TH-XX_Amendment_0004_Questions_&_Answers.pdf

RFP Reference

(Document, Page, Para.)

Question/Feedback Government Response

DFARS 252.211-7003 ITEM

UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION

AND VALUATION (MAR

2016)

This clause applies to end item deliverables, including individual PSE and spares based on an earlier response from the Government to an Industry question. Paragraphs ( c )

(1) (iii) and (iv) both specify "Attachment Number ______" but are blank. Paragraph

(f) (2) (iii) also has a blank that needs to be completed. Based on the Government'e earlier response, we believe that all of these three paragraphs should be marked as

Not Applicable (N/A). Please confirm and complete these blanks accordingly.

As NAVAIR does not have insight into the offerors unique solution, including any proposed warranty conditions, it is impossible for the Government to identify items for population under DFARS 252.211-7003(c)(1)(iii). In light of this, the Government has updated the clause to request offerors provide the potential list of components for

Government's consideration.

NAVAIR concurs that DFARS 252.211-7003(c)(1)(iv) and (f)(2)(iii) are not applicable and have been marked "N/A"

PWS 3.1.3; PBS AV-002;

Part B Specific

Instructions; Section

M.1.II.A. Technical Factor

Part 1/2 - The RFP, as amended, has created an ambiguity for which clairifcation is requested. For example, the PWS (3.1.3) and PBS (AV-002) both require that the

Offeror have a current FAA TC or STC and that the Offeror maintain the currency of such FAA TC or STC through the year 2050. However, Part B Specific Instructions contradicts these mandatory requirements by stating that the failure to provide the required IFR Certification when requested by the Government may result in the

Offeror's proposal being deemed ineligible for award. Additionally, Section M.1.II.A.

Technical Factor states that any sub-factor resulting in a Technical Rating of

"Unacceptable" or "Marginal", or a Technical Risk Rating of "High" or "Unacceptable" may be considered unawardable and may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from competition.

PWS 3.1.3; PBS AV-002;

Part B Specific

Instructions; Section

M.1.II.A. Technical Factor

Part 2/2 - Is the IFR requirement a firm requirement of the RFP? We understand that the Government reserves the right to assess a deficiency based on an earlier response from the Government. However, in the event an Offeror fails to provide the required IFR Certification in Volume 1 when requested by the Government, is the

Offeror still eligible for award? In order to ensure a full and open competition with a level playing field and the avoidance of possible delays or requests for waivers of contract requirements, we respectfully request that the Government review these inconsistencies within the RFP and state unequivocally the specific date/timeframe before contract award when the Offeror MUST provide the required IFR Certification.

System Performance

Demonstration

Will the evaluators require the use of the static aircraft for the entire week, or only for a shorter period? If only for part of the week, which days are preferred? The flight demonstration aircraft would still be available for anthropometric data collection and other evaluation the entire time.

Section L, Paragraph 2.1.1, SPD states the requirements for the aircraft(s) during the

SPD. Currently the Government plans to perform its analysis of the static aircraft at the beginning of the SPD week. The Government will coordinate with the OEM the specific schedule for that week; however, there may be impacts to the schedule due to the weather.

RFP 2.2.2

Section 2.2.2 of the RFP, it states that “…the offeror shall provide its analysis supporting the proposed number of engine spares necessary to establish a pool, for the life of the program, based on Contractor proposed time between overhauls.”

Does this mean that the Government wants the Offeror to include a pool of complete engines as well as engine spare parts as part of its offer, or to only include projected spare parts?

The Offeror shall provide a pool of complete engines (i.e., spare engines) and engine piece part spares as part of its offer. Section B, B-1 Extended CLIN Descriptions and

Section L, paragraph 2.2.2 have been updated.

PBS AV-125

AV-125 states, “The TH-XX shall have a high visibility paint scheme and marking in accordance with MIL-STD-2161C.” MIL-STD-2161C describes high-visibility fuselage paint schemes for existing training helicopters, but its only references to rotors specify black with some allowances for safety markings. Is the government willing to accept variations in rotor markings to allow high-visibility rotor and tail rotor paint schemes? This would allow existing commercial blades to be used without repainting or rework, thus reducing cost to the government and allowing a greater parts pool for sparing, as well as enhancing safety by making the TH-XX more visible. The current TH-

57 fleet is typically equipped with high-visibility blades.

The MIL-STD-2161C, paragraph 5.1.1.1, applies. A requirement for black rotor blades does not apply to the high visibility paint scheme.

Amendment 3, Section L.1, Part A, Proposal Format, Paragraph 2.2, page 73

Paragraph 2.2 states that “Only material allocated to a specific section shall be contained in that section.” Table G-1, Table T-1 or Attachment L-1 do not identify

“sections”, only volumes, books, annexes, and paragraphs. What is meant by “specific section” in the context of the proposal response, and what is the intent of this instruction?

"Section" is referring to the distinct parts or breakdown of the information within

Section L - Volume, Book, Paragraph/Element, and Annex.

Amendment 3, Section L.1, Part B 2.0, Table T-1 page

77 and Attachment L-1

Paragraph 2.1.1 in both Table T-1 and Attachment L-1 omit the following AV-XXX requirements from PBS Version 1.83PR: AV-021, AV-022, AV-026, AV-028, AV-099, AV-

110, AV-126, AV-143, AV-144, AV-145. Is it acceptable to respond to each of these requirements within Paragraph 2.1.1 in order to ensure complete compliance to the

PBS, or does that make a response non-compliant by providing information not asked for?

The Navy will not assign strengths, significant weaknesses, or risk reducers for the AV-

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

PBS

How will the Government evaluate AV numbers that are not explicitly called out in

Sections L and M?"

The Government will not evaluate any AV numbers not identified in Sections L and M.

Only those AV numbers specified in Table T-1 will be evaluated.

AHTS TH-XX Request for Proposal N6134019R0007 - Questions & Answers Related to Amendment 0004

The Government intends to award the contract for an FAA IFR certified aircraft. Failure to provide the required IFR Certification when requested by the Government will result in the Offeror's proposal being deemed ineligible for award. The solicitation has been updated.