufacturer’s responsibility to demonstrate that the performance of the other sensors or sensor combinations meets the requirements of this document.” It is not expected that all target USN integration platforms will have the same suite of sensors, nor are all sensors of the same type guaranteed to have the same interface.

6. The GS states that “Enhanced system capabilities may include optimized climb performance or descent profiles.” Is this a capability that the Navy is willing to incur extra NRE cost for? How will the tradeoff between increased cost and capability be evaluated? The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement.

7. Is the FMS required to operate in triple and quad redundant configurations as well as single and dual? The FMF Application is required to operate in a “dual” installation environment in accordance with paragraph 3.4.2 of the GS. The Government does not anticipate a need to operate in triple or quad redundant configurations.

8. What exactly is the distinction between SDRLs A003, A004, and A005? Can NAVAIR provide a clear description of each. Agenda (A003), Minutes (A004), and Presentation Materials(A005). Block 2 of each CDRL identifies the title of the Data Item, Block 3 identifies the subtitle of the data Item and Block 16 provides more information relating to the CDRL. Please refer to those blocks for CDRL A003, A004 and A005 for more detail.

9. For SDRL A009 (SWMR), what is the desired frequency of receipt of the metrics report? The frequency of delivery for Metrics report is set out in Block 16 of the CDRL.

10. For the program milestone events, I see SRR/SFR, PDR, CDR, TRR, and RBR (if using Agile). Will be an FCA/PCA (or maybe just FCA) or equivalent program wrap-up event as well? No, there will not be an FCA/PCA or equivalent program wrap-up event.

11. Does NAVAIR expect that the FMF will be TSO’ed? No, NAVAIR does not expect the FMF will be TSO’ed.

12. How many originals and copies are required for Annex#1? 1 original and 3 copies will be added to the table found in Section L, Part A, 3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES, via amendment.

13. A).Section L Pages 93 & 94 requires delivery of an SDP, SSPP and SRP as part of this proposal. Can these deliverables be excluded toward the Technical Volume page count? These documents can be quite lengthy.

B).Will there be an authorized annex as required per Section L, Part B 2.0 Technical Approach with an unspecified page limit to collect the manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and policies that exist as an official document of the company or facility, as well as other information requested in Section L, Part B Specific Instructions for 2.0 Technical Approach? Annex #3 will be added to Section L, Part A, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes of the Solicitation via Amendment. Items explicitly required as part of the proposal (e.g., the SDP, SSPP and SRP) can be made part of the Annex, and the associated Narratives, Rationale, etc. will be required as part of the Technical Volume. However, items are not explicitly required as part of the proposal (e.g., manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and company policies) will not be accepted as part of the Annex #3.

14. Will the additional capabilities identified in the proposal be evaluated? (Section L (page 91): Part B, 2.0 VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH, 2.1 Systems Engineering, SE-1 Government Specification Compliance - The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing, and a detailed matrix that: 4) annotates additional Capabilities resident in the Offeror's FMF but not in the Government Specification, and the parent requirement for each capability) Additional capabilities are not discussed in the evaluation criteria in Section M. Yes, the Government does intend to evaluate additional capabilities identified in the proposal. The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. -

15. How will the additional capabilities, threshold and objective requirements identified in the proposal be evaluated? (per Section L Section L (page 91): Part B, 2.0 VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH, 2.1 Systems Engineering, SE-1 Government Specification Compliance - The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing, and a detailed matrix that: 1) identifies the Government Specification requirements (threshold & objective) that their proposed FMF currently meets and 4) annotates additional Capabilities resident in the Offeror's FMF but not in the Government Specification, and the parent requirement for each capability) The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement.

16. Per section L (page 99) an offeror may propose license costs/prices for either CLIN 0004 or CLIN 0005 or both. If a Contractor proposes license costs/prices for both CLIN 0004, and options, and CLIN 0005, how will the Total Evaluated Cost/Price be calculated and compared? The Total Evaluated Cost/Price for CLINs 0004 and 0005 will be calculated independently and compared in accordance with what the Government determines the desired option to be (i.e. if the Government chooses the CLIN 0004 option, then Total Evaluated Cost/Price for CLIN 0004 will be compared to the other offeror's Total Evaluated Cost/Price for CLIN 0004 in determining the best value).

