2019.03.15.Q&A_final.pdf

1 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

Pre Solicitation Question Response

1 Where is East Coast and West Coast base of operations? How is that defined?

East Coast and West Coast Basing locations are defined in PBWS paragraphs

5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Per PBWS paragraph 5.2.1, the Contractor shall permanently operate aircraft from these locales when not deployed.

2 Can the East & West Coast SOJ aircraft be co-located to reduce costs to the Government?

No. The SOJ aircraft shall be based on the East Coast and West Coast Basing locations as defined in PBWS paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Per PBWS paragraph 5.2.1, the Contractor shall permanently operate aircraft from these locales when not deployed.

As part of a cost and risk management strategy, we believe it may be prudent to provide for a common/central basing location for the SOJ aircraft. Would the government be open to alternative basing solutions which extend beyond the limitations listed in the RFP assuming the proposed solution describes the inherent features and benefits to the basing approach?

No. The SOJ aircraft shall be based on the East Coast and West Coast Basing locations as defined in PBWS paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Per PBWS paragraph 5.2.1, the Contractor shall permanently operate aircraft from these locales when not deployed.

Is it the Government’s intention not to utilize North Island NAS as the West Coast Base? The current CAS contract and the draft HEEWJ RFP dated 9aug18 uses NASNI as the West Coast base.

Not using NASNI as the West Coast base would greatly increase the operating costs for West Coast basing.

The Government will not provide basing at NAS North Island.

5 Permanent Basing: Can EA, SOJ & Tow aircraft be based on a Government Air Station / Airfield?

Government facilities will not be made available to the Contractor under this contract. If the Offeror is able to secure basing on a Government airfield on their own, within the requirements of PBWS paragraph 5.2, that would be permitted.

Paragraph 5.0, along with clarifications in the Industry Day briefing suggest that the contractor must provide for basing facilities on the East and West coast. Will the government allow for the proposal and use of existing relationships/agreements in place to allow for basing at government facilities? It is expected that the continued use of government facilities for aircraft basing will reduce cost while improving inherent collaboration.

Government facilities will not be made available to the Contractor under this contract. If the Offeror is able to secure basing on a Government airfield on their own, within the requirements of PBWS paragraph 5.2, that would be permitted.

Ref RFP Para 5.2.2 – West Coast Basing: If the contractor elects / proposes to base at a civilian airport which does not currently have Into-Plane Contract Jet Fuel available, if award the contract will the Navy submit a request to DLA to initiate an Into-Plane Contract Jet Fuel Contract at that airport?

PBWS paragraphs 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 specify that the Contractor shall be approved for fuel only up to the Government contract fuel rate. The Offeror should not rely on an assumption that the Government will submit a request to DLA to initiate an Into-Plane Jet Fuel Contract after award.

West Coast basing Para 5.2.2 states “The Contractor shall establish a permanent base for the aircraft within 150 NM of San Clemente Island, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (KNUC) Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) for operations.” Since different aircraft have different ranges, speeds and on station times, could the government reword this requirement to being able to maintain a minimum on station time at that point? This requirement limits basing options that might provide better pricing to the government. By changing the requirement to an on station time, offerors could leverage longer range aircraft to find the best suitable operating location that provides the most value to the government.

The requirement will remain as written as "The Contractor shall establish a permanent base for the aircraft within 150 NM of San Clemente Island, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (KNUC) Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) for operations."

SUBJECT: CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006 Service CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006, and Section L.B.5.4.2 would lead one to believe that all per diem travel costs are to be included in these CLINs. When circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently or uncertainties are involved in contract performance that do not permit costs to be estimated sufficiently, a cost reimbursement CLIN is suitable.

Government-directed travel, both CONUS and OCONUS, as well as extended deployments are included in the performance work statement. Travel is directly related to Government training missions that are not possible to schedule months/years in advance and durations vary greatly.

Stated another way, contractor travel requirements are uncertain and the associated costs are difficult to estimate.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Based upon the rationale above, will the Government consider adding a cost-reimbursement CLIN for travel?

The final RFP CLIN structure will be revised to incorporate Firm Fixed Price (FFP) travel CLIN(s).

SUBJECT:CLIN’s 0004, 0005, and 0006 The Minutes quantities listed in CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006 are understood to be the maximum quantities for the entire contract (4 years).

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Are there any maximum quantities per Calendar Year? Are there any monthly minimum quantities (guarantee)?

There are no maximum quantities per Calendar Year or minimum monthly quantity guarantees for CLINS 0004 - 0006.

2 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

SUBJECT: CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006 Ferry costs For the Services CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006, ferry operations are mentioned as support costs.

This seems to mean that all repositioning sorties (CONUS and OCONUS) are not paid separately;

i.e., only mission sortie flight minutes are to be billed. This is a potentially bad scenario, when flying 5.5 hours to execute a 2.5-hour mission in the JAXOA. A deployment to Guam or Australia would present an even worse ferry-to-mission ratio.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government consider paying the contractor for ferry legs in one of the CLINS (CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006)?

Ferry costs are included in the CLIN descriptions for CLINS 0004 - 0006.

