The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
H-1 Lot VI Industry Day 11-12 December 2017
| No. |
| Questions |
| Government Response |
| 1 |
| When issues are encountered with the MFS Aero model, what is the process to correct model deficiencies? |
| Once a Discrepancy Report (DR) is initiated regarding Flight Fidelity, the contractor will perform a detailed investigation determining the source of the discrepancy. The results will be presented during the Aero IPT with recommendations for corrective actions. If the Aero IPT determines the discrepancy is the result of the core MFS aero model, then the DR will be assigned to the Government. MFS will be funded to help support the effort to assist with integrating the MFS aero model into the trainer software environment, answer technical questions about the model, assist in running the ATG, assist in modifying the code, and updating math model documentation as required. The Aero IPT will facilitate close working relationships between the contractor(s), MFS and NAWCTSD engineers. The ultimate responsibility for achieving representative flight fidelity belongs to the contractor. |
| 2 |
| What is the Technical Readiness Level of the MFS AH-1Z and UH-1Y aero models? |
| The AH-1Z aero model is assessed at a Technical Readiness Level (TRL) of 6. The aero model is up and running in a desktop simulation environment. The Automatic Test Guide (ATG) tests have been run and simulation results have been compared to aircraft data. The aero model has also been integrated into a generic cockpit at MFS. Several pilot evaluations have been performed. However, the model has not yet been integrated into a high-fidelity AH-1Z cockpit in a trainer environment. |
The UH-1Y is aero model is assessed at a TRL of 4. The aero model is up and running in a desktop simulation environment. The ATG tests have been run and simulation results have been compared to aircraft data. However, the model has not yet been integrated into a cockpit environment. The plan is to integrate the model into a generic cockpit at MFS and perform pilot evaluations for risk mitigation prior to integration into a future trainer.
| 3 |
| Will NAVAIR provide validation results, (QTG, pilot comments) from the Lot V validation tests? |
| Yes, the Government will provide after Contract Award when available. |
| 4 |
| RE: 3.1.2.1.1.1 DBA Criteria Data: Will NAVAIR provide flight test data for the DBA to provide a handling qualities baseline against which the new training devices are measured? |
| Yes after contract award, when available. This data will be provided from several sources and synthesized into a single set of criteria data that will be discussed during the data consensus meeting. The primary sources are from legacy trainers from the Qualification Test Guide (QTGs), MFS aero model criteria data, mechanical characteristic data, and GE engine data. |
| 5 |
| If the MFS Aero model is selected by the offeror, will a Risk Assessment for the MFS Model be included in the offerors Technical Risk rating? |
| Yes, in accordance with stated evaluation criteria, the offeror’s Technical Proposal will receive a technical rick rating based upon the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. |
| 6 |
| What percentage of MFS Aero Model SCAS ON/SCAS OFF off-line Proof of Match (POM) plots currently match the tolerances standards set by NAVAIR? For Both Static and Dynamic POM Matching? |
| MFS reports the AH-1Z aero model matches 95% of the criteria data test cases. The model has been developed and validated using a generic cockpit that MFS had available. Multiple test pilot evaluations have occurred in the model development evolution. MFS reports 95% because the remaining 5% involves open loop landing cases and a Stability and Control Augmentation System (SCAS) OFF long term (Phugoid) case that were difficult to evaluate in a desktop environment. These cases were performed in the generic cockpit and they were determined acceptable by the test pilots. |
The UH-1Y aero model is currently in development by MFS and 50% of the ATG cases are within tolerance. The UH-1Y model is primarily the same aero model as the AH-1Z and will similarly require UH-1Y specific tuning after integration into a UH-1Y cockpit and continued ATG testing. MFS is currently developing this model with the expectation that there will be a higher proof of match by contract award.
The estimations for AH-1Z and UH-1Y Proof of Match (POM) percentages include both static and dynamic test cases combined.
