Mod 05_Atch (L-1) QA_ Amendment 05_N6134025R0006_19 May 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134025R0006
About this file
This document is a comprehensive Questions and Answers (Q&A) attachment for a Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF) MH-60R Tactical Operational Flight Trainer (TOFT) Upgrade and Technology Refresh solicitation (N6134025R0006). The solicitation is a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) action limited to Training Systems Contract IV (TSC IV) awardees, focusing on upgrading the MH-60R flight training simulator located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The Q&A document covers 71 detailed questions and government responses addressing technical specifications, past performance requirements, cybersecurity controls, visual database development, hardware and software refresh approaches, and contract administration details. Key technical areas include upgrading the Next Generation Threat System (NGTS), Common Acoustic Synthetic Environment (CASE) C2PO systems, visual imagery requirements, and instructor station configurations. Notably, the solicitation includes optional CLINs such as an Image Generator and Visual Database (CLIN 0004), and requires contractors to provide comprehensive technical approaches for 17 systems listed in the Statement of Work, with specific emphasis on meeting performance specifications and demonstrating technical capabilities.
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Subject | Reference (i.e. RFP, SOW, Specs, Attachment, etc.) | Specific Question | Date Submitted | Final Government Response |
| 1 | GFI | Attachment 5 RSNF GFI List | Please provide all GFI line items marked in Date Provided column with RFP | 2/11/25 | GFI Line Items provided by USG via DoD Safe on 12 Feb 24 |
| 2 | OCONUS Travel | SOW 3.2.4 | SOW 3.2.4 is incomplete/truncated. Please provide all SOW requirements from this paragraph to the end of the SOW document. | 2/11/25 | The final line of SOW Para 3.2.4 Should read "…..prior to OCONUS travel."the SOW has been revised accordingly |
| 3 | DD254 | DD254 | Block 13 refers to FTSS V Addendum A - RSNF COMS PWS and Addendum B CIS PWS. Please clarify if applicable to this RFP. | 2/11/25 | "-Contractors shall perform work in accordance with FTSS V Addendum A– RSNF COMS, Performance Work Statement (PWS) # 6643-A-XXXX, Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services (COMS) and Addendum B – RSNF, CIS Performance Work Statement (PWS) # 6643-B-XXXX, Contractor Instructional Services (CIS)." Should read: -Contractors shall perform work in accordance with TSC IV and Attachment 1 Statement of Work (SOW) 240042. DD-254 has been revised accordingly. |
| 4 | CPARS | RFP, Section L.2.4, page 41 of 53 | The third paragraph states "The offeror shall provide all available CPAR's for each past performance reference within fourteen (14) calendar days from the Final RFP release date." Please confirm that three (3) years of CPARs is sufficient. | 2/20/25 | Three (3) years of CPARS are sufficient. RFP Section L.2.4 has been updated accordingly. |
| 5 | CDRLS | SOW 3.1.1.6.h | B002 references different DID than CDRL B002 DD-1423. Please confirm correct DID reference. | 2/20/25 | Updated SOW to match the DD-1423 to read DI-ADMN-81250B |
| 6 | CDRLS | SOW 3.1.1.6.h | B006 CPSMR is referenced but there is no associated B006 DD-1423. Please confirm if this is a CDRL deliverable. | 2/20/25 | SOW updated to remove reference to B006 |
| 7 | GFI | Attachment 5 RSNF GFI List | Please provide all GFI line items marked in Date Provided column with RFP | 2/20/25 | Question Removed |
| 8 | OCONUS Travel | SOW 3.2.4 | SOW 3.2.4 is incomplete/truncated. Please provide all SOW requirement from this paragraph to the end of the SOW document. | 2/20/25 | Question Removed |