17. Is a Type Certificate at the aircraft level sufficient for product level experience or is experience developing software directly applicable to RTCA DO-283, RTCA DO-229, and FAA TSO-C115 expected per the GS FMF SW specification, section 1.4 Document Overview, page 11? In other words, is integrating and installing and receiving a certificate, utilizing a 3rd party flight management system solutions, sufficient for corporate experience? No. Per Section L, Part B, 1.0 Corporate Experience, it states “Offeror shall document their corporate experience in developing flight management system solutions that have been certified by a civil aviation authority for RNP RNAV operations, including RNAV (GPS) approaches to LNAV minima, in civil airspace. Integrating a 3rd party FMF solution, alone, is not sufficient to satisfy the Corporate Experience requirement.

18. Please clarify the intent of including multiple NRE CLINs. Is the intent for the government to have pricing if contract award is delayed to later fiscal years? Will all six CLINs (0001, 0002, 0101, 0201, 0301 and 0401) be included in the evaluated cost for CPFF CLINs? The additional NRE Option CLINs are included should the completion of the NRE extend beyond the first twelve months. If NRE is completed within the first twelve months, then the remaining Option CLINs (0101, 0201, 0301 and 0401) will not be exercised.

19. Is the formula below the correct understanding of how evaluated price will be calculated for CLIN 0004, and options (Section M (page 114)? Proposed Price for FFP CLINs = [CLIN 0004 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0004 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0004 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0004 Price(1001-1500) + CLIN 0104 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0104 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0104 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0104 Price(1001-1500) + CLIN 0204 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0204 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0204 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0204 Price(1001-1500) + CLIN 0304 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0304 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0304 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0304 Price(1001-1500) + CLIN 0404 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0404 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0404 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0404 Price(1001-1500) ] / 4 * 400?

Price for FFP CLINs will be evaluated as follows: (CLIN 0004 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0004 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0004 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0004 Price(1001-1500)) / 4 * 400+ (CLIN 0104 Price(1-300) +CLIN 0104 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0104 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0104 Price(1001-1500)) / 4 * 400 + (CLIN 0204 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0204 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0204 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0204 Price(1001-1500) ) / 4 * 400+ (CLIN 0304 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0304 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0304 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0304 Price(1001-1500) + CLIN 0404 Price(1-300) + CLIN 0404 Price(301-500) + CLIN 0404 Price(501-1000) + CLIN 0404 Price(1001-1500) ) / 4 * 400 Each CLIN is a year the 4 step ladder prices are added together then divided by the number of steps (4) and multiplied by 400. This is done for each CLIN then summed for a total price of CLIN 4 and options.

20. Where is SOW Paragraph 3.15 priced? SOW Paragraph 3.15 is not referenced in any of the CLINs. SOW Paragraph 3.15 will be added to Section B, CLINs 0001, 0101, 0201, 0301 and 0401 via amendment.

21. Will the government leverage the contractor specification for “sell off” of the FMF application? Unable to answer as written – Please clarify.

22. How does the government expect the FMF to access the Navigation Database? Since the FMF is a PCS UoC, the FMF will not have direct access to the platform specific storage devices. It is expected that the platform integrator will provide this PSSS (Platform Specific Services Segment) service. All external data required by the FMF App, including the Navigation Database, is accessed according to the FACE standard for the Portable Components Segment. This restriction is summarized in section 3.1 of the Government Spec: "All input to and output from PCS component(s) developed under this effort SHALL pass through either the Operating System Interface (OSI) or the Transport Service Interface (TSI) as described by the FACE Technical Standard. These inputs and outputs include any resource requests including those requests to an external file system."

Additionally note that vendors are constrained to development within the Portable Component Segment (PCS) layer of the FACE Architecture per section 3.1 of the Government Specification: "The software SHALL conform to the Portable Component Segment (PCS) defined by the FACE Technical Standard."

23. Referencing the requirement that states “The Contractor SHALL perform penetration testing on the software as part of the overall Functional Qualification Test Report. (CDRL A012)” in Section 3.11.3 (Functional Qualification Test (FQT)). Please clarify the breadth, depth, and constraints (e.g., tools).

Tools: to be defined and provided by the Contractor Breadth and Depth: authorized simulated attack on a computer system that looks for security weaknesses, potentially gaining access to the system’s features and data. Discover vulnerabilities and to exploit the vulnerabilities.

