N68335-11-R-0123 Amendment 1.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 12-Jul-2011 02:00 PM to 27-Jul-2011 02:00 PM.

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 1

The purpose of Amendment 1 of Solicitation N68335-11-R-0123 is to provide responses to Industry questions and to extend the solicitation as shown below:

1. The solicitation is hereby extended:

FROM:

12 JULY 2011at 2:00 PM ET

TO:

27 JULY 2011at 2:00 PM ET

2. QUESTION: Volume II – Experience, Page 73 of 85 - The paragraph states “The offeror shall have performed and shall describe at least three (3) recent relevant experiences where TDRs and/or HAWTs were sold within the past five (5) years.” This statement seems to limit interested bidders to the current TDR test environment without allowing the Government to procure advanced technology options that can provide TDR results with significant enhancements.

ANSWER: For the purpose of evaluating Experience, the Government is only interested in firms that have relevant experience with HAWTs and TDRs.

3. QUESTION: Will FDR (Frequency Domain Reflectometry) technology be acceptable?

ANSWER: No. The Government is only interested in Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) technology for this requirement.

4. QUESTION: What frequencies do the cables operate to? Since the specification calls out a tester for various types of cable and of different lengths, we need to know what the maximum frequency these cable assemblies carry.

ANSWER: Frequency ranges for military aircraft wiring range from DC to RF. Example wire/cable types are provided in the solicitation.

5. QUESTION: In Section L of the solicitation, section 3.0 (pg 66) it states what types of info is typically included in the annex (manuals, specs, procedures, etc) then refers to the table for "authorized annexes" ---according to the table the only allowable annexes are the Subcontracting Plan and tech manual. Are offerors limited to the two annexes identified in the table or can they include other annexes such as those listed in the beginning of the paragraph.

ANSWER: The only authorized annexes are listed in the table on page 66. These annexes are the Subcontracting Plan and the Technical Manual.

6. QUESTION: System Performance Spec, 3.2.1.2.4 DTF Accuracy, do the percentages listed for the length of wire include velocity uncertainty?

ANSWER: Yes.

7. QUESTION: System Performance Spec, 3.2.2.3 Batteries, if use of rechargeable batteries is selected by the Contractor, does the Navy require the Contractor to deliver the recharging unit? If yes, is a recharging unit required for each HAWT and is the unit to be packaged in the same container as he HAWT?

ANSWER: Yes, the Contractor shall supply a charging unit for each HAWT if rechargeable batteries are employed. The charger shall be contained within the transit case.

8. QUESTION: System Performance Spec, 3.2.2.4, how long do the test leads need to be? Do the test leads need to be aircraft quality?

ANSWER: There is no specific requirement for the length of the test leads, but test leads shall be provided by the Contractor. In accordance with the System Performance Spec, 1.2, the HAWT will be used to maintain Navy and Marine Corps aircraft at the Organizational Level of maintenance on aircraft carriers, L-Class and air-capable ships, and at shore-based facilities. Therefore, leads must be suitable for the intended environment.

9. QUESTION: In Section L of the solicitation, page 70, lists several enhancements that may provide additional consideration in the technical evaluation rating. Will the Government accept alterative proposals?

ANSWER: Yes, in accordance with Section L, Paragraph 1.0, of the solicitation.

10. QUESTION: System Performance Spec, 3.2.2.4 Test Lead Adapter Tips, do the pin and socket contacts size 12 through 22 refer Cannon or AWG?

ANSWER: The sizes listed refer to the pin/socket contacts, not the connector type or wire gauge.

11. QUESTION: Will the pilot units be required to complete environmental testing prior to delivery?

ANSWER: Yes.

12. QUESTION: Is there a specification or limitation of software operating systems (i.e. Windows, Linux, Micrium)?

ANSWER: No.

13. QUESTION: There are already handheld TDR's out there that seem to meet these requirements. Is there something special that NAVAIR is looking for?

ANSWER: NAVAIR Support Equipment Engineering is unaware of any commercial, off-the-shelf TDR devices that meet all the requirements of the solicitation. The performance, physical, and environmental characteristics (including electromagnetic and design and construction requirements) are contained in the System Performance Specification.

14. QUESTION: The System Performance Specification references MIL-STD-1472F for size and weight. That specification lists a maximum size of 18"x18"x12". Is there a specific size that you are looking for? Do you want this unit to fit in one hand?

ANSWER: MIL-STD-1472F defines limits for the dimensions of the HAWT Assembly, which comprises the transit case and its contents, including the tester, itself. The maximum weight of the tester is 12 pounds (as specified in the System Performance Specification, paragraph 3.2.2.1) and need not fit in one hand.

15. QUESTION: If the small size is not required, would it be feasible to incorporate the tester into a high impact Pelican type case?

ANSWER: The HAWT tester, itself, shall be contained in a transit case that meets the requirements of paragraph 3.2.2.5 of the System Performance Specification.