| 9 | CDRLS | PEDDAL, O&M, COTS Manual, PMS and TSSD CDRLs (E001-E005) | Is it the Intent of the USG to have the contractor keep the deliverable CDRLs in the legacy format (as provided in the RFP GFI), OR transition the GFI documents into the new format (this contract's DIDs), even for drawings that will not be impacted by the scope of work? | 2/20/25 | Yes, the contractor shall retain the format of the source data (GFI), and only provide any updates resulting from the modifications under this task. Manuals were authored in MS Word. The DID for the drawings is the same (DI-SESS-81000), the name changed from PDAL to PEDDAL between Rev. E & F. The changes to the DID do not present a change on the format the drawings are delivered. Source files on .dwg and exported to .pdf for printing (11"x17") and tech manual use. |
| 10 | RMF | SOW 3.1.3.2.3 | SOWS 3.1.3.2.3 appears to have references to controls from DODI 8500.2, which was effectively superseded by RMF. Can the Government confirm DCBP-1 and ECVP-1 are referring to 8500.2 controls? If not, can the Government provide the control verbiage or confirm the requirement is not reference any documents | 2/20/25 | SOW Para 3.1.3.2.3 updated to direct use of Cybersecurity Risk Management Framework |
| 11 | ATO | CDRL A00Q | Can USG confirm that the only elements of the ATO package required to be delivered by the Contractor are the ones listed in the "Annex to CDRL A00Q"? | 2/20/25 | Yes, however the attached CDRL has been updated and identifies the elements of the RMF package. |
| 12 | Tech Refresh | RFP | Does the Technology Refresh of the Video Distribution System include upgrading the cameras used to capture video of the OFT and WTT student stations? | 2/20/25 | Yes, the cameras are part of the Video distribution system as listed in SOW 3.2.2.b, and are needed to provide instructors with images of the students and Aircraft Operating Equipment for Debriefing. |
| 13 | Device | RFP | Does the RSNF TOFT require the device to perform Dipping Sonar mechanical simulation (dip to dip) in OFT Mode (not to be confused with WTT mode or TOFT mode)? | 2/20/25 | No, the Dipping Sonar mechanical simulation not currently operational in OFT mode, and is not required in OFT mode. Reference O&M section 1.6.1 |
| 14 | Upgrade | SOW 3.2.2.g | Is the intent that the contractor should propose upgrade to the RSNF ACME Motion Seat as part of follow-on ECP? | 2/20/25 | Yes, ACME motion seats are intended to be part of the follow-on ECP |
| 15 | Clarificaction | SOW 3.2.3.11. | What does the USG mean by "data structure format"? | 2/20/25 | The Contractor shall maintain the data repository provided by the Government in its original format. For instance, if the Government provides a Git repository, the Contractor shall maintain, update, and deliver the Git repository in conjunction with SPP deliverables. Conversion to other repository systems like Mercurial, SVN, or Perforce is not permitted. |
| 16 | Clarificaction | SOW 3.2.3.10.3 | Is USG requesting for the contractor and USG to conduct a joint Cold Start test using the Cold Start Procedures of the SPP prior to VRTA? | 2/20/25 | No, contractor will execute cold start test prior to DT-C1. The Government will lead and execute the SPP procedures, including but not limited to the cold start, prior to the VRTA. The Contractor will provide support during this Government-led event. SOW para 3.2.3.10.3.a has been updated. |
| 17 | Clarificaction | SOW 3.2.3.10.3 | If USG is requesting for the contractor and USG to conduct a joint Cold Start test, then is the assumption that VRTA is only intended to address readiness for Performance and functional testing ONLY (not including Cold Start)? | 2/20/25 | SPP execution shall be performed IAW SOW 3.2.3.10.3. The VRTA is the formal evaluation to determine if a system is ready to progress into the testing phase. |