Is the Unit Price for CLINs 0004, 0005, 0006 and 0007 fixed for the four-year and 364-day ordering period? In other words, will the contractor be able to make annual pricing adjustments for inflation to CLINs 0004 through 0007 during the nearly five-year ordering period?

All CLINs are firm fixed price (FFP) and will not be subject to any adjustments.

All costs to perform these CLINs should be included at time at of proposal.

SUBJECT: #2 Ferry operations SPECIFIC QUESTION: On page 7, sect C CLIN 0004-0006 state they are “service costs (charged by the flight minute) shall include mission flight time and all flight support costs, e.g. ferry operations, weather and navigation services, maintenance, installation and removal of GFP, Government provided mission equipment, CFE and any other operating costs not outlined in the monthly fixed operating costs CLIN 0007”. It is not clear how the offeror is to build up the cost of ferry operations in this CLIN. Are government directed ferry flights charged at the rate of mission minutes or is the offeror expected to account for those additional ferry costs in the flight time charged for other mission flights?

Due to the possible large but undefined ferry flight requirement, it is recommended ferry flights be charged as mission minutes. Precedence for this is that transit portions of flights to and from the range are charged at the mission rate and arguably, a ferry flight is performing the same function by relocating the asset to where it can be used. If ferry flights are direct charges to CLIN 004-006 overall risk to the contractor and cost to the government will be significantly lower.

Ferry costs are included in the CLIN descriptions for CLINS 0004 - 0006. Ferry missions during exercises will be funded as service minutes.

SUBJECT: Mission Flight Time The PBWS defines mission flight time as “from time of take-off to landing.”

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Since the contractor incurs costs from engine start-up to engine shut-down, will the Government consider adding an additional ten (10) minutes for taxiing and Air Traffic Control delays?

The Contractor should incorporate any costs to perform this service into CLINS 0004-0006

Deployment Recognizing the Government certainly has the right to cancel or not schedule flight services on any given day of detachment operations, non-fly days provide for the possibility of aircraft and crew(s) to be deployed with no flying for indefinite periods of time. The contractor still incurs unrecoverable costs to have an aircraft and crew awaiting the Government’s schedule and it’s impossible for the contractor to use the aircraft and crew for another mission. Additionally, there is no incentive for the Government to minimize non-flying time while deployed.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government consider providing an average minimum guarantee of CLIN 0004, 0005, or 0006 service hours per day (perhaps two hours)?

There are no minimum monthly quantity guarantees for CLINS 0004 - 0006.

CLIN 0007 is limited to $500K for all three capabilities. Is this Max Monthly fixed costs an arbitrary amount assigned by the Government?

The $500K monthly fixed cost is for all three capabilities and was based on current Government Estimates.

CLIN 0007 commencement requirements The draft RFP states in regards to CLIN 0007 “This CLIN shall commence upon issuance of an Interim Flight Clearance for all capabilities (EA, SOJ, and TBT).” Since IFC’s are granted by airframe, does this statement mean that as soon as at least one aircraft is capable of meeting each defined mission set (EA,SOJ,TBT), CLIN 0007 will commence? If not, what is the requirement to commence CLIN 007?

The Final RFP CLIN structure is being revised to delineate standup requirements.

CLIN 0007 full payment The draft RFP states in regards to CLIN 0007 “This CLIN shall commence upon issuance of an Interim Flight Clearance for all capabilities (EA, SOJ, and TBT).” This CLIN is further defined on page 5 as 48 monthly payments. If the IFC process for all capabilities takes longer than the 12 month standup period given (which could be for government process reasons) – the offeror may risk significant losses as this CLIN will not be available to account for expenses. Can this statement be changed to” payments from this CLIN will be withheld in accordance with FAR part 15 until issuance of an Interim Flight Clearance for all capabilities (EA, SOJ, and TBT).”

The Final RFP CLIN structure is being revised to delineate standup requirements.

3 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

The airworthiness certification approach requires all certification prior to exercising the monthly fixed cost CLIN. Are the aircraft platform and external stores carriage/operation IFC certification part of this requirement?

Yes, IAW CLINs 0001-0003, operational validation is required.

CLIN 0007 Monthly Fixed Costs With the requirement for twelve simultaneous presentations included in the PBWS, the NTE amount of $500,000 per month for fixed costs is insufficient to cover the anticipated fixed costs that will be encountered in this contract. The costs will likely increase with a requirement for the contractor to operate out of a civilian airfield.

Because the contract requirement is measured in required simultaneous presentations and not in flight hours, many of the expenses that would normally be flight-hour driven will be incurred to meet the required presentations regardless of the number of flight hours flown. The contractor often must perform inspections and maintenance on the aircraft early so the aircraft are available to meet the simultaneous presentation requirements 24/7. The large fluctuations in flight hours flown encountered in contracts similar to this one make it difficult for the contractor to recoup these costs for several months, if at all. Traditional flight hour-generated costs of labor and parts become event-driven. These costs become more fixed than variable and are not necessarily recoverable through the flight hour CLINs.

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Will the Government consider increasing the NTE amount of CLIN 0007? If not, will the Government consider including a guaranteed number of flight hours per month?

The $500K monthly fixed cost is based on current Government Estimates.

