TH-XX_Amendment_0001_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

AHTS TH‐XX Request for Proposal N6134019R0007 ‐ Questions & Answers Released with Amendment 0001

RFP Reference (Document, Page, Para.)

Question/Feedback Government Response

PBS 3.1.8.8.3, p. 7

AV‐033 Requires the "fuel subsystem shall allow the helicopter to be refueled by a SAE‐AS5877, Type D‐1, locking pressure refueling nozzle."

AV‐035 now requires Closed Circuit Refueling which is incompatible with an SAE‐AS5877, Type D‐1 nozzle as required in AV‐033. It is recommended that the Government remove the Closed Circuit Refueling requirement, and proceed with Pressure Refueling via the D‐1 nozzle IAW SAE‐AS5877 and gravity refueling. Recommend revising AV‐035 to read: "The TH‐XX shall be capable of pressure refueling and gravity refueling during ground operations with engines off, rotors stationary, and no external power supplied."

Corrected to allow either CCR or Pressure Refueling with corresponding adapter.

PBS 3.2.2, p. 13

AV‐128 states "The TH‐XX HUMS data shall be recorded and retained, and run through a first‐in/last‐out memory bank which overwrites oldest data when full."

First‐in/last‐out is inconsistent with the objective of new data overwriting old data when the stack is full. Did the Government intend First‐In, First‐ Out (FIFO)?

Recommend revising to read "The TH‐XX HUMS data shall be recorded and retained, and run through a first‐in/first‐out (FIFO) memory bank which overwrites oldest data when full."

The Government has updated the PBS language to remove ambiguity between different ideas on FIFO versus FILO.

Section L 2. Table G‐1,

p. 70

We note that Section L 4.0.d states "The Offeror shall provide a copy of its warranty(ies) as Annex I. Annex I will be incorporated into the contract at Section J, Attachment J‐6."

Section L.2 Table G‐1 that defines the required proposal structure and required naming conventions for hard and electronic copies does not include Annex I. Request the Government add Annex I to Table G‐1 to clarify the requirements for this Annex.

Concur with recommended change, Table G-1 has been updated to include Annex I.

Solicitation, Section M.II.A.1, p. 83

Section M states "Strengths will not be assessed for the Overall Compliance element (2.1.1); however, weaknesses/significant weaknesses and risk reducers related to the requirements specified in Table T‐1 for element 2.1.1 will be considered."

Section M also states "For the purposes of assigning strengths or risk reducers, only those attributes specified in Section L, paragraphs 2.1.2 through 2.1.5 will be considered in the evaluation of the proposed attribute solutions (i.e., no other AV‐XXX “should” statements will be credited with a strength or risk reducer for the Aircraft System Sub‐ factor)."

The two statements appear to conflict. Recommend eliminating "risk reducers" from the 2nd statement.

Please confirm that such weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and risk reducers will be considered in the Government’s best value analysis, including any comparative assessment.

RFP Ammendment 0001 Section M language was updated.

Solicitation, L.3.2.2 Specific Instructions ‐ Proposed Price, p. 79

Solicitation, Section L.3.2.2, p. 79, identifies a range of acceptable aircraft quantities and the Government's estimated budget by CLIN 0001,0101,0201,0301, and 0401.

Section M.B.1 indicates "FFP CLINs 0001‐0011, 0101, 0103, 0104, 0201, 0203, 0301, 0303, 0401 and 0403. The Government will evaluate all CLINs for unbalanced pricing and to ensure that the proposed price is within the Government’s stated budgetary constraints on a per CLIN and cumulative basis."

Section L and Section M appear inconsistent. Do the budgets provided in Section L include all CLINs or just 0001, 0101, 0201, 0301, and 0401?

The Government's estimated budget identified in Section L3.2.2 is designated for the hardware and associated support under the CLIN 0X01 series only. The Government's budgetary estimate for efforts under non- 0X01 series CLINs are not included in the table 3.2.2 budgetary figures.

(Document, Page, Para.)