| 18 | Past Performance Clarification | RFP and SOW | Section M.2.2 Relevancy on page 49 of 53, bottom of 5th paragraph states that for evaluation purposes "OCONUS work performance (SOW 1.1)" must be supported in the Past Performance Volume. SOW 1.1 is simply called "Scope" on page 1 of the SOW. The SOW states nothing about OCONUS other than stating "The RSNF MH-60R TOFT is located at Al Jubail Naval Air Base, in KSA." Please confirm that past performance is valid anywhere outside the Continental U.S., not just KSA. | 2/20/25 | Confirmed. For the purposes of past performance any location outside the continental U.S. will be a relevant submission. Removed Reference in RFP to SOW 1.1. |
| 19 | GFI | RFP | The GFI Specification for the RSNF MH-60R TOFT references to the NATOPS and NATIPs for implementation of physical panels, functional capabilities, performance thresholds,etc. These two manuals have not been provided as part of the RFP GFI. How is the contractor to understand the cockpit difference and functional/performance differences between SC18 and SC24 without these documents? | 2/20/25 | The NATOPS and NATIP documents are not yet available for SC24 upgrade they will be provided as soon as they become available. However, GFI includes the PTVs, Differences Training Material, RSNF SCM for SC18 and SC20, RSNF SC18 & SC20 NATOPS/NATIP, SC18 ICDs, and design/requirements documentation (IRS/IDD, SRS, SSDP) for SC24. These documents are provided to understand the differneces betweeen SC18 and SC24 |
| 20 | GFI | Atch_05_RSNF GFI list | Will USG provide the contractor with the ATG test procedures and Test Results to help the contractor the determine the potential gap between the existing aero model performance and the RFP requirements? | 2/26/25 | The Government provided the GFI A006-Test procedures for the RSNF TOFT. The Government will not provide test results. |
| 21 | Subcontractor Past Performance | RFP, Section L.1.3.3, 2.0 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE | Is the Offereror required to submit past performance for any subcontractor performing at least 15% of work? | 2/26/25 | Yes, the offeror is required to submit past performance for any subcontractor performing at least 15% of the work. |
| 22 | Subcontractor Past Performance | RFP, Section L.1.3.3, 2.0 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE | If the Offereror is required to submit past performance for subcontractors performing at least 15% of work, can the USG confirm that subcontractors performing at least 15% of the proposed price must submit past performance references in addition to the references provided by the Prime? (i.e., the Prime submits (3) Past Performance References and (3) Subcontractor Past Performance References) | 2/26/25 | The terms of the solicitation permit an offeror to summit a maximum of three past performance references total. Offerors are permitted to submit past performance references for proposed prime and any entity proposed to perform at least 15% of the proposed price. |
| 23 | Past Performance Documetation | No reference made in RFP documents | Please confirm that Federal Procument Database System reports can be used as documentation along with SF33, contracts, CPARS, etc. | 3/4/25 | Federal Procurement Database System (FPDS) Reports cannot be used as past performance documentation. |
| 24 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Please confirm RTM 2.1.24.1-2.1.24.39 are the intended cyber controls. The requirements appear to be DIACAP related controls as apposed to RMF. | 3/4/25 | The DIACAP controls have been updated to RMF controls provided in the RTM included with this amendment. |
| 25 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Please confirm the requirement of using Windows Server 2012R2 referenced in 2.1.24.40, 2.1.24.42, and 2.1.24.46. Windows Server 2012R2 end of support was 2023 and therefore conflicts with the 24-month supportability post-RFT requirement in 2.1.24.52. | 3/4/25 | WIN SERVER 2012 is obsolete. The Windows Server OS will need to comply with the 48 month supportability identified in RTM 2.1.24.52 |