Constraints: timeframe, as part of FQT; there are no other constraints

24. The SOW introduction states that the application software must meet the civil (FAA) requirements for aircraft operating in civil controlled airspace. It also imposes multiple MIL-STD-882E tasks for software development, which are incompatible with DO-178C. The FAA recognizes DO-178C as the basis for certification of software in airborne systems and equipment. The FAA does not recognize MIL-STD-882E. Recommend that the SOW (section 3.3) be revised to require a Functional Hazard Analysis (FHA) in accordance with DO-178C, which conforms to the FAA requirements and provides the appropriate artifact should FAA certification on a specific platform be desired. The SOW should also retain the Safety Assessment Report (SAR) from MIL-STD-882E as a summary of all safety analyses and information compiled during the FMF development program. All other analysis tasks (201, 202, 203 and 204) should be removed since they are not applicable to this development program. In addition the SW Safety LOR (Level of Rigor) requirement from MIL-STD-882E, should be removed, as it conflicts with DO-178C DAL (Development Assurance Level).

DO-178C DAL is not a safety document, but contains within its processes defined criteria for meeting the rigor necessary for safety critical software development (software assurance). It does not provide the safety specific analysis tasks required by MIL-STD-882E and the JSSSEH (software safety). NAVAIR System Safety is mandated by NAVAIRINST 5100 to implement MIL-STD-882E which references Joint Software System Safety Software Engineering Handbook (JSSSEH) and applies to all NAVAIR Programmatic and Technical Authorities performing acquisition, in-service support, engineering, or technical work. All tasks in section 3.3 of the SOW are required unless equivalent tasks are proposed and approved.

25. Section 3.2.2.1.1.5.1 – Can you explain or give an example of a “space-based” navaid? This terminology is taken directly from RTCA DO-283. In a subsequent paragraph, DO-283 clarifies that “space-based navaids” are Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Therefore, in the Government Spec, “space-based navaids” is synonymous with GPS.

26. Section 3.2.2.1.2.2 –Do you plan to use the full set of ATS route identifiers or a subset?

We expect the vendors to comply with DAFIF ed. 8.1 specification as defined in the ATS table.

27. Section 3.2.2.1.2.11.1 – Could you explain what this requirement is trying to exclude or prevent? “The software shall only require aeronautical data that is available from the DAFIF 8.1 compliant database” This requirement intends to preclude a situation where, in order to achieve spec compliance and full functional performance, the FMF Application requires one or more aeronautical data elements that are not present in a DAFIF 8.1 database. In other words, the Government wishes to ensure that the FMF Application is fully functional using aeronautical data available in DAFIF 8.1 alone.

28. The SOW does not appear to include a schedule with required milestone dates (e.g. for SRR, PDR, CDR, FQT, etc.). Does PMA 209 intend to request a specific delivery schedule or is the expectation that the contractor should propose the schedule as part of the RFP response?

As identified in Section L (Part B, 2.0, SE-3) of the RFP, The Offeror shall prepare and submit a draft schedule showing major Technical program activities

29. The SOW refers to an attachment B of the solicitation, but “Attachment_A_Safety_LOR-Table” was provided and appears to have the same scope. Was the reference in the SOW intended to refer to Attachment A? Attachment 1, will be corrected to reflect Attachment A and will be added to Section J via amendment.

30. Will the details of the ICD between the FMF application and the transport layer be defined by PMA 209 and provided to the contractor or is it anticipated that the ICD will be jointly defined during preliminary phases of the program? No. The IDD (A00F) shall be developed under contract by the contractor and delivered with Unlimited or Government Purpose Rights, as defined by DFARS 252.227-7013

31. In Attachment 6 of the RFP, the (PWBS) Program Work Breakdown Structure and Dictionary (worksheet 1) is not consistent with the WBS listed in the (CCRM) Cost Cross Reference Matrix (worksheet 2). Which WBS structure should we follow? Also, what is the meaning of the reference to “1.5.2” on the top of the CCRM? Attachment 6 has been updated to reflect the same data in Worksheet 1 and Worksheet 2; however, the layout of the information is different. The Government normally requests cost data to be provided at a minimum of the 3rd level of the WBS. The offeror may provide data at a lower level if the proposal is structured that way. The purpose of the CCRM is to ensure that the offeror provides the link between the WBS, the CLIN, the SOW paragraph and the IMS so the Government knows where to look for the data for the individual WBS elements in the proposal. The WBS and CCRM sheets are consistent, and both are required. The “1.5.2” at the top of the CCRM was left in error. The CCRM worksheet has been revised, removing the 1.5.2 from Worksheet 2 and the updated attachment 1 will be added to the amendment