Question/Feedback Government Response

Solicitation, Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, p. 34

FAR 52.212‐4 ( c ) ("Changes") provides that “Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract may be made only by written agreement of the parties. At the end of clause 5252.245‐9520 ASSOCIATE CONTRACTOR CLAUSE (NAVAIR) (OCT 2005) – ALT I (AUG 2003) the Government states as follows:

“Note: The Government reserves the right to execute a unilateral modification to incorporate the Associate Contractor contract/project title, contract/order number, and Prime Contractor; to include major subcontractors, during the term of this contract.”

While we are supportive of the benefits of entering into Associate Contractor Agreement, we respectfully request that this be subject to the written agreement of both parties and not be a unilateral change. As this will be a commercial item contract, changes will require bi‐lateral agreement of the parties.

The Government requires appropriate coordination of work by the Advanced Helicopter Training Systems (AHTS) program associate contractors to ensure complete compatibility between equipment, data, and services for the AHTS program. The Government's Associate Contractor Clause (ACC) language only extends to the Government's unilateral right to incorporate the Associate Contractors identified under paragraph (b) of the clause. It is the responsibility of the TH-XX awardee to subsequently enter into a bilateraly acceptable written Associate Contractor Agreement with each of the other applicable associate contractors, in accordance with the terms & conditions of the ACC, the particulars for which are determined by the TH-XX awardee and associate contractors at that time.

In accordance with paragraph (h) of the ACC, the Associate Contractor Agreements are for information purposes only and shall not be subject to or governed by this contract.

Because the Government only retains the unilateral right to incorporate the associated contractors, not the latititude to establish specific terms and conditions between the TH-XX awardee and Associate Contractor(s), NAVAIR doesn't consider the Note under 5252.245-9520 inappropriate. To provide clarity, NAVAIR has updated the Note to indicate the parties have mutually agreed upon this condition and the requirement is not subject to 52.212-4(c).

(Document, Page, Para.)

Question/Feedback Government Response

Solicitation, Section L, 1.0 Volume 1, p.

Relaxation of the IFR certification requirement is inconsistent with the procurement being categorized as a commercial item procurement. Also, in addition to the lack of IFR certification posing serious schedule and safety concerns, the use of “may be deemed ineligible for award” instead of “shall be deemed ineligible for award” creates an uneven competitive playing field in that those offerors who have invested to have their commercial item aircraft satisfy the Government’s need for an IFR‐ certified aircraft will be unfairly disadvantaged. We submit that the requirement for FAA IFR certification must be a firm requirement. We request that Sections and L and M be clarified to read that the lack of IFR certification at time of FPR submission “shall” make the proposal ineligible for award. Recommend the following: "For planning purposes, the Government anticipates requiring submittal of Volume 1 late 3QFY19.

The Offeror shall provide the following information for the proposed Type/Model aircraft within its Volume 1, Certifications:

(1) A copy of the FAA Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Certification (FAA Form 8110‐9).

If the FAA IFR certificate is not received or is incomplete, the Offeror’s proposal will be deemed ineligible for award."

This change clarifies when IFR certification must be delivered (rather than requested) and reverts to the previous language that clarifies that IFR certification will be deemed ineligible for award.

The Government retains ability to evaluate this as a deficiency or not and the language of the solicitation remains unchanged.

(Document, Page, Para.)

Question/Feedback Government Response

Solicitation, Section M, Price Factor;

Section L 3.2.6, Operation and

Support‐Contractor Contribution (O&S‐CC), p.

Section M indicates that the Government will use the Conklin & de Decker (C&dD) LCC product to generate a 10‐Year “Operations & Support Contractor Contribution” cost for the proposed aircraft. Section L.3.2.6 permits the offeror to choose the variant of the aircraft within the C&dD product that is most closely representative to the model proposed for use in determining the 10‐year O&S Cost. This language permits offerors to select a non‐IFR certified version of their aircraft within C&dD even though such aircraft will lack the equipment and added weight required for IFR certification and, therefore, result in a significantly underestimated LCC. Please confirm that the Government intends to apply a realistic cost adjustment for those LCC C&dD costs that are based on non‐IFR certified aircraft. This creates an uneven competitive playing field in that those offerors who have invested to have their commercial item aircraft satisfy the Government’s need for an IFR‐certified aircraft will be unfairly disadvantaged.