| 26 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Please confirm the requirement to use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 as specified in 2.1.24.47. RHEL6 end of extended support was 2024 and therefore conflicts with the 24-month supportability post-RFT requirement in 2.1.24.52. | 3/4/25 | RHEL 6 is obsolete. The RHEL OS version will need to comply with the 48 month supportability identified in RTM 2.1.24.52 |
| 27 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Confirm the requirement to use Cisco WS-C3750X-48T-S switch as specified in 2.1.24.28. That switch family series is currently end of sale (since approximately 2016) and therefore will be difficult to procure and maintain. Would the Government consider removing the specific switch designation and allow and NIAP approved switch? | 3/4/25 | The Government has updated the RTM requirement with a NIAP approved switch. Updated RTM provided with this amendment. |
| 28 | Cyber | RTM 2.1.24 | Confirm the intent to use Symantec Anti-Virus as specified in 2.1.24.49. Would the Government consider other anti-virus solutions, such as Trellix, which is part of the ESS security suite currently used by the Navy? | 3/4/25 | RTM 2.1.24.49 was updated to state the Government will accept Trellix and any other antivirus solutions approved by the Navy. |
| 29 | Visual Database | RTM 2.1.21.3 | RTM does not specify the CONUS gaming area extents. Provide the CONUS gaming area extents. | 3/4/25 | The Government updated RTM 2.1.21.3 requirement and removed the CONUS gaming area and extent requirements |
| 30 | Visual Database | RTM 2.1.21.3 | RTM does not specify the OCONUS gaming area is required, but there are requirements that indicate an OCONUS Saudi database is needed. Add requirement for OCONUS database and specify OCONUS gaming area extents. | 3/4/25 | The Government has added the OCONUS gaming area and extent requirements |
| 31 | Visual Database | RTM 2.1.21.3 | RTM 2.1.21.7 High Fidelity Area Requirements does not contain any requirements or extents. Provide high fidelity area requirements and extents for both CONUS and OCONUS gaming areas. | 3/4/25 | The Government has added the OCONUS gaming area and extent requirements |
| 32 | Visual Database | CDRL A007 DID | Provide CDRL A007 DID OT-15-0002 | 3/4/25 | The Government will include DID OT-15-0002 via DoD SAFE as part of this amendment |
| 33 | Visual Database | CDRL A008 DID | Provide CDRL A008 DID OT-15-0001 | 3/4/25 | The Government will include DID OT-15-0001 via DoD SAFE as part of this amendment |
| 34 | CASE C2PO | RFP L.1.1.2 | RFP Section L.1.1.2.a indicates technical factor evaluation is based on Common Acoustic Simulated Environment - Fidelity Improvement (CASE-FI) which is contradictory to SOW 3.2.2.d indicating C2PO. Correct Section L evaluation to be based on C2PO. | 3/13/25 | RFP Section L.1.1.2.a updated to identify the use of CASE C2PO vice CASE-FI as indicated in the SOW 3.2.2.d. |
| 35 | CPI/PPI assessments | Refer to Q&A #8 | Per response to Q&A #8, provide CDRL for CPI Assessment and PPIP and update SOW requirements accordingly. | 3/13/25 | Unable to locate Q&A #8 response with regard to CPI. Please provide additional clarifying information. |
| 36 | Request for GFI | Can USG provide the following GFI to properly propose Cockpit HW configuration deltas: |
a. RSNF SCM for fielded SC18 configuration
b. RSNF SCM for target SC24 configuration
c. RSNF SC18 NATOPS
d. RSNF SC18 NATIP
e. RSNF SC20 NATOPS
f. RSNF SC20 NATIP
g. RSNF SC18 AIRCRAFT ICDs for FAS, SAS, MAS, AVS
h. RSNF SC20 AIRCRAFT ICDs for FAS, SAS, MAS, AVS
i. RSNF SC24 AIRCRAFT ICDs for FAS, SAS, MAS, AVS 3/13/25 the Government will provide additional GFI as part of this amendment:
a. RSNF SCM for fielded SC18 and SC20
b. RSNF SC18 NATOPS
c. RSNF SC18 NATIP
d. RSNF SC20 NATOPS
e. RSNF SC20 NATIP
f. RSNF SC18 ICD FAS
g. RSNF SC18 ICD SAS
h. RSNF SC18 ICD MAS
i. RSNF SC18 ICD AVS Documents have been added to the GFI list. See response for question 19 in regard to additional documentation.