| 7 |
| Have test pilots approved the MFS Aero model handling qualities SCAS off? Same question for specific maneuvers like autorotation, landings, banked turns, climbs, takeoff and landing, ship boarded operations? |
| Test pilots have been involved in preliminary model development through participation in more than 16 evaluations. Final approval of the MFS Aero model relating to Aero model handling qualities SCAS off has not occurred utilizing specific UH-1Y and AH-1Z specific cockpits. Test pilots have flown most of the Qualification Test Guide (QTG) volume 3 Flying Qualities and Performance (FQ&P) cases with the exception of the cases that the generic cockpit would not support. This includes both SCAS ON and SCAS OFF cases. Some issues have been noted in the banked turns and climbs that MFS is currently investigating. Test pilots have determined auto rotations, landings, take offs, and shipboard operations are acceptable in the generic cockpit. |
| 8 |
| If offeror selects MFS Aero, will it be provided with an integrated 401C engine model and AFCS? |
| Yes, the MFS will be provided with an integrated 401C engine model and Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). |
| 9 |
| If offeror selects the MFS aero model, will it include functionality for: external cargo ops, QTG runs, record-playback, slewing, malfunctions, stores/weapon interactions? |
| The MFS aero model currently runs in the Controls Analysis and Simulation Test Loop Environment (CASTLE) environment. The CASTLE environment includes these features with the exception of record/playback. There is no requirement, however, to retain the CASTLE environment for this effort. |
| 10 |
| Will the government identify what CDRLs are applicable for the Tech Refresh devices in Camp Pendleton in the RFP? It is currently not identified in the Draft RFP. |
| The Tech refresh CDRLs are identified in the Tech Refresh SOW 170032. Tech refresh CDRLs will be uploaded to the Navy Electronic Business Opportunities (NECO) website. |
| 11 |
| 3.1.2.5.2.2.1 IOS operating system (OS): Please confirm that the requirement for the IOS operating system to be open source means using LINUX for the operation system is required. |
| Yes the open source means using LINUX for the operation system is required. |
| 12 |
| DORT Section 3.1.2.12 What level of status detail for subsystems is required? |
| Daily Operational Readiness Test (DORT) para 3.1.2.12 of the PRF defines the level of status detail. |
| 13 |
| GFE provided HMSD systems potentially will require a new cockpit Mapping due to the dynamic motion seats requirement. Will government provide new mapping? |
| The Government will perform the new cockpit mapping. Coordination of the effort will be conducted via IPT. |
| 14 |
| Are dynamic motion seats required for all Tech Refresh devices? |
| Yes, the dynamic motion seats are required for the 4 Tech Refresh devices |
| 15 |
| In Spec section 3.1.4.14.1.3 (New and TR) display requirements for IOS define the requirements for the cab however, spec paragraph 3.1.3.6.2 does not define IOS display requirements for cab. Does the government plan to Re-use the existing 2F206-1 displays for the upgrade? |
| Yes, the Government plans to re-use the existing 2F206-1 displays. |
The PRF para 3.1.3.6.2 has been updated to include “d”.
| 16 |
| Does the government plan to re-use the 2F206-1 motion hardware or does the request require a new design? |
| The Government may reuse the 2F206-1 motion hardware. PRF paragraph 3.1.3.5, requires the motion system to be deactivated with the trainer placed in a fixed position. Item B of para 3.1.3.5 will be changed from "Remain fixed in the settled position" to "Remain in a fixed position. |
| 17 |
| Spec para 3.1.4.15.4.2 states power requirements 208/120V at 200amps. Is 480/277 volt available? |
| The facility does not have 480/277VAC power available. |
| 18 |
| Spec paragraph 3.1.415.4.4 states all cables in concealed spaces have to be plenum rated. Can the contractor put these non-plenum cables into covered wire trays? |
| If cable trays or conduits meet the requirements of NFPA 70 and NFPA 75 for plenum rating, they are acceptable. |
| 19 |
| Does MCAS Futenma have existing facilities for these devices or does the contractor need to provide? |
| Currently, facilities to house these trainers on MCAS Futenma do not exist. The Government will provide a new facility for the training devices planned for completion by June 2021. |
| 20 |
| Please provide a list of all UH-1Y and AH-1Z devices, delivery dates, and OEMs. |
| All past AH-1Z and UH-1Y devices were delivered by Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI). The devices were delivered May 2006 thru May 2015. |
| 21 |
| What GFP will be provided and when? a. We could use as much GFI as possible BEFORE RFP date. |
| Government-Furnished Property/ Government-Furnished Equipment (GFP/GFE) list will be provided in the draft RFP package. The Government-Furnished Information/ Government-Furnished Software (GFI/GFS) list was provided at industry day. CDs containing GFI/GFS were also provided at industry day. |
| 22 |
| Please provide the projected RFP, Proposal Due, and Contract Award dates. |
| The projected Final RFP is January 2018. Proposal due date is projected March and projected Contract Award is 4th quarter 2018. |
| 23 |
| Will ICDs for TRMC and SCS be provided? |
| The Technology Refresh Mission Computer (TRMC) Interface Control Document (ICD) is available upon request. There is no ICD for the System Configuration Set (SCS). |
| 24 |
| SOW paragraph 3.2.1.11.1 seems to indicate the contractor is developing a new IOS. Paragraph 3.2.1.11.2 seems to indicate one will be provided. Please explain. |
| The Government does not require development of new IOS software. SOW 170030, paragraph 3.2.1.11.1, requires the contractor to conduct a site visit to conduct a data analysis of the IOS functionality found on devices 2F197-1 and 2F196B-2 prior to SRR-II/SFR. Paragraph 3.2.1.11.2 requires the contractor to utilize the Government furnished IOS software and pages. The Government furnished IOS software and pages do not have the same functionality as the 2F197-1 and 2F196B-2 devices. |
SOW 170030 paragraph 3.2.1.11 has been updated for clarification.