32. For the CDRLs listed in Attachment 15, is Contractor format acceptable for all document CDRL deliveries? Please refer to Block 16 of each CDRL for the required format of that particular CDRL. Any CDRL that does not indicate submission to the Government in a specific format, maybe submitted in the Offeror’s format; providing that the CDRL submitted covers all of the topics in the DID reference and formats are tied to FACE conformance or defined by the technical standard (e.g. FACE Data Model, FACE CVM).

33. Section L, Page 101 requires mapping of the IMS (Integrated Master Schedule) to the CWBS (Contractor Work Breakdown Structure) as part of the CRM (Cross Reference Matrix). Is the IMS a proposal deliverable, and if so, is Microsoft Project format acceptable; and does it count toward the Technical Volume page count? MPP format is acceptable, however, the IMS shall be delivered as a PDF file and must not contain cost information. The IMS will not count towards the Technical Volume page count and will be submitted as part of Annex #3.

34. SOW 3.2.1 requires planned Stages of Involvement (SOI) audits. Can we assume all such SOI audits will be held at Contractor’s facility? Yes, SOI audits will be held at the Contractor’s facility.

35. Per SOW 3.2.7, is the Government only interested in participating in Software Peer Reviews identified within our Integrated Master Schedule (MS)? The government intends to participate in the reviews listed in 3.2.7 of the SOW. If these are ALL listed in the IMS, then the answer is “yes”. If there are reviews that are NOT listed in the IMS, but are part of the software IPT/Team/Division’s process, or on a schedule that is not integrated into the IMS, then government wishes to participate (when available) in those as well (see RBR type reviews in the SOW as a for instance).

36. Would the Government please elaborate on the definition of “Peak Conditions” as defined within SOW 3.2.17? The peak load/conditions in this case, is the amount of CPU, Memory (RAM/ROM) and Throughput (Input/Output) used by the software/hardware/system during the most stressing scenario of usage.37. SOW 3.3.1 states that the Contractor shall use the guidance provided in the “Joint Software System Safety Handbook” and MIL-HDBK-516. Is JSSSH and MIL-HDBK-516 required or to be used as guidance only? Table 2.1, Government Documents found on page 7 of the SOW identifies documents as required or guidance. For the two mentioned, Table 2.1 indicates they are for guidance.

38. Section 3.3.2 of the specification (p. 93 of Attachment 2) calls out a requirement that the FMF not degrade or crash the Operational Flight Program (OFP). Would you clarify the role of the FMF with respect to complying with this requirement? Based upon an assumption of how the system MAY be architected, data I/O (input/output) could directly affect components (i.e. software) of the host’s OFP. Should the FMF, while it is in use or in standby mode (if applicable), crash or experience some type of failure, the FMF should not still be sending data (or start to send data on restart) that would affect the OFP and cause it to fail or become degraded (i.e. send the pilot/aircraft off course). Can be tested by “killing” the FMF (or sending bad data that should cause a crash) while in use and see what happens to the OFP.

39. SOW Section 3.4.1 calls out coupling and cohesion requirements on “modules”. Can we assume that module means Units of Conformance (UoC), in this context? Yes

40. What limitations are there for support of “multiple, separate integration support activities” as called out in SOW 3.12.1? Would the Government provide some bounds for estimating purposes? As stated on page 103 of the Solicitation; “the above estimates are fully inclusive of expected industry burdens, fees, taxes, and other associated costs; the Offeror shall not propose any additional fees or burdens to the above cost. The Offeror shall propose ODCs in the cost/price proposal in accordance with the above estimates. For CLIN 0002, Software Recompiling is not to exceed 6 recompiles.

41. In Attachment 15 (Contract Data Requirements Lists), each CDRL includes a Price Group (Box 17) and Estimated Total Price (Box 18); however, there is no requirement in the RFP for the Contractor to price each CDRL separately. Are Contractors required to price each CDLR separately? No, CDRLs are not separately priced.

42. Please note: additional controlled material (DoD, NAVAIR and FAA Instructions) is available by electronic request (to the POC's listed in this notice)