SOJ JETS Pre-Solicitation Conference QnA Govt Responses 9 11 23.pdf

PBWS/CDRL Reference RFP Reference Question Government Response

Section I, page 31

As the Government is including the Alternate 1 (Alt 1) clause to FAR 52.245-1, will the solicitation provide replacement costs for all contemplated GFP and GME? Alt 1 places all risk on the contractor for any loss of Government property.

Paragraph 3.1.4, Table 1 of the PBWS has been updated to provide Estimated Replacement

Cost(s) for each of the planned Government Mission Equipment (GME) devices.

IRD, paragraph 4.2

The Note in IRD paragraph 4.2 b. states "The aircraft must be configured to carry two URC-200 or up to two PRC-158 radios." The "or" suggests only one radio relay system will be used/onboard at once;

however, it goes on to imply both radio systems are required simultaneously by using the following language: "To support these radios four total antennas are required, two mounted on the upper fuselage and two mounted on the lower fuselage of the aircraft." An assumption is the communications relay would be in UHF band for both systems. Is the actual requirement two UHF antennas installed on the aircraft to support URC-200 or PRC-158 relays?

The requirement is for two receive and two transmit antennas. Each URC-200 system requires one receive and one transmit antenna. Employing two URC systems would require two receive and two transmit antennas. Similarly, each PRC radio requires one receive and one transmit antenna. If using two PRC radios, two receive and two transmit antennas are required.

Appropriate separation is required for each set of receive and transmit antennas to enable simultaneous use of two URC-200 systems or two PRC-158 radios.

Paragraph 3.4.1.1, page 11

This paragraph states "Aircraft must possess a current FAA Standard and/or Special Restricted Category

Airworthiness

Certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain the aircraft IAW 14 CFR § 43." Are offered aircraft with a

Special Airworthiness Certificate, Experimental Category acceptable?

"No", in accordance with Paragraph 3.4.1.1, all aircraft under this contract, "must possess a current FAA Standard and/or Special Restricted Category Airworthiness Certificates, and the

Contractor shall maintain the aircraft IAW 14 CFR § 43. The Contractor shall secure FAA approval for each change to the configuration that is not defined in the aircraft’s Airworthiness

Certificate before the change is used in support of this contract." Aircraft with a Special

Airworthiness Certificate, Experimental Category will not meet the Government's requirements of the solicitation.

Paragraph 3.1.4, Table 1, page 7 This paragraph lists a Government provided Link-16 Interference Trainer; however, there is no mention of this device in the IRD. What are its requirements (power type and draw; antennas, dimensions, weight).

Link-16 Interference Trainer information and requirements have been updated within the current version of the IRD.

PBWS, Section 3.1.2, Simultaneous

Presentations

The government stipulates the requirement for one SOJ aircraft presentation on the East Coast, and one

SOJ presentation on the West Coast. Can the government share their expectations for any necessity for backup aircraft on either coast?

The Government's Simultaneous Presentation requirements are defined within paragraph 3.1.2, inclusive of subparagraphs of the PBWS, along with statement that, "The Contractor shall meet the Mission Completion Rate (MCR) identified in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP), (Contract Section J, Attachment 3), Metric 1." Any technical approach by a prospective offeror where a backup aircraft might be a risk mitigation strategy, would have to be a consideration of the contractor to meet the Government's requirements.

PBWS, Section 3.3.2, NAVAIR IFC

Is the Contractor expected to apply the 45-calendar-day planning factor for obtaining NAVAIR IFC releases to each aircraft listed in its Integrated Master Schedule? Is this 45-calendar-day planning factor realistic?

The 45 day estimate is for an initial IFC and the estimated time is after all required documentation has been provided. Any additional, similarly configured, aircraft brought on to the IFC will not require the same lead time. Any updates to aircraft configuration, once an initial

IFC has been issued, may require a similar (45 day) lead time depending on scope of change and airworthiness qualification approach.

PBWS, Section 3.6.6, Aircraft Modifications

"The contractor may be required to perform aircraft modifications such as internal/external modifications, special provisioning, antenna mounting, etc. Final modifications are approved by Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) signed FAA Form 8110-3 and FAA Form 337. Aircraft modifications may drive a requirement to obtain new NAVAIR IFC(s), see PBWS Section 3.5.3." Since some modifications may require extensive time and engineering efforts, will the Government accept updates to the IMS (potential delays) to allow the Contractor to ensure the integrity and safety of the system(s)?