| 37 | Clause | Contract TSC IV or Delivery Order | 52.242-17 Government Delay of Work | 3/13/25 | The stated clause is included in the TSC IV contract. |
| 38 | Clause | Contract TSC IV or Delivery Order | 52.245-1 Government Propoerty | 3/13/25 | The stated clause is included in the TSC IV contract. |
| 39 | PMI | SOW 3.2.3.12.2 | Are the Contractor Instructor Services personnel, Pilot and SO, available to support the PMI testing? | 3/25/25 | Yes, the CIS Pilot and SO will be on hand to support PMI testing, integration and follow on DT-C1 and IT-C1 |
| 40 | PMI | SOW 3.2.3.12.2 | Is the contractor expected to perform the full set of GFI Test procedures during PMI | 3/25/25 | No, the contractor is not expected to perform the full set of GFI Test procedures during PMI. The USG will work with the contractor to establish a set of procedures to be conducted during PMI |
| 41 | SAF/Entities | SOW 3.2.2.c / RTM 2.1.23 | Does the NGTS GFI, have the same entities as the ones listed in the current TOFT baseline? | 3/25/25 | No, the contractor is responsible for ensuring the entities listed in the RTM are available in NGTS. The contractor can create new entities or reuse existing entities, via the NGTS provided player editor and parametric data editor to satisfy the requirements of the RTM. |
| 42 | Training Scenarios | RTM 2.1.2.17-12 | Is the contractor responsible for migrating training scenarios from JSAF to NGTS. | 3/25/25 | No, the contractor is not responsible for migration scenarios between SAFs. However, the contractor is responsible for creating the scenarios required to support test events and Operator training |
| 44 | Past Performance | Section L 2.0 | RFP reads "The Offeror shall identify a maximum of three (3) past performance references performed within five years of date of issuance of the final solicitation" Are these three PP refereces for the prime and each subcontractor? | 3/25/25 | The terms of the solicitation permit an offeror to submit a maximum of three past performance references in total (prime and subcontractors combined). USG will not evaluate more than three Past Performance references in total (prime and subcontractors). |
| 45 | CPI CDRL | SOW 3.1.3.8 | Is the contractor expected to provide a Critical Program Information (CPI) assessment as a deliverable for this program? If so will the USG provide the CPI assessment CDRL form as well as the CPI questionnaire form, which is government-controlled and updated” | 4/4/25 | Yes, USG has provided CDRL B005 with this Amendment. |
| 46 | PPIP CDRL | Related to SOW 3.1.3.8 | Is the contractor expected to Provide a Program Protection Implementation Plan (PPIP) for this program? | 4/4/25 | A PPIP is not expected at present. In the event CPI is identified, a contract mod will be issued to add the PPIP CDRL. |
| 47 | CONUS Database | 2.1.21.4-1 The database shall provide a CONUS gaming area. | Gov stated that the CONUS database is not required. Will the Gov remove the requirements for CONUS database from the RTM spec document? | 4/4/25 | The USG has removed the CONUS gaming area requirement from the RTM |
| 48 | CONUS Database | 2.1.21.16 CONUS primary airfields | Gov stated that the CONUS database is not required. Will the Gov remove the requirements for CONUS database from the RTM spec document? | 4/4/25 | The USG has removed the CONUS primary airfield requirement from the RTM |
| 49 | CONUS Database | 2.1.21.16-1 The TOFT shall provide Jacksonville Naval Air Station (KNIP) as a primary airfield. | Gov stated that the CONUS database is not required. Will the Gov remove the requirements for CONUS database from the RTM spec document? | 4/4/25 | The USG has removed Jacksonville Naval Air Station (KNIP) as a primary airfield requirement from the RTM |
| 50 | CONUS Database | 2.1.21.16-2 The TOFT shall provide Mayport Naval Station (KNRB) as a primary airfield. | Gov stated that the CONUS database is not required. Will the Gov remove the requirements for CONUS database from the RTM spec document? | 4/4/25 | The USG has removed Mayport Naval Station (KNRB) as a primary airfield requirement from the RTM |
Additionally: CONUS primary helipads were removed (2.1.21.24 through 2.1.21.24-4) and CONUS instrument airfields were removed (2.1.21.20 through 2.1.21.21-2)
| 51 | Past Performance | Attachment L-3 | Please confirm the Atch L-3 from the February 27 release is still valid. | 4/4/25 | Confirmed. Atch L-3_Rev 01_dated 27 February 2025 is still valid. |