There are no minimum monthly quantity guarantees for CLINS 0004 - 0006.

CLIN 0007 - Monthly Fixed Operating Costs For use to capture fixed monthly operating costs for EA, SOJ and TBT. Monthly fixed costs shall include labor, meetings with the Government, contractor hangar space, insurance, training requirements, material, and any other recurring operating costs not attributable to other CLINs.

This CLIN shall commence upon issuance of an Interim Flight Clearance for all capabilities (EA, SOJ, and TBT).

CLINs 0004, 0005, 0006 – EA, SOJ, TBT service costs shall include “mission flight time and all flight support costs”.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

All "Flight Support Costs" are not Flight Minute driven. Does the Government anticipate only Flight Minute-driven costs to be included in these CLINs? For example:

a. Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) is a fixed cost.

b. Cost for maintenance is either calendar-driven or flight minute-driven and scheduled or unscheduled. Calendar-driven, scheduled/unscheduled maintenance is a monthly cost.

Additionally, the PBWS requirement is “Simultaneous Presentations” and not a predetermined or fixed number of flight minutes. Therefore, some costs that are traditionally flight minute-driven become calendar-driven.

Per the CLIN descriptions for CLINs 0004-0006 EA, SOJ & TBT "service costs (charged by the flight minute) shall include mission flight time and all flight support costs, e.g. ferry operations, weather and navigation services, maintenance, installation and removal of Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government provided mission equipment, Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) and any other operating costs not outlined in the monthly fixed operating costs"

Per the CLIN description for the Monthly Fixed Operating Costs, "For use to capture fixed monthly operating costs for EA, SOJ and TBT during stand up.

Monthly fixed costs shall include labor, meetings with the Government, Contractor hangar space, insurance, training requirements, material, and any other recurring operating costs not attributable to other CLINs."

Travel CLINs Can an additional three firm fixed price CLINs be added? These CLINS would be written as a daily charge for each airframe deployed away from its home base at the direction of the government.

As a daily rate per airframe, it would cover the cost of housing, feeding, and moving personnel while deployed, as well as any PNFS costs incurred as a result of not flying the aircraft while deployed.

The final RFP CLIN structure will be revised to incorporate a FFP travel CLIN(s).

SUBJECT: Travel Costs The RFP States, ‘Attachment L-6 provides historical travel information for use to develop the travel included in these CLINs (CLINS 0004-0006 EA, SOJ, TBT Services).” Travel is not a flight hour-generated cost. Travel expenses are not attributable to the number of minutes flown by the aircraft. Travel costs are attributed to the “Mission" regardless of the number of Flight Minutes flown.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

What is the basis of estimate or rationale used by the Government to include Travel costs in the Cost Per Flight Minute CLINs?

The final RFP CLIN structure will be revised to incorporate a FFP travel CLIN.

4 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

CLIN Structure – The contractor has no control over the frequency, duration nor number of aircraft/crews the Navy requires the contractor to perform, not to mention where the deployments are to be made too which impact the contractor’s costs for lodging, per diem & rental cars. Nor is the contractor protected from the Navy abusing the deployments by keeping the contractor aircraft deployed even when the aircraft are not needed/flown since there is no financial incentive for the Navy to properly manage the deployments (which the Navy has a proven track record of doing on at least one CAS contract). Without a CLIN for the contractor to recover their costs associated with deployments and potential Navy abuse, the contractor will have to assume that all aircraft are deployed every day of the year to the most expensive location with will increase the Navy’s cost.

We highly recommend that the Navy include either travel reimbursement and PNFS CLINs, or in the alternative, at least include a Firm Fixed Unit Price per aircraft deployed day which would include the cost of having the aircraft as exclusive use for that day plus the crew labor costs as well as the contractor’s cost for lodging, per diem, rental cars, shipment of required tools & support equipment, etc.

The final RFP CLIN structure will be revised to incorporate a FFP travel CLIN(s).

Travel CLIN The PWS states CLIN 003-005 are for “services at locations identified below in appendix C”. The locations listed in appendix Care worldwide and have widely varying per diem costs. Without a separate travel CLIN offerors will be forced to charge a worst case TDY rate for all flight hours (including those flown from home station) which will be a higher rate than if those charges could be broken out and provided to the government. Recommend a separate “deployed operations” CLIN be added in which TDY expenses can be charged to minimize risk and cost. Will the government add such a CLIN? If not, alternately, will the government add a FFP CLIN for each expected deployment site?

The final RFP CLIN structure will be revised to incorporate a FFP travel CLIN(s).

Detachment cost Para 5.3.7.1 states “The Contractor shall plan, schedule, ship, and deploy its personnel and equipment, including all required GFP, Government provided mission equipment, and CFE to perform the mission.”. Para 5.3.7.1 further goes on to state “Any Contractor requested aircraft or aircrew substitutions during a scheduled deployment, to include transit to and from the deployment base, shall be entirely at Contractor expense”, this seems to imply those deployment expenses other than substitutions can be charged to the government.

Under what CLIN will these shipping and deployment expenses be charged and are they direct reimbursable charges?