| 25 |
| What systems/equipment are currently Cybersecurity enabled on the devices being modified (UH-1Y DEVICE 2F196B (S/N 2), AH-1Z DEVICE 2F197 (S/N 1), UH-1Y DEVICE 2F206 (S/N 1) and AH-1Z DEVICE 2F215 (S/N 1)? |
| The following systems/equipment are currently Cybersecurity enabled for each of the devices being modified: |
Host, TEn, File Server, four IOS, Control Loading, ASTi, IA backup, Lifeform, and Development PC. SIMIO computational system only applies to devices 2F196B (S/N 2) and 2F215 (S/N 1).
| 26 |
| Are there existing Cybersecurity Computational systems in use on the devices being modified (UH-1Y DEVICE 2F196B (S/N 2), AH-1Z DEVICE 2F197 (S/N 1), UH-1Y DEVICE 2F206 (S/N 1) and AH-1Z DEVICE 2F215 (S/N 1)? If so, will the GFI being provided include details about these systems and their operation? |
| Yes, each device includes the following Cybersecurity Computational Systems: Host (RHEL 6), TEn (RHEL 7), ASTi (RHEL 5), Control Loading (Win 7), IA backup (Win Server 2008), Lifeform (Win 7), Development PC (Win 7), IOS (Win 7), File Server (Win Server 2008). The SIMIO (Win 7) computational system only applies to devices 2F196B (S/N 2) and 2F215 (S/N 1). |
The provided GFI documentations include the above Cybersecurity Computation Systems specifications and their operations for each device.
| 27 |
| TMCR 17-18 makes reference to three TD IPRs (First, Second and Third). TMCR 17-18 states that the “contractor shall conduct the TD IPRs at the trainer site”. Please confirm whether all three TD IPRs are to be held at the device site? |
| The first Technical Documentation In- Process Review (TD IPR) will be a teleconference and desktop review, second TD IPR will be held at the device site at Final Physical Configuration Audit (PCA), and the third TD IPR will be during the Integrated Logistics Support Verification (ILSV) at the device site. |
| 28 |
| Section 3.9.1 in TMCR 17-10 mentions a “functionality matrix provided in this TMCR”. Please explain what constitutes this matrix? |
| The “functionality matrix provided in this Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR)” was deleted and is N/A for this effort. |
| 29 |
| Does baseline Host software meet requirements of the new devices: a. Host-IG interface b. Host-Ten interface c. Environmental effects d. HMSD e. DORT f. Transport delay of 100ms |
| The answers are listed below: |
a. Yes with VITAL IG
b. Yes
c. Yes with VITAL IG
d. Yes
e. Only the ping check for all subsystems
f. Yes
| 30 |
| SOW 170030, paragraph, 3.2.1.6.1 – What is the source of this flight dynamics model? Does it meet these PRF requirements: a. Is it a blade element model? b. Does it have a fully integrated AFT system? c. Does it match aircraft flight test data within the tolerances? |
d. Is there an existing ATP, TCR, and TMMR?
The answers are listed below:
a. The flight dynamics models were developed by MFS. The rotor models are blade element models.
b. The MFS aero models use the MFS CASTLE environment and have a fully integrated Auto Fidelity Test (AFT) system.
c. The MFS aero models match the flight test criteria data within the tolerances as follows:
AH-1Z aero model is about 95% complete. The model has been developed and validated using a generic cockpit that MFS had available. Multiple test pilot evaluations have occurred in the model development evolution. MFS reports 95% because the remaining 5% involves open loop landing cases and a SCAS OFF long term (Phugoid) case that were difficult to evaluate in a desktop environment. These cases were performed in the generic cockpit and they were determined acceptable by the test pilots.