| 52 | RFP, Section L.1.3.3, 2.0 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE | If the Offereror is required to submit past performance for subcontractors performing at least 15% of work, can the USG confirm that subcontractors performing at least 15% of the proposed price must submit past performance references in addition to the references provided by the Prime? (i.e., the Prime submits (3) Past Performance References and (3) Subcontractor Past Performance References) | Regarding questions #64 and #65 of the Q&A: Please clarify if past performance citations are limited to a TOTAL of 3 per prime with additional citations for subcontractors performing 15% or more of the work OR is 3 the TOTAL for all participants on a contract? | 4/4/25 | The terms of the solicitation permit an offeror to submit a maximum of three past performance references in total (Combined Prime/Subs). Offerors are permitted to submit past performance references for proposed prime and any entity proposed to perform at least 15% of the proposed price. |
| 53 | RFP, Section L.1.3.1 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Large Business Only) | Large Business Offerors (Large Businesses include non-profit entities) shall complete the Small Business |
Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) provided as Attachment L-5 and submit it as a part of VOLUME 1.0
| Price (ref FAR 52.219-8 and DFARS 215.304). | Please clarify if the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) should be Attachment L-4 (Atch (L-4)_SBPCD Form for MAC Orders SS SB Eval) from the 25 March release and shall be submitted as part of VOLUME 1.0 Price | 4/4/25 | The offeror shall submit the SBPCD as part of the Technical Volume. RFP Section L.1.3.1. in RFP has been updated accordingly | |||
| 54 | CONUS Database | 2.1.21.21 | 2.1.21.21-1 and 2.1.21.21.2 require CONUS airfields. Will these CONUS requirements be removed? Is the Government going to amend the soliciation to correct the requiremet if so? | 4/15/25 | The USG has removed the CONUS gaming area requirement from the RTM | |
| 55 | CONUS Database | 2.1.21.24 | 2.1.21.24-1, 2.1.21.24-2, 2.1.21.24-3, and 2.1.21.24-4 are CONUS Heliports. Can these CONUS heliports be removed ? Is the Government going to amend the soliciation to correct the requiremet if so? | 4/15/25 | The USG has removed the CONUS gaming area requirement from the RTM | |
| 56 | OCONUS Database | 2.1.21.7 | USG provided imagery requirements for 2.1.21.5-14 thru 2.1.21.5-19. Confirm these extents are the same extents as the High Fidelity Area Requirements in 2.1.21.7, 2.1.21.8, and 2.1.21.9. | 4/15/25 | Yes, 2.1.21.5-14 thru 2.1.21.5-19 encompasses the High Fidelity Area Requirements in 2.1.21.7, 2.1.21.8, and 2.1.21.9. | |
| 57 | OCONUS Database | 2.1.21.4 | USG indicated OCONUS database extents were identified. Additional imagery requirements were provided in 2.1.21.5-14 thru 2.1.21.5-19. Database extents were expected to be updated in 2.1.21.4. Please provide the OCONUS database extents. | 4/15/25 | The OCONUS database extents are identified 2.1.21.5-14 thru 2.1.21.5-19 under General Imagery requirements 2.1.21.5 | |
| 58 | OCONUS Database | 2.1.23 | Can the USG provide the moving model source data and Aechelon Image Generator moving models as GFI? | 4/15/25 | No. the USG does not have the Moving model source data or Aechelon IG moving models to provide as GFI. | |
| 59 | Imagery | 2.1.21.5 | Database development for the full Saudi database in the spec will be very expensive. Contractors can save many millions of dollars if the existing Aechelon databases can be provided as GFI. Can the USG provide the imagery and Aechelon Image Generator databases that meets 2.1.21.5 as GFI? Can this existing Aechelon database be used in a new version Aechelon Image Generator to meet the database requirements ? | 4/15/25 | No, the USG can't provide imagery and IG databases that meets the RTM requirements 2.1.21.5. Some of the RTM requirements under section 2.1.21.5 are requirements that have been modified from the original baseline (reference the LEGEND in RTM cell A2). The existing Aechelon database will not meet the current RTM requirements, due to the modified baseline requirements (reference the LEGEND in RTM cell A2). |
A new IG and database is added as a new CLIN (CLIN 0004). If CLIN 0004 is exercised all Image generator and database requirements shall be met
| 60 | Imagery | 2.1.21.5 | Confirm USG 2.1.21.5-7 thru 2.1.21.5-11 are required especially due to the significant cost associated with acquiring imagery that meets the resolution and coverage requirements. Significant cost savings can be achieved if the USG removes these requirements or supplies the database that meets these requirements. | 4/15/25 | USG 2.1.21.5-7 thru 2.1.21.5-11 are requirements pending the exercise of CLIN 0004. |