Para 5.3.7 states “The Contractor shall deploy as directed by the Government”. This represents an open ended cost to the contractor with tremendous risk if not accounted for with the ability to direct charge via a CLIN. It is recommended a separate CLIN for deployed operations be added to account for these expenses in the most cost effective manner to the government without the need for offerors to account for risk.

Detachment related costs should be included in CLINs 0004-0006 as "other operating costs"

Detachment Operations Section 5.3.7.1 lists considerations for detachment sites.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Would the Government consider adding the availability of hotels at the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) rate as an additional consideration for detachment sites?

The Government will not add the availability of hotels as a consideration for detachment sites.

Is it the Navy's desire to consider the EA. SOJ and TBT aircraft as Exclusive Use Aircraft? If not, are there scheduling coordination mechanisms in place with the government asset planners to allow for adjunct use with other governement agencies?

Section C Para 5.1 states "However, flight operations may be scheduled and conducted at any time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week." Section C para 2.0 allows for use by other agencies,which is encouraged on this IDIQ contract via an awarded Task Order.

What is the NAVAIR standard for the SOJ aircraft airworthiness certification? Is an FAA Experimental Certification enough to meet airworthiness requirements? If so, will the aircraft be required to support missions OCONUS (i.e. outside CONUS and Hawaii Operating Area) as noted in Appendix C?

As stated in para. 4.3 of the PBWS, the proposed aircraft shall maintain a current FAA certificate throughout the contract PoP. A NAVAIR IFC will be required to authorize any installed systems or limitations not cleared by the

FAA.

The FAA Experimental Certificate may not be sufficient to meet the airworthiness requirements for a NAVAIR IFC and this will drive the need for additional airworthiness substantiation data.

There is no intention for the SOJ to deploy OCONUS.

5 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

14 CFR and IFC para 5.3.6 states “The Contractor shall operate and maintain the aircraft IAW 14 CFR, and its NAVAIR IFC”. Could the wording be re-written to state “The Contractor shall operate and maintain the aircraft IAW 14 CFR, and/or its NAVAIR IFC” to allow for those situations under PAO where the granted IFC differs from the 14 CFR?

The Government will not change PBWS para. 5.3.6 which states, "The Contractor shall abide by all FAA PAO procedures IAW FAA AC 00-1.1B and local military flying directives (including foreign government requirements). The Contractor shall only utilize aircraft that possess current FAA Airworthiness Certifications and will require NAVAIR IFC prior to conducting PAO. The Contractor shall operate and maintain the aircraft IAW 14 CFR, and its NAVAIR IFC unless a waiver is granted in accordance with this PBWS paragraph 4.2.8."

EA aircraft internal configuration Appendix D table I states for internal racks the aircraft will have “seating for at least one operator per rack. The layout configuration must meet FAA Human Factors, Structural and aircraft Electrical Wiring requirements per FAA 8300.16 CHG 1”.

While the SOJ configuration calls for both a MC and EWO, the EA configuration does not. Is this language a typo and not meant for table I? If it is not a typo, is there a requirement for additional crew members in the EA configuration that is not listed elsewhere or is there only a requirement for seating and optional manning?

This EA services requirement is for seating for at least one operator per rack.

SUBJECT: Stand OFF Jammer Aircraft Requirements

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In the Range block for the SOJ aircraft, there is no mention of the capability of flying to Hawaii.

Does this mean that the SOJ will not deploy OCONUS?

There is no intention for the SOJ to deploy OCONUS.

Stand Off Jamming Services SPECIFIC QUESTION: Para 4.1.2 states “DRFM services are typically flown at medium/high altitudes, under direct control, with aircraft carrying AST/ALE pods and/or DRFM jammers. DRFM services must provide jamming support to the strike aircraft on the same bearing line to the training audience”. Standoff jamming requires both vertical as well as horizontal alignment (bearing line).

To provide effective electronic attack against a surface training audience while maintaining vertical alignment and bearing line, jamming aircraft will need to ingress to their jamming orbit in trail of the strikers and at a higher altitude while maintaining formation. This would imply a minimum speed of at least .85 IMN and altitude of 30,000 feet. Recommend the SOJ aircraft requirements in appendix D table II incorporate at least that speed and altitude as a threshold requirement for high altitude operations.

Aircraft performance requirements were developed by the customer community (Commander, Naval Air Forces (N8), Carrier Strike Groups 4/15, T&E customers…) and incorporated in the PBWS.

Standoff Jamming Mission Profile RFP states the SOJ Air Defense and EW presentations “typically consist of a kill chain assessment pass, starting by simulating a medium altitude threat and escort jammer, then simulating a missile launch and low altitude fly out at targeted vessels.” This seems to refer to the EA profile listed in para 4.1.4 not the SOJ profile. Is this a typo or will the 2 SOJ aircraft be required to fly a missile fly out profile as well? If so, what are the parameters (speed / alt) of that profile for the SOJ aircraft?

The Stand Off Jamming (SOJ) Aircraft requirements are listed in Appendix D.