16. QUESTION: The letter "H" in the HAWT acronym references the HAWT as a handheld device. On review of MIL-1472F and other documents, we cannot identify a formal description of a handheld device that would apply to a test instrument. Paragraph 3.2.2.1 of the System Performance Specification states that the weight of the HAWT (tester) shall not exceed 12 pounds. This would seem a high weight limit to describe a device as handheld. Nonetheless, if the 12 pound value is correct, is it PMA-260's expectation that, during operational use, the full weight of the tester could be supported by the maintainer in any of the following orientations/configurations:

a. holding it with a single hand?

b. holding it with both hands?

c. holding it by a dedicated carry handle(s)?

d. resting it on a stable surface?

e. or some other preferred position? If so, please state.

ANSWER: The paragraph as stated in the performance specification stands as is. The intention is to give the responder the performance/size latitude in designing an instrument suitable for the aircraft environment.

17. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.2.2.5 of the System Performance Specification provides a description of the Transit Case. The second paragraph begins with the following sentence:

“To reduce the potential for FOD and to easily identify missing items, all parts and accessories, including adapter tips, contained in the case shall be held captive.”

Concerning the "holding the kit components captive" requirement:

a. Are traditional cavities/cutouts in a foam-lined transit case considered sufficient to satisfy this requirement? or

b. Does PMA-260 require additional mechanical restraints to prevent the kit components from spilling out if the transit case were to be dropped while the lid was either wide open or in the closed position but unsecured?

ANSWER: The design incorporated in to the transit case to hold the components captive will be at the discretion of the contractor weighing factors such as accessibility, FOD potential etc.

18. QUESTION: Section 3.2.3 of the System Performance Specification contains the descriptions of eight (8) environmental characteristics (other than electromagnetic compatibility) that the HAWT must satisfy. Section 4.2.3 of the System Performance Specification defines the test methods to be used to verify compliance. Is it a requirement that each of the four (4) pre-production samples be subject to, and successfully pass, the complete battery of eight (8) environmental tests? Is there a preferred sequence in which the tests must be conducted?

ANSWER: The Environmental Test Procedures will dictate the sequence of tests, and which tests will be performed on each unit. It is not necessary for all 4 pre-production units to undergo all 8 environmental tests. Generally, tests which can influence the performance of subsequent tests will be run first. For example, a drop test will be done before the EMI or splash test because the case can become dented/deformed during the drop which may influence the results from additional tests.

19. QUESTION: The RFP includes both the FAR 52.225-1 "Buy American Act- Supplies (FEB 2009)" clause (page 14) and the DFARS 252.225-7021 "Trade Agreements (NOV 2009)" clause (page 39). Since this is a DoD procurement, shouldn't the RFP only include applicable DFARS country of origin clauses? In addition, shouldn't the RFP include either a Buy American Act clause or a Trade Agreements Act clause, but not both?

ANSWER: FAR Clause 52.225-1 does not apply. Clause 52.225-1 will be deleted in Amendment 1. DFARS 252.225-7021 remains unchanged.

20. QUESTION: The RFP also includes the DFARS 252.225-7012 "Preference for Domestic Commodities (JUN 2010)" clause (page 39). Would this clause apply to the natural or synthetic fabric used to make the bag in which the HAWT is delivered to the Government under the resulting contract?

ANSWER: In accordance with Clause 252.225-7012(b)(4)and (7)"The Contractor shall deliver under this contract only such of the following items, either as end products or components, that have been grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States: (4) Cotton and other natural fiber products and (7) Synthetic fabric, and coated synthetic fabric, including all textile fabrics and yarns that are for use in such fabrics." Clause 252.225-7012 is applicable unless the items meets one of the exceptions enumerated under 252.225-7012(c).

21. QUESTION: In Section L of the solicitation, paragraph 1.0 General, the last sentence reads: “Alternate proposals are acceptable.”

In view of detailed instructions for proposal submittal provided elsewhere in the solicitation, we wish to request additional information regarding the acceptable form and content for alternative proposals. Specifically, must an alternative proposal be submitted in the form of a complete and self-sufficient proposal? Or may it be submitted as an addendum to a base proposal, including a separate Volume IV – Price? Must the Offeror win the competition with a successful base proposal prior to consideration of any alternate proposal? May an alternate price proposal for CLINS 0002-0005 deviate from the format in Section B so long as a total of at least 1200 units is offered over the contract term. For example, providing price points for more or less units for each CLIN? Or offering greater or fewer production years?

ANSWER: Alternate proposals are acceptable in the form of complete and self-sufficient proposals no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 on the Standard Form 33 off the RFP. Proposals will not be accepted after that specified date and time. Section B must be proposed in accordance with the format specified in Section B of the solicitation.

22. QUESTION: Section L of the solicitation, Part B, SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, VOLUME I –

TECHNICAL FACTOR describes the possibility that Offerors may be given additional consideration if enhanced features are proposed. To the extent that an enhancement would increase cost relative to the base proposal, what is PMA-260’s preferred proposal format for submittal of alternate pricing associated with the proposed enhancements?

ANSWER: Alternate pricing and or alternate proposals with enhanced features must be submitted in the form of a complete and separate proposal.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been deleted:

(End of Summary of Changes)