| 61 | Visual Display System | Spec 2.1.21.82 Image Display System | A Typical tech refresh of the projectors is expected to keep the projector count the same ( 6 projector). With 6 projectors, some of the requirements for the image display system may not be met without a significant increase in cost. For example, 2.1.21.86-1 requires resolution of 4 arc-minutes per optical line pair. This is likely a better resolution (lower value) than the current projectors. Can these image display requirements be relaxed to allow 6 projectors with current technology to pass the requirement.? |
Image Display System Resolution from Past MH-60R devices:
US Navy MH-60R Tech Refresh program.
B.3.2.1.3.3 Static resolution
a. The average static resolution of the visual system shall not exceed 5.5 arc-min per optical line pair for each display channel.
Royal Austr Navy MH-60R Program B.1.1.1.1.1 Static visual resolution
a. The average of the horizontal and vertical resolution measurements for a particular azimuth and elevation anywhere within the FOV of the IDS shall be 5.5 arc-minutes per optical line pair or better in Zone 1, which is a circle about each channel’s projected center with a diameter equal to the channel width.
We would like to understand why this Saudi device requires significantly better resolution that these other 2 programs.
Meeting this 4 arc-min resolution would require adding projectors to the device. Adding projectors will require removal of all 6 existing projector mounts , then mechanical redesign of the projector mounting area to accommodate additional projectors. This mechanical work will increase the downtime of the TOFT device and add risk to the installation of the Tech Refresh. This single requirement will add significant cost and schedule time to this program. We suggest that the 5.5 arc-min requirement from past programs be used here on this Saudi device. 4/15/25 RTM reflects the updated average static resolution (2.1.21.86-1), not exceed 5.5 arc-minutes.
| 62 | PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES | Section L 3.0 | Section L instructions include numbers, letters, and bulleted lists. Is it imperative that contractors Tech Volume use the identical numbers and letters as Section L? Some instructions in Section L are not numbered but are a bulleted list of clarifications, how do you want those numbered in the Tech Volume? | 5/1/25 | As long as the numbered and lettered heading paragraphs match what is in Section L, it is acceptable the sub-paragraphs can be bulleted. The intent is to understand what answers are for what questions. |
| 63 | Proposal Structure Technical Page Limit 40 pages | Table L-1 | Section L shows a 40 page limit for the tech volume. The functional block diagrams do not count against that page limit. To fully describe Tech Refresh and SC24 upgrade many block diagrams will be needed. Vendor understands that these will not count against the page count limit. For ease of counting the pages and not counting the block diagrams as pages, is it acceptable to have a section for block diagrams and all block diagrams are listed this section and these pages are not counted? The problem with this approach is that the block diagrams are not directly next to the paragraph discussing the topic. For ease of evaluating the proposal, it would be better for the block diagrams to be just after the text describing the diagram. Another option: It would be better to increase the allowable page count, then put the block diagrams into the tech volume near the paragraph discussing that topic. If you prefer this approach, this contractor recommends the page count be increased and then the block diagram pages are counted. This contractor expect to use 20-40 block diagrams so the Tech Volume page count would need to be 80 pages if the block diagram pages are counted. | 5/1/25 | It is acceptable to submit an attachment section for block diagrams and all block diagrams are listed in this section and these pages are not counted . The block diagrams need to be clearly identified and traced to a section in the Tech Volume |
64 RSNF TOFT Tech Refresh Specific Instructions - Section L, Part B L.1.1.2 For the Tech Refresh, Section L states that the upgrade must meet the performance requirements in Specification 240041. If contractors try to supply engineering proof and evidence that the system design clearly meets or exceeds the Specification, that could take hundreds of pages. Is it acceptable to state that this same design was delivered on a past program and was verified to meet the specification? 5/1/25 It is not acceptable to state the a design delivered on another program, but it is acceptable to submit a technical description and design approach for meeting the specified requirements.
