Question and Answer for Draft RFP R2.pdf

Question # PBWS/CDRL Reference Question Government Response

1 N/A

If there are current contracting efforts that would be considered relevant and the Offeror may not have CPARs or other documentation reflecting how the Offeror has performed on an effort, how can the offeror get those contracts evaluated?

If the Offeror does not have CPARs or other documentation reflecting how the Offeror has performed on an effort, have the customer fill out a PPQ (Attachment L‐3) so the Government can see the how the Offerors performed and evaluate them.

PBWS/ (3.3) Aircraft Performance Requirements/

MATRIX 3

What is the underlying requirement driving the stated range requirement?

The Ferry Range was implemented as a requirement to facilitate easier movement of Aircraft between the East and West Coast to ensure the ability to move aircraft in a single day and avoid a 4 leg event in the winter when the jet stream has a significant impact on the ferry capability.

The Government will re‐evaluate the requirement with the requirement owner and modify as applicable.

PBWS/ (3.3) /MATRIX 3/ Configuration and Special

Equipment (4.2c) TAS/TCAS I for safety of flight

Does ADS‐B IN with Flight Information Surveillance

Broadcast (FIS‐B) meet this requirement?

The Government does not view ADS‐B IN with FIS‐B to meet this requirement. Client‐based Traffic Information Service Broadcast (TIS‐

B) systems do not provide an equivalent level of safety as Traffic

Alert Systems (TAS/TCAS 1).

‐‐ADS‐B In equipped aircraft may not display Mode A/C/S‐only aircraft positioned outside the range of civil ATC surveillance systems.

‐‐Aircraft equipped with an operable TAS system can display Mode

A/C/S‐only aircraft positioned outside the range of civil ATC surveillance systems.

‐‐ Track update rates for TIS‐B are less frequent than TAS.

PBWS/ MATRIX 3/ Configuration and Special

Equipment (4.2h) Must be capable of carrying a P5

/ TCTS I and when available, P6 / TCTS II tracking pod and compatible to utilize RedNet I/II systems.

Can the requirement to carry P6 / TCTS II and RedNet II be removed since the requirement is undefined based on system development status?

The Government intends to retain the requirement for TCTS 2. In the event that a modification is required, this will be billed under

CLIN 0010 (GFP Installation /Removal).

PBWS/ MATRIX 3/ Configuration and Special

Equipment (4.3, a) Every Type IV aircraft shall be capable of being equipped with at least one LAU7

If the contractor aircraft is authorized to carry P5 / TCTS I and LATR pods using launcher adapter units other than the

LAU 7, can this requirement be removed or restated?

The Government will reword this requirement to support carriage of

TCTS and LATR Pods instead of directing carriage of a LAU‐7.

PBWS/Section 3.5.2. Type IV Aircraft: The

Contractor shall provide FOC within 6 months, from date of task order award.

Is the Government open to relief on the six‐month stand‐ up period for both Type III and IV aircraft?

Yes. The Government is willing to readdress the six month stand‐up period but asks all contractors to submit time frames for

CONUS/OCONUS they would deem achievable. **

PBWS/Section 4.5.11, Matrix 5. Unless otherwise approved by the PCO, the Government will reimburse the Contractor for per diem and travel expenses of maintenance personnel only in accordance with Matrix 5: (Matrix 5 does not limit the number of un‐reimbursed maintenance personnel the Contractor may deploy. Matrix 5 applies to Type III and Type IV aircraft).

What is driving the prescriptive nature of the data in Table

5? In other words, what is the source for the detached and maintenance personnel support model?

The detached and maintenance personnel support model is based on the current aircraft T/M/S used to support the requirement.

8 PBWS/Section 5.0 – Basing

Is the Government open to relief on the prescriptive nature of the basing requirements such that contractors can propose alternative solutions that are beneficial to the

Government rather than merely replicating what is in place today?

No. The Government's current support establishment is designed around the perscriptive nature of this requirement.

9 PBWS 3.1.4

Why is the maximum turn limit requirement 180 degrees instead of unlimited? We've been approached by multiple end‐users desiring an unlimited maneuvering capability. It would seem unlikely that the customer would want to limit it.

The requirement owner's primary customer is ship training, which does not require more than 180 degrees of turn. The secondary use of this contract, which included adversary services is not intended to support within visual range maneuvers; therefore, there is no requirement beyond 180 degrees of turn.

10 PBWS 3.2/3.3

Will an Air to Air Radar suffice for a traffic avoidance system, much like an F‐18 Hornet?

The Government does not view an Air‐to‐Air Radar to suffice for the traffic avoidance system. Air‐to‐Air Radar systems operate only in a specific field of regard from the nose of the aircraft as directed by the pilot. Although, this does provide a certain level of situational awareness, it does not provide an equivalent level of safety as Traffic Alert Systems (TAS/TCAS 1).

‐‐Aircraft equipped with an operable TAS system can display

Mode A/C/S‐only aircraft positioned outside the range of civil

ATC surveillance systems and outside the field of regard of the aircraft radar system.

11 PBWS Matrix 3

Will extra weight be given for a/c that provide an Air to Air

Radar and offer a more realistic threat than a workaround solution like Rednet and an emitter?

Within Matrix 3 of the current PBWS, the Objective requirement for a "Radar – Airborne radar capable of Track or

Track While Scan modes. Minimum detection requirement for radar is a 5‐meter square target at 30 NM with 50% detection probability."

12 N/A

Has consideration been given to modifying this contract by categorizing services into ships services/aviation services or between Type III and Type IV a/c?

The government has explored multiple paths, including separating these actions into multiple efforts and multiple capabilities. It's been determined the cost benefit to the USN by sharing these two basic capabilities on a single contract is very desirable, while meeting ship and fleet requirements.

13 N/A

Has consideration been given to changing this contract to an IDIQ with Task Orders to both increase competition and offer a better product to the end user?

To facilitate the flexibility needed and to include shared assets between east and west coast, combined with the ability to share the cost burden of OCONUS operations, the most appropriate contracting method is a Single Award/IDIQ contract.