The UH-1Y aero model is currently in development by MFS and 50% of the ATG cases are within tolerance. The UH-1Y model is primarily the same aero model as the AH-1Z and will similarly require UH-1Y specific tuning after integration into a UH-1Y cockpit and continued ATG testing. MFS is currently developing this model with the expectation that there will be a higher proof of match by contract award.
d. The legacy trainers for the AH-1Z and UH-1Y have existing Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP) which is the Qualification Test Guide (QTG). These test documents have criteria data for their specific devices. The new devices will utilize additional Mechanical Characteristics Data (for the AH-1Z) and 401C engine data. The contractor will be required to generate a new Trainer Criteria Report (TCR) that presents these data in accordance with the CDRL. The details of the new criteria data set will be discussed and agreed upon during the data consensus meeting.
| 31 |
| With today’s HOL computer software, why does the Government want a TMMR? |
| The Government requires the mathematical modeling information that will be provided by MFS be documented in the Trainer Math Model Report (TMMR) in accordance with the CDRL. The Government requires a TMMR in order to formally document the details of the mathematical equations, modeling techniques, and assumptions, required to model and simulate the aircraft and aircraft systems. |
| 32 |
| PRF Paragraph 3.1.2.5.1.1.1. The title and text don’t match |
| PRF Para title 3.1.2.5.1.1.1 “Cockpit electromagnetic mapping" will be changed to "HMSD integration”. |
| 33 |
| Will cockpit electromagnetic mapping for the HMSD be provided as a government service if the contractor makes the simulator cockpit available? |
| The Government will perform the cockpit electromagnetic mapping. Coordination of the effort will be conducted via the Integrated Product Team (IPT). |
| 34 |
| In reference to TECR 2F196B-H1-2015035, has the rotor brake resistance ever worked as desired or was it an original fidelity issue? |
| No, the rotor brake resistance never worked as desired. |
| 35 |
| Which refresh devices are to be used as the hardware and software baselines for the new devices? |
| The AH-1Z (2F227-5) trainer HW/SW baseline is the 2F197-1. The UH-1Y (2F226-3) trainer HW/SW baseline is the 2F196B-2. |
| 36 |
| Section 3.2.1.5 of the 170030 SOW (new devices) and section 3.2.1.9.2 of the 170032 SOW (refresh devices) both refer to the visual requirements being defined in the 170031 PRF. Appendix A of the PRF refers to the visual system requirements for the two new H1 devices. Appendix B of the PRF refers to the visual system requirements for the four upgraded H1 devices. Can you confirm that none of the image generator and database requirements of PRF Appendix A apply to the four refresh devices? |
| The Government confirms that the image generator and database requirements stated in PRF 170031 Appendix A apply only to the new devices, not to the Technical Refresh devices. |
| 37 |
| Pending the reply to question 17 [now renumbered to 36], can you confirm that the image generators currently installed on the four existing H1 devices support the surface resolution requirements of PRF Appendix B? |
| The four technical refresh devices met or exceeded the surface resolution requirements in Appendix B of the Lot VI PRF. |
| 38 |
| Will the CDR slides from the AH-1Z which is currently being developed be provided as GFI? |
| No. All available GFI/GFS is referenced in the AH-1Z/UH-1Y GFI/GFS list that was provided at Industry day. |
| 39 |
| The SOW for the new devices (170030) states the number for the new AH-1Z as 2F227-3 in paragraph 3.2.1. Everywhere else it appears to be 2F227-5. Which is correct? |
| The correct device number should be 2F227-5. SOW for the new devices (170030) paragraph 3.2.1 has been updated to reflect 2F227-5. |
| 40 |
| The SOW for the new devices (170030) does not call out a requirement for dynamic seats and in the Specification; it is described under the FT-TR paragraph only (3.1.3). Are dynamic seats required for the new devices? |
| Dynamic seats are not required for new devices as defined in SOW 170030. |
| 41 |
| Per the discussion below, it looks like the draft ENG/ADMIN CDRL listing for SOW 170032 (Tech Refresh) were not included in the NECO zip package. Could this document be made available as part of the Industry Day review? |
ENG/ADMIN CDRLs relating to the Tech Refresh effort (SOW 170032) will be uploaded to the Navy Electronic Business Opportunities (NECO) website.