When deciding on evaluation factors for this solicitation, NAVAIR reviewed whether relying on data from a non-IFR certified aircraft would provide an unreasonable basis for projecting a proposed IFR certified equivalent. Namely, the Government currently operates a fleet of helicopters in both an IFR and non-IFR (i.e. VFR) configuration. In performing it's review, NAVAIR took into consideration this operational experience, particularly as it pertains to whether the IFR configuration, in and of itself, drives a measurable delta in operating cost. Based on this review, NAVAIR came to the conclusion that any added maintenance for the instrument configuration did not materially impact projected O&S such that using data from a non-IFR certified aircraft is unreasonable.

The degree of any O&S cost impact is further diminished in instances in which a non-IFR aircraft configuration already includes the components to attain IFR certification.

Taking into consideration the above, NAVAIR does not intend on conducting a realism evaluation or making any adjustments to C&dD data.

PBS, AV‐080, p. 10, p.

AV‐080 in Section 4 (Verification) was revised in PBS Rev 1.82 to read “The TH‐XX should provide a system that allows for autonomous navigation and a coupled approach to a Hover In Ground Effect (HIGE) over the landing zone.” The same requirement in the main body of the PBS Section 3.1.11.2 was not revised and still reads “The TH‐XX should provide a system that allows for autonomous navigation and a coupled approach to a HOGE over the landing zone.”

Please revise Section 3.1.11.2 (AV‐080) to align with Section 4 (AV‐080).

The body of PBS was correct and the Verification table was updated to reflect the correct requirement.

(Document, Page, Para.)

Question/Feedback Government Response

Solicitation, Section L 2.3.2, p. 69

Section L 2.3.2 states "evidence of compliance shall be provided as a fully searchable Portable Document Format (.pdf) file."

Table G‐1 indicates a naming convention of "Ann H CS.pdf."

The body of evidence for this proposal will be comprised of many large documents including manuals and certificates, covering many CDs. Will the Government allow: (1) submission on a USB enabled external strorage device, such as a "thumb drive", to consolidate and simplify the anticipated many DVDs into one device; (2) Annex H to include an index identifying attached evidence PDFs with mapped hyperlinks, (3) Annex H to include multiple PDFs with the naming convention "ANN H CS#.pdf" where CS# is referenced in the index and in the body of the proposal when evidence is referenced in the proposal?

We believe it will be cumbersome and problematic from a desktop PC or laptop capability perspective for the Government to open and review the requested evidence if it is all merged into single large sized files, such as

4.7 GB DVD file sizes. For example, if an offeror intends to submit 20 GB of data, and in consideration that maximum capacity of a DVD is 4.7 GB, this would require 5 DVDs and multiple multi GB PDF files for submission.

NAVAIR acknowledges that this may be a cumbersome process however the Government is unable to accept the data any other way.

Solicitation, Section B, p.

4, Section F, p. 23

Section F‐1 TH‐XX Production Lot Delivery states "The TH‐XX aircraft to be furnished hereunder shall be delivered F.O.B.

Origin at the contractor's facility, ready for flight." Section B indicates "FOB: Destination" for multiple aircraft CLINs.

Please confirm these CLINs are FOB Origin and align Section B to Section F.

The Aircraft CLINs (i.e. 0X01) include both F.O.B. Origin and F.O.B. Destination requirements, as annotated in the following F-1 language:

"The TH-XX aircraft to be furnished hereunder shall be delivered F.O.B. Origin at the contractor's facility, ready for flight. Any uninstalled flyaway kits shall be delivered F.O.B. destination in accordance with the delivery address identified under F-3, Delivery Addresses."

The Government's contract writing system only allows for Origin or Destination in Section B to be annotated. It is the Government's requirement for the A/C to be FOB Origin, while the uninstalled flyaway kits will be FOB Destination.

Table 1