| 65 | RSNF TOFT Tech Refresh | Specific Instructions - Section L, Part B L.1.1.2 | For the Tech Refresh Approach, do you want contractors to describe only for the three (3) Next Generation Threat System (NGTS) and Common Acoustic Synthetic Environment (CASE) Coherent 2D Propagation Ocean (C2PO) systems or the approach for all 17 systems listed in SOW 3.2.2 Technology Refresh? | 5/1/25 | Describe the approach for the three described subsystems for section L1.1.2b |
| 66 | L.1.1.2a-b | HW/SW Approach | Is it acceptable for contractors to describe the hardware and software approach of each system in the same section? Many of these Tech Refresh systems have a tightly connected hardware and software solution and it will be much simpler to describe the system hardware and software in the same section. | 5/1/25 | Yes, describing hardware and software approach in the same section is acceptable |
| 67 | Instructor Systems | RTM 2.1.2 | Several requirements reference pointing device, keyboard and display on the instructor stations. Is the intent of this effort to also upgrade the KVM system | 5/2/25 | No. The KVM system is a candidate for the follow on ECP |
| 68 | RFP Contract Clauses | Section I | Due to the unprecedented situation with tariffs being applied to products would the Govt please add the Duty Free 252.225-7013 clause to the solicitation? In our experience with training devices materials pertaining to components may come from sources outside the U.S. if they are from the OEM or authorized distributers that are foreign owned companies. | 5/13/25 | Clause at 252.225-7013, Duty-Free Entry has been incorporated by reference to Section I of the current solicitation (N6134025R0006) |
| 69 | RFP, Section L, Part A, Para 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes | Below Table L-1 Proposal Structure, the RFP indicates: |
"Each electronic volume must contain the following information:
At a minimum, the technical volume must include the paragraphs identified in the CRM" Could the government indicate where the "CRM" is located?
| Or will this requirement be deleted? | 5/15/25 | Requirement removed from RFP, Section L, Part A, Para 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes. RFP N6134025R0006 has been updated to reflect deletion. |
| 70 | Follow up to Gov Q65 | |
| Specific Instructions - Section L, Part B L.1.1.2b | Gov Answer to Q65: | |
| Describe the approach for the three described subsystems for section L1.1.2b | Section L.1.1.2b was changed and no longer lists 3 systems for Tech Refresh. | |
| Should contractors discuss the Tech Refresh approach of all of the systems listed in SOW 3.2.2 and SOW 3.2.2.2 | 5/16/25 | Yes, contractor should discuss approach for all systems listed in SOW 3.2.2 and SOW 3.2.2.2 |
| 71 | RFP Section B |
Item 0004 Image Generator and Visual database
| Section L L.1.1.2 | CLIN 0004 OPTION | |
| Image Generator and Visual Database | CLIN 0004 is listed as optional. | |
| Are contractors required to describe the approach for Visual System IG and database in the Tech Refresh portion of the Technical Volume? (I believe yes, but would like to confirm) | 5/16/25 | Yes, contractors are required to describe the approach for Visual System IG and database in the Technical Volume as instructed in the solicitation instructions. |
Attachment L-1 &"-,Bold"Royal Saudi Naval Forces (RSNF) Tactical Operational Flight Trainer (TOFT) Upgrade - Question & Answer Form &K000000N61340-25-R-0006
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .