TH-XX_Amendment_0002_Questions_&_Answers.pdf

RFP Reference (Document, Page, Para.)

Question/Feedback Government Response

PWS 3.16

Section L, Table T-1, 2.2.4

PWS 3.16 States: Initial Sparing Analysis. {CLIN 0002) The Contractor shall deliver to the Government an initial, predictive analysis of the spares required to be on hand for operation for 130 TH-XX aircraft, based on the aircraft delivery schedule in Section F and 89,918 flight hours per year. (CDRL A017) However, Table T-1 L.2.2.4 does not refernce CDRL A017 in the table. Will the government please include CDRL A017 in Section 2.2.4 in Table T-1?

The soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Section L, 2.2.2 Initial Sparing Aproach

The RFP states: The Offeror shall propose its initial predictive analysis pertaining to the Spares Modeling predictions in support of CLINs 0X01 and 0X02, IAW Section C, Table C-3 used to support its proposed spares.

However, spares are governed by CLIN 0003 and Table T-1 indicates the governing CLINs are 0X01, 0X02, 0X03. Will the Government revise this text in this section as well as in Table T-1 to indicate that the analysis comes under CLIN 0003?

Table T-1 of the soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Section L, Table T-1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3

Both sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 in Table T-1 include PWS 3.18. It appears that

3.18 is associated with 2.2.3 and not with 2.2.2. Will the government please remove 3.18 from section 2.2.2 in Table T-1?

Table T-1 of the soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Section L.2.2.2 If there are no TBOs in the first 24 months and/or 692 hours per aircraft/year X 2 years = 1384 hours, shall no spare engines be proposed as part of Attachment L-7?

Spare engines are to be proposed based on OEM TBOs to establish an initial pool. Do not use the spares predictive analysis to propose engine spares.

The soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Section L, Table T-1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.4 Section L.2.2.4

In Section L. 2.2.4 there is no textual reference to PWS 3.16 or the associated CDRL 017. CDRL 017, however, is listed in Table T-1, Section

2.2.2. Will the government please relocate PWS 3.16 from Table T-1, 2.2.2 to 2.2.4 and also add text in Section L. 2.2.4 to inidicate the respective PWS 3.16 requirement?

Table T-1 of the soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Section F (page 23)

Given that the RFP establishes a desired aircraft delivery schedule commencing in OCT 2020, will the Navy adjust the delivery date for the initial aircraft deliveries and other items included in Section F to account for delays in contract award beyond Q1FY20 for reasons beyond the control of the Navy

(i.e. Continuing Resolution)?

If award is not made by the FBO identified 1st Quarter of Government Fiscal Year 2020, NAVAIR will adjust terms and conditions accordingly.

PWS 3.24/Appendix A Cybersecurity Plan

During the pre-solicitation meeting and the subsequent call regarding Cybersecurity, it was our understanding that the Government’s intent was to adhere to commercial standard practices and the CSP was to be used as a guideline. However, PWS 3.24 says "Contractor shall execute TH-XX Cyber Security Plan provided in Appendix A," without any allowance for the Contractor to propose an alternative means of compliance. Appendix A states the Contractor must follow the CSP provided, which does not follow commercial standard practices. For instance, use of Government PKIs is not standard commercial practice and would require an extensive effort to comply with the requirement. Will the Government consider a revision of the Cybersecurity requirements/Appendix A CSP or an alternative Cybersecurity Plan that meets its intent? Full adherence to the CSP currently in Appendix A may entail significant cost impact.

The requirements set forth in the CSP are the MINIMUM requirements of the Govt to protect data transfer and sensitive communications between the Contractor and Govt in the execution of this contract. Furthermore, PKI certificates issued by an approved external certificate authority are commonly used by industry.

Table T-1, Section 2.1.1 Overall Compliance

In the CDRL column CDRL A026 was added without a corresponding PWS reference (3.24). Could the Government clarify the Cybersecurity requirement in the table?

Table T-1 of the soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Appendix A Cybersecurity Plan, Para G

In Appendix A TH-XX Cybersecurity Plan, Section G states that an Assessment and Authorization (A&A) is not applicable to this contract. However, per CDRL A026 DiD DI-MGMT-82135, paragraph 3 states that there will be an A&A package. Please clarify if the Government does not require an A&A.

CDRL A026, Block 4, was updated as follows:

"Only Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.6 from DI-MGMT-82135 are applicable."

Appendix A Cybersecurity Plan, Para H

In regards to the Cybersecurity Point of Contact/Workforce requirement to provide a counterpart to the USG PISSM and ensure all CS requirements are adhered to, is it the intent of the Government for this to be just for enterprise cybersecurity or for the platform, too? In addition, for the requirement of “shall coordinate with the PISSM” will this require approval of cyber related changes to the Contractor’s systems?

The Government's intent is for the Contractor to have one POC for all Cybersecurity issues; specifically, one POC for both enterprise and platform.

PWS 3.10, PWS 3.11

PWS 3.10 (CLIN 0X02, CDRL A012) states that the Contractor shall deliver all Instructions for Continued Airworthiness through 2050. PWS 3.11 (CLIN 0010) states that the Contractor will support the data and engineering described in its subparagraphs through 2050 as well. Is the Government’s intention for all costs associated with these deliverables through the year 2050 to be included and priced into this proposal, or does it intend to issue follow-on contracts for these deliverables in the years after aircraft delivery is complete?

All costs associated with the requirements of PWS 3.10 and PWS 3.11 (if bid) shall be priced in the Offeror's proposal. The Governement does not intend to issue follow-on contracts.

Table T-1, Section 2.2.1 Review of PWS paragraphs 3.9 and 3.11 indicates the listed CDRLs are not associated with either of the PWS references. Could the Government please clarify the CDRL requirements for Section 2.2.1 in Table T-1?

Table T-1 of the soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Table T-1, Section 2.2.2 The referenced PWS 3.18 is not associated with the CDRL A017. CDRL A017 should be associated with PWS 3.16. We believe this is an erroneous reference. Please clarify what PWS paragraph is the correct reference.

Table T-1 of the soliciation was updated to clarify the requirement.

Section L-1, Part A, 2 Proposal Format, 2,2.

Would the Government consider changing the double side printing requirement to single side printing?

No

Section L-1, Part A, 2 Proposal Format, 2,2.

In the discussion of font size for tables, figures and charts, the Government does not specify a font, just the point size. For ease of reading the smaller point size, Ariel is a better font than Times New Roman. Would the Government consider changing the font to Ariel for tables, figures and charts?

Either Arial or Times New Roman fonts are acceptable, but should be constistant throught the proposal.

AHTS TH-XX Request for Proposal N6134019R0007 - Questions & Answers Related to Amendment 0002

Table T-1, Section 2.1.1 Overall Compliance

Under the PWS column there is a reference to a PWS 3.1.3.9. Review of the PWS released with the RFP did not show an associated paragraph marked 3.1.3.9. Would the Government please advise on this PWS reference?

Table T-1 PWS Para 3.1.3.9 was inadvertantly referenced. That paragraph does not exist in the PWS. Table T-1 is corrected to read PWS 3.1.9.2.

PBS, AV-021, 022, 026.

028, 099, 110, 126, 144, 145

These 9 AV requirements are "should" requirements and fall outside of Section M criteria and are not listed in Table T-1.

1) Will the Navy assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness, or risk reducers to these 9 "should" requirements;

2) If so, will the Government add them to Table T-1 in their relevant evaluated elements?

3) If not, how will these AV requirements be evaluated?

The Navy will not assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or risk reducers for the nine "should" statements.

The Navy's evaluation will consider only the shall requirements specified in Table T-1.

PBS, AV-026

AV-026 is a "should" requirement and is listed in Attachment L-4 under Power & Propulsion System, Rotor Brake. Since AV-026 is required in L-4 we are required to provide evidence of compliance under Section L.2.2.1 which states "The Offeror shall, for each system and requirement designated in Attachment L-4 (Configuration), provide the system description, manufacturer, model number, and evidence of compliance with the PBS [AV-XXX] requirements as a completed Annex C (Configuration)." However, AV-026 is not listed in Table T-1 under L.2.2.1. Will the Navy please align these conflicting requirements?

Attachment L-4 was updated to clarify the requirement.

PBS, AV-124 AV-124 is a "shall" requirement and is not listed in Table T-1, Section 2.1.1. Will the Government add AV-124 to Table T-1, Section 2.1.1?

Table T-1 and Attachment L-4 of the soliciation were updated to clarify the requirement.

Table 1