N68335-17-R-0051_0004_released.docx
DOCX document 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Multi- Mode RADAR Systems
- Solicitation number
- N68335-17-R-0051
About this file
Amendment 0004 document
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N68335-17-R-0051-0002.docx | DOCX document | |
| N6833517R0051_0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| redacted_radar_J&A.pdf | ||
| Question_and_Answer__1.docx | DOCX document | |
| N6833517R0051_released.docx | DOCX document |
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
N6833517R0051
SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM
The required response date/time has changed from 04-Dec-2017 01:00 PM to 18-Dec-2017 01:00 PM.
The following have been added by full text:
Contracts Point of Contact Frances Marigliano Ph: 732-323-4889 Email: frances.marigliano@navy.mil
As a result of this amendment:
| 1. | The deadline for receipt of proposals has been changed to December 18, 2017 1:00 pm EST. and |
| 2. | The following Questions and Answers have been added: |
1. Q. Are all the HC-27J aircraft identical, which will allow for all the Radar LRUs and radomes to be interchangeable between aircraft?
A. Yes, while minor deviations may exist between aircraft, , we anticipate a single design/form for the radomes throughout the HC-27J fleet.
2. Q. Is there a Lightning requirement for the radome?
A. No.
3. Q. Can a 3D model of the HC-27J be provided?
A. Yes.
4. Q. For the radome technical data package, what level is required; Level I-Conceptual/Minimal Annotation, Level 2-Developmental/Partial Annotation, or Level 3- Production/Full Annotation?
A. Level 3 .
5. Q. If we are getting our navigation data in accordance with MMR Performance Specification Document, section 8.3, does that satisfy the requirement of MMR Performance Specification Document section 8.5? If no, please clarify the government's intention?
| A. No. 8.3 and 8.5 are independent objective requirements. Compliance with 8.3 does not guarantee compliance with 8.5. Primary navigation data is from dedicated mission system EGI (IAW 8.1), but backup GPS is required from internal radar GPS IAW 8.5 and 8.6 as objective requirements. | |
| 6. | Q. Please clarify section's 3.1.2 Mission Control System of the SOW and 8.0 Navigation of the MMR Performance Specification Document. There seems to be a conflict between the two relative to the GPS. SOW 3.1.2 only calls for an IMU, where MMR Performance Specification Document 8.0 makes reference to both and IMU and GPS. Is a GPS required, and if so what is the Government objective? |
A. An integrated GPS within the radar system is an objective requirement. See 8.5 and 8.6. Vendors need to identify the components needed to optimize the performance of their Radar. The C-27J mission system has a dedicated EGI available for use for the Vendor’s.
7. Q. In MMR Performance Specification Document section 8.2 please advise if the referenced on board measuring system is a IMU or EGI?
A. The C-27J mission system has a dedicated EGI available for use for the Vendor’s. Vendors are to decide the best configuration that provides the most optimum solution for the performance of their Radar. It’s up to each Vendor to select the components (EGI / IMU) needed to optimize the performance of the radar.
8. Q. With respect to navigation, is it the Government's intention that the MMR use its own standalone navigation sensors primarily and use the aircrafts navigation as a backup or the other way around?
A. Vendors are to decide the best configuration that provides the most optimum solution for Radar performance. Each Vendor must select the components (EGIs / IMUs) configuration Primary / secondary) to optimize the performance of the radar. Previous answers to questions identified that the mission system has an EGI included in it for the vendor to access.
9. Q. Please define Automatic TWS capacities for the Surface, Air and All detectable target (MMR Spec. 4.10, 4.11, 4.12)?
A. The government objective of Automatic TWS as stated in the MMR spec 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 is for each Vendor to clearly identify its Radar’s capability for providing an automatic TWS capability. Vendors should identify their radar’s ability to meet the spec objectives by explaining any physical characteristics for detection that quantify the capability, identify the ability to meet the probability rate, provide any substantiating performance information that support any physical or analytical claims, and identify implementation details that allow the Government to evaluate this capability.
10. Q: Does the proposal compliance restrict or limit any hardware improvements to the current radar that would require base part number changes from what is currently in the USCG inventory?
A.The solicitation requirement intends to procure assets that are common (Form, Fit & Function) to the existing USCG equipment. The USG understands that changes related to obsolescence or productionization may have occurred since the last time the USCG procured this RADAR equipment, therefore, if the current USCG configuration can no longer be produced by the Vendor then the Vendor shall propose the most current production configuration that provides the most common (Form, Fit & Function) configuration possible to the previous USCG configuration. Any enhancements or capability improvements that exist in the Vendors most common configuration must meet the requirement that the equipment remains an NDI or a commercially available item that is not a developmental item in nature and must be completely tested / qualified.
(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf
File details come from the government source that posted it.