Missile fly out profiles are required for both EA and SOJ services per paras 4.1.1ii and 4.1.2ii. Para 4.1.4 includes aircraft mission profiles that are representative of typical operations conducted in a training environment

SOJ internal configuration Appendix D Table II states the SOJ aircraft will have “Provisioning for at least two GFP 19” racks, each at least 43” tall, in addition to racks for CFE equipment. The layout configuration must meet FAA Human Factors, Structural and aircraft Electrical Wiring requirements per FAA 8300.16 CHG 1” It does not state it needs seating for 2 operators as listed earlier in the PWS. Is there a requirement for 2 additional crew stations in the SOJ aircraft beyond the pilot / copilot?

Appendix D will be updated to reflect the requirement of seating for at least one operator per rack

SUBJECT: L 3.4.3 Stand off Jammer (SOJ) Services System Design (System Architecture) and Integration Paragraphs L.3.4.3 Stand Off Jammer (SOJ) Services System Design (System Architecture) and L.3.4.4 EA Services System Design and Integration both require offerors to provide diagrams and specifications that demonstrate compliance. The volume of this data may be very substantial.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government allow submission of diagrams and specifications to be submitted in Annex C or another annex?

The Government will allow submission of diagrams and specifications to be submitted in Annex C or another annex

6 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

SUBJECT: Power requirements for the SOJ aircraft Appendix D specifies Mission Power requirements for the Stand Off Jammer as 28 VDC, 250 amps.

This is a significant amount of power. The EA airplanes use a standard power requirement of 28 VDC and 35 amps. Considering the large amount of 28 VDC current (250A) required on the SOJ aircraft, there seems to be a specific connector or connectors that must be used to provide this power inside the aircraft cabin.

SPECIFIC QUESTION: What is the specific connector or connectors for 28 VDC, 250 amps that must be used to provide this power inside the aircraft cabin?

If there is not a specific connector or connectors required to delivered this 28 VDC, and multiple power receptacles are used to distribute the large amount of current, is there a minimum amount of 28 VDC power (i.e., current) that would be required at any one power receptacle?

What equipment does the Government envision requiring this much power?

Please clarify the power requirements for the SOJ aircraft.

The current requirements (Amps) listed for the SOJ mission power requirement was intended to document the excess electrical capacity needed for the worst-case DRFM configuration. Changes to the power requirements will be reflected in the final RFP. The contractor shall be responsible for meeting the power requirements for required equipment.

There is mention in the requirements associated with the B Band jammer of a 'cross dipole antenna' with associated requirements for both a 150W (IRD) and 1000W (RFP) DRFM jamming capability. Is it necessary to use this antenna topology to meet the intent of the requirement, or are other antenna types acceptable? And, what is the required power output for the B band jammer for the EA and SOJ presentations?

The cross dipole antenna and power output requirements will be clarified in the Final RFP and IRD.

SUBJECT: Target Tow and Banner Tow Requirements The PBWS includes Target Tow Services and Banner Tow Services. However, the minimum pilot qualifications identified in PBWS 4.0 include no formal target tow or banner tow qualification programs or currency requirements.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the government consider adding, as a HEEWJ pilots prerequisite, prior experience flying target and banner tow missions and a currency requirement?

The Government does not intend to change the minimum pilot qualifications identified in PBWS paragraph 4.0.

SUBJECT: Aircraft Mission Profiles The IFR fuel reserves listed in each of the Aircraft Mission Profiles is 20 minutes. However, 14 CFR Part 91.167 (a)(3) specifies 45-minute IFR fuel reserves.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Does the Government intend to waive the IFR fuel reserves requirement listed in 14 CFR Part

91.167 (a) (3)?

The military services cannot waive 14 CFR Part 91. Clarification regarding the fuel reserves will be incorporated into the Final RFP.

Total simultaneous presentations Para 4.1.5.1 states that 7 aircraft are required available at one time on the East Coast, para 4.1.5.2 states 5 aircraft are required to be available on the West Coast. Can the same aircraft be used to support either East Coast or West Coast simultaneous presentations? If so, the total number of aircraft required is 7. If not, the total required aircraft is 12. What is the minimum total number of simultaneous aircraft presentations required regardless of coast?

Regardless of the total aircraft the Contractor proposes, the Contractor is to support a total simultaneous presentation requirement of 7 on the East Coast and 5 on the West Coast for a total of 12 simultaneous missions required to be supportable.

MC / SMO operator para 5.5.2.3 states “The Contractor shall provide a Mission Commander (MC) and a Special Mission Operator (SMO) as aircrew for all SOJ missions. The aircrew shall be able to operate aircraft EW equipment as identified in the IRD, to include programming and operating DRFM jammers.”

Can either the pilot and/or copilot perform these duties if the vehicle interface allows operation from the cockpit?

DRFM systems must be operated by a qualified operator using a mission computer connected to the DRFM equipment.

Standup period duration SPECIFIC QUESTION: The draft RFP calls for 12 month standup of SOJ, EA and tow services for 12 aircraft. This represents an extremely aggressive schedule with elevated risk and cost to execute.

Any rework requirements identified would result in unacceptable costs. It is recommended the standup period be amended to 18 months for a 12 aircraft FOC with at least 4 aircraft ready at 12 months as an IOC able to perform EA, SOJ and TBT services. Can this amendment be made to reduce risk and cost?

The Final RFP CLIN structure is being revised to delineate standup requirements.

RM-30

para 4.1.3 states “. The Contractor shall provide four tow reels. The tow reels must be either RM- 30A/A1 or MTR-101, and be operationally staged on the East Coast base (two (2) tow reels) and on the West Coast base (two (2) tow reels).”. As the government already has access to tow reels as GFE under other contracts, and the purchase of additional tow reels by the offeror will result in those additional costs being passed on to the government, would the government consider providing the tow reels as GFE?

The Government is not providing the tow reels as GFE.

7 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

SUBJECT: GFE Transfer from contract N00421-19-D-0031 Currently on contract N00421-19-D-0031, the listing of GFE includes such items as UHF radios and frequency converters. These items are not listed in the Attachment 4 GFP/GME matrix.

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Will the Government provide GFE similar to that included in contract N00421- 19-D-0031?

The GFP listed in the Draft RFP is the planned GFP.

SUBJECT: Internal Rack Requirement The current GFE rack dimension language in the PBWS is confusing. The standard GFE rack that is utilized in both EA and SOJ aircraft are 22 inches outside diameter and 19 inches inside diameter.

The EA table lists a 22-inch rack and the SOJ table lists a 19-inch rack. However, the Racks are exactly the same.

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Will the Government please clarify and standardize the terminology?

The Final RFP will be changed to reflect the correct rack dimensions.

Table 1. Pod to aircraft to DCB Generic Wiring A. This is correct for some pods, but will not work for others.

B. For the 1553 wiring, while 22AWG shielded wire may work on some platforms, it may fail to allow communications on other platforms. Can the language be changed to include a shielded twisted pair with an impedance of 75 ohms as directed by the 1553 wiring specifications?

The Government will modify the Interface Reference Document (IRD), Attachment 2, to reflect the more generic nature of the diagrams included. The figures were not intended to represent production wiring diagrams; only to present a general system interface.

Figure 2. ALE 43 Physical Specification A. Since the qualification is for the shape to be carried, and not utilized as a chaff dispenser, the weights and center of gravity should be listed for each variant carried; or at least a range of values. This goes directly to flight performance, safety, and for the IFC.

A range of weight and c.g. values are provided in Figure 2. The overall weight and center of gravity of the ALE 43 Pod shell containing the electrical components utilized under this contract will remain within the listed values.

Table 2. External Power Wiring A. Can you please include language so that a connector other than MS3474L16-8S be allowed, as the one specified is not the best choice of connector.

B. If the Umbilical for the ALE-43 must be modified or replaced, make that a contractor expense.

This connector (MS3474L-16-8S) must interface with GFP wing mounted pods.

The choice of the wing-mounted hard-point connector is up to the vendor. The MS3474 connector matches the GFP harness. If the vendor elects to use an alternate connector, the Government requires that the GFP harness/pigtails remain intact and RFI.

Table 3. Special Mission Power Outlets A. There is not a need for a specific connector to be required. Other connectors are available that are better/more appropriate. As a note, the pins on this connector are rated at 23 amps, requiring 25 amps should be avoided on a single pin.

The vendor may select an alternate connector as long as the signal and power requirements are met. RFP

Table 4. Signal Wiring Requirements A. Can the language be modified to allow the contractor to figure out how to get the signals to the pods?

a. CAT 6E wiring should be in a separate connector to maintain signal integrity. OEMs have gone to great lengths to design MIL-SPEC connectors for this purpose. Using a general purpose connector eliminates the value of high speed data transfer.

b. The tables in the document are contradictory, and leave ambiguity as to exactly what is required. As an example, Wing Hardpoint Connector pins A and B are not listed as shielded, as required previously.

c. RG-400 and RG-142 are not the best choices for RF Cable, nor is the choice of TNC for the connectors. Some of the current operations will require operation above 10GHz. While high quality cable and connectors are available to operate at these frequencies, the losses are great and performance degradation will occur.

The figures in the IRD were not intended to represent production wiring diagrams; only to present a general system interface. The vendor may select an alternate arrangement that meets or exceeds the listed requirements.

3.2 DRFM Pod Horn Antenna Universal Mounting Adaptor

A. It is assumed that these are specifically for the external shape of the current platform, and they will not work if different type/model/series aircraft is utilized.

An adapter plate will be required to fit the DRFM pod horn antenna to the aircraft outer mold line. The final IRD will include pod horn antenna dimensions.

SUBJECT: Pilot Requirements The PBWS does not provide prerequisite qualifications for HEEWJ pilots. Specifically, there is not a minimum requirement for military flying experience, Contracted Air Services experience, or any specific airframe experience.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government consider revising the minimum qualifications for HEEWJ pilots to include some level of military flying experience, Contracted Air Services experience, and experience on specific airframes?

The Government is not adding a minimum requirement for pilots beyond the qualifications outlined in the PBWS.

SUBJECT: Formation Flying Requirements The PBWS states, “The Contractor’s similar aircraft shall fly in close formation.” However, the minimum pilot qualifications identified in PBWS 4.0 include no formal formation flying qualification program or currency requirements.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government consider adding, as a HEEWJ pilot prerequisite, formal formation experience and a currency requirement?

The Government is not adding formal formation experience and a currency requirement as a HEEWJ pilot prerequisite.

8 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

SUBJECT: L.3.2.3 Maintenance History Report Section L, Paragraph 3.2.3 Maintenance History Report states, “The Offeror shall provide, for each aircraft proposed, an accounting for the timeframe from manufacture to proposal submittal date that the aircraft has been maintained in accordance with the requirements established by the OEM, or civil authorities. The Offeror shall provide a list of documentation of all data and records supporting the accounting of maintenance.”

Supporting documentation associated with this requirement could be substantial.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government allow bidders to include supporting documentation in Annex C (or another annex)?

Yes, Supporting technical documentation should be included in Annex C.

SUBJECT: L 3.2.3 Maintenance History Report Section L, Paragraph 3.2.3 Maintenance History Report states, “The Offeror shall provide, for each aircraft proposed, an accounting for the timeframe from manufacture to proposal submittal date that the aircraft has been maintained in accordance with the requirements established by the OEM, or civil authorities. The Offeror shall provide a list of documentation of all data and records supporting the accounting of maintenance.

This paragraph requires the offeror to provide a “list of documentation of all data and records” for each aircraft proposed. This documentation could be substantial.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government allow the required list of documentation, data and records to be submitted in Annex C or another annex?

Yes, Supporting technical documentation should be included in Annex C.

SUBJECT: CDRL A003 DI-MGMT-80004A Management Plan CDRL A003 DI-MGMT-80004A Paragraph 3.7(a) Security requires the submission of a Standard Practice Procedure (SPP). However, an SPP is not required by the Defense Security Service (DSS) or the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). The DSS conducts an annual security assessment to evaluate a company based on the standards set forth by the National Industrial Security Program (NISP). An acceptable DSS rating for a contractor’s security program indicates the program is fully implemented and the requirements of the NISPOM are met.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In lieu of a Standard Practice Procedure, will the Government accept evidence of acceptance from recent/previous DSS annual security assessments?

Yes, Block 16 of the DD1423 will be tailored to reflect the change in the final

RFP.

SUBJECT: L 3.2.2 Aircraft Pedigree Report Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2 Aircraft Pedigree Report states, “The Offeror shall demonstrate that each aircraft modification made to the proposed aircraft since manufacture has been certified as airworthy. For each modification, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the airworthiness certification or, alternatively, the engineering report that clearly demonstrates that the modified aircraft is airworthy.”

This paragraph requires the offeror to provide a copy of the airworthiness certification “for each modification.” However, the Special Airworthiness Certificate for an aircraft may certify airworthiness compliance with multiple, previous modifications.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Is submission of current aircraft Airworthiness Certificates and Special Airworthiness Certificates acceptable to address this Section L requirement for each previously modified aircraft? Also, will the Government allow offerors to provide certifications such as these in Annex C or another annex?

Yes, the Airworthiness Certificates and Special Airworthiness Certificates are acceptable to address this Section L requirement for each previously modified aircraft.

Yes, supporting technical documentation should be included in Annex C.

SUBJECT: L 3.3.2 Aircraft Logistics Strategy Section L, Paragraph 3.3.2 Aircraft Logistics Strategy states, “For each proposed type, the Offeror shall provide its proposed source of OEM, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or equivalent certified parts.”

This paragraph requires the offeror to provide a list of proposed sources for OEM, FAA or equivalent parts for each aircraft proposed. This listing of sources could be voluminous.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government allow the contractor to provide this listing in Annex C or another annex?

Yes, Supporting technical documentation should be included in Annex C.

9 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

SUBJECT: L 3.2.1 Parts Life Tracking Process and Status Report Section L, Paragraph 3.2.1 Parts Life Tracking Process and Status Report states, “The Offeror shall demonstrate that all parts with OEM defined life limits have been identified, and the Offeror shall submit a plan for replacing those parts on/before their required dates.”

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Is it the Government’s intent that only parts with a defined “life limit” before being permanently retired be included in the report? Also, will the Government allow bidders to provide this listing in Annex C or another annex?

Yes, it is the Government’s intent that only parts with a defined “life limit” before being permanently retired be included in the report.

Yes, Supporting technical documentation should be included in Annex C.

TCAS II requirement Operationally, dual antenna TCAS I and TCAS II provide identical displays including Traffic Advisories with aural alerts when a collision conflict meets certain parameters. TCAS II adds the capability of Resolution Advisories (RA) which guide the aircraft vertically when a collision is imminent. On TCAS II aircraft, the RA function is disabled while operating in the Warning Area—for two reasons: (1) during formation flight, due to nuisance alerts; and (2) during red force or exercise tasking in which the red aircraft is expected to maintain a predictable flight path during the merge, because responding to an RA would result in aggressive vertical maneuvering.

Since most military aircraft aren’t operating TCAS II, the contractor would never get the more accurate coordinated RAs against a fighter. TCAS II systems are significantly more expensive due to the additional equipment required to determine and display RAs. Operationally, Europe is the only geographic region which requires TCAS II.

SPECIFIC QUESTION: Considering the information noted above, will the Government consider limiting the TCAS II requirement to only the number of aircraft required to perform operations in Europe, with all other aircraft equipped with dual antenna TCAS I systems?

No, the requirement is for all aircraft to be TCAS II compliant without limitations.

Paragraph 9.0 discusses OPSEC requirements in depth, agumenting the FAR requirements, but is silent on Cybersecurity requirements, other than inclusing of DFARS 252.204-7012. To what extent is the government concerned about Cybersecurity hardness and the natural linkage to OPSEC and overall security approach?

The Government expects the OPSEC plan shall list and address any vulnerabilities.

In the context of 'what does the Navy want in the platform in 2025?': Is the government open to inclusion of a capability's growth roadmap and/or technical insertion roadmap to allow for additional or advanced capabilities on the EA/SOJ platforms over time to address emerging threats? Alternatively, would technology insertion to address emergent threats and new EW training capabilities be more easily addressed as later contract modifications?

Aircraft performance requirements were developed by the customer community (Commander, Naval Air Forces (N8), Carrier Strike Groups 4/15, T&E customers…) and incorporated in the PBWS.

All proposals must meet the requirements in the PBWS.

a. Limiting the relevant contracts for the Corporate Experience evaluation to only those whose performance is ONLY within five years of the proposal due date (or the RFP release date which is the criteria stated in 4.0 Volume 4 – Past Performance) is far too restrictive as it largely limits the competitive field to only the incumbent contractor (and/or its principal subcontractor) and does not adhere to the tenants of a Full and Open Competition. While more recent “relevant” Corporate Experience may be more indicative of future contract performance which is already addressed in the same paragraph, limiting the look back to ONLY five years eliminates many otherwise qualified bidders from even being realistically considered.

We highly recommend the government change the look back period to at least 10 years. Note: as evidenced by the government’s lowering of the aircraft requirements to allow the exact same serial number aircraft that have been performing this contract since 1981 largely without any modifications to meet the specification is proof that there is nothing key about maintaining and operating the aircraft only within the last five years. All experience maintaining and operating the same aircraft type should be considered relevant regardless of when it was obtained.

The Final RFP will reflect that all relevant contracts shall be within five years of the RFP release date.

No, the Government will not change the look back period for Corporate Experience to 10 years. For the Corporate Experience factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s previous experience. Beyond the five year window of recency in the relevancy assessment of a prior contract, the Government's confidence that prior experience will be applicable to the current effort is diminished. Experience gained more that five years ago does not significantly contribute to the Government's expectation that the Offeror will perform successfully on the required effort.

b. The government further restricts the “relevant” Corporate Experience by excluding any personnel experience. In any company, especially a small business, the experience of “key” management personnel, such as the President, Directors of Operations, Maintenance, PM, QA, etc., is the Corporate Experience as they are the ones that not only provide the specific program knowledge but they are the ones that set the corporate policy.

We highly recommend the government revise this section to read “non-key” or “non-senior management” vice any personnel.

The Government will not revise Corporate Experience to include personal experience.

10 of 12 2019.03.15.Q&A_final for PDF.xlsm

c. The above is further restricting full and open competition by the Government’s narrowly defined areas of “relevancy”:

i. Volume 2 paragraph 2.2.4 – Limiting “relevant” experience to only those aircraft requiring the same FAA pilot type rating even if the aircraft share the same inherent design characteristics, same wing and most other parts but which may have newer engines which prompted the FAA to require a different type rating.

We highly recommend that the government change this requirement to aircraft FAA certified under the same FAA Type Certificate.

The Final RFP will be changed to read, "Experience using the same FAA aircraft class and type as proposed for CAS HEEWJ."

a. Five Years – Only consideration of the past five years as being relevant has little or no merit as very little has changed in the past ten or even fifteen years in civilian aviation with the possible exception of continuing advancement in aircraft avionics and related improvements in ATC minimum navigation requirements, i.e. GPS, transponders with ADS-B, etc. which has actually made flying aircraft easier, not harder. If Captain Sully Sullenberger had ignored all of his 40 years of experience, including his gliding C badge (highest level of expertise) received while attending the USAF Academy, except for the last five years, the outcome of the Miracle on the Hudson may have been extremely different.

The Government will only answer relevant questions to the solicitation.

b. The 250 nm requirement is set forth in Appendix D Aircraft Capability and Configuration Requirement – this is an “aircraft” technical specification, not an “operational”, past performance, or corporate experience specification. This requirement does not denote or impose any additional FAA equipment or other capabilities than those set forth in FAR 91.511 Communications and Navigation Equipment for Overwater Operations (aircraft flying over water for more than 30 minutes flying time or 100 NM from the nearest shore). We request the language be changed to more than 30 minutes flying time or more than 100 NM, not 250 NM. A PBWS requirement for prop aircraft of 150 NM should be sufficient to meet any distance off shore requirement for past performance or corporate experience because this meets the more than 30 minutes flying time or more than 100 NM criteria for aircraft capabilities/equipment requirements.

The relevancy requirements will not change. Aircraft performance requirements were developed and provided by Commander, Naval Air Forces N816 and incorporated in the PBWS.

Past contract relevance – Does the term “In support of Military/DoD operations…” include training exercises?

Yes. However, in accordance with Section M, paragraph 4.3 and 4.3.a, for any contracts referenced, the offeror must demonstrate…