The Government may consider updates to the IMS (potential delays) to allow the Contractor to ensure the integrity and safety of the system(s). This would be on a case by case basis with the contractor providing supporting rationale for any IMS changes and/or delays. However, the IMS established by an Offeror and subsequently contract awardee's proposal, shall be within the quantity of months defined within Paragraph 3.3 of the PBWS for IOC (18 Months) and FOC

(24 Months).

PBWS, Section 6.2, West Coast Basing

Will the Government allow the Contractor to potentially base their assets at NAS North Island (CA), in the special case where the Contractor may also be performing services on the Navy EW Jets Services contract, where NAS North Island is the principle place of employment.

The Government is unable to offer any additional space at NAS North Island for prospective contract efforts at this time. IAW Paragraph 6.2 the West Coast Basing requirement remains what has been defined within current version of the PBWS.

PBWS, Appendix D, Aircraft Capability and

Configuration Requirements

Is Appendix D the table of known Requirements at this time? In other words, are any changes expected/anticipated prior to the formal RFP release, or after contract award (CA)? Additionally, are there any requirements for providing interference prevention (blinking) equipment for aircraft communications or navigation suites?

At this time, minor changes may be expected/anticipated to PBWS Appendix D prior to the formal RFP release, but not expected/anticipated after contract award (CA). There are no known requirements for providing interference prevention (blinking) equipment for aircraft communications or navigation suites at this time.

RFP, Page 8, CLIN 0008 -

Aircraft Modifications

Will the Government be willing to discuss CLIN 0008 (and CLIN 0009)during the Pre-Solicitation

Conference? As Aircraft Modifications will be a significant element of the work conducted after Contract

Award (CA), the staff is keenly interested in how the Government intends to negotiate and pay for Aircraft

Modifications.

Additional questions will be accepted during the pre-solicitation brief in which the Government will try to provide clarity for any questions and the Government intends to provide written responses after the conference as applicable.

RFP, Section M, Paragraph

1.B., Evaluation Factors for

Award

Will the Government be willing to provide rough guidance (in percentages/strengths) on how it will evaluate the proposals with respect to Corporate Experience, Past Performance, Technical and Cost/Price?

The Government will evaluate proposals on a "best value" basis in which the contractor proposal responses will be assessed on the greatest overall benefit to the Government. The Government will utilize the evaluation ratings and risk assessment definitions as provided in Section M section III. Definitions.

RFP, Section M, Paragraph

1.B., Evaluation Factors for

Award

Is the Government willing to discuss in greater detail its Evaluation Factors For Award? For example, under Corporate Experience, will the government weigh all of its evaluation elements equally? ((1)

Experience with GOPS/FOPS, (2) Experience obtaining Flight Clearances, (3) Experience Managing

Aircraft Inventory and (4) Aircraft Modification and Certification)

Proposals will be evaluated IAW the criteria defined within Section M of the RFP as a whole.

Corporate Experience will be evaluated based on the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings provided under Section M section III. Definitions. The Government does not have any further details or amplifying information on the topic.

RFP, Section M, III. B., Other

Evaluation Definitions

"The Government will only consider the Past Performance and Corporate Experience of principal entities, which are the Offeror/Prime." Does this mean that the Government will give no weight or value to a partner or Sub if this entity has an established track record?

Correct. The Government will only consider those entities that meet the definition of principal entity and relevant as it relates to Past Performance and Corporate Experience criteria.

IRD, paragraph 4.5

The IRD states "The antennas must be mounted on a pedestal capable of continuous rotation through a full 360 degrees."

May the (transmit) antennas be mounted on positioners where 360 degrees of rotation is not feasible or practical, but the associated transmit system is capable of 360 degrees of coverage?

The transmit system must be capable of meeting the Radiated Power Requirements listed in the

IRD throughout 360 degrees.

IRD, paragraph 4.5

The IRD states "The antennas must be positioned in such a way as to minimize blockage caused by adjacent antennas."

If an offeror's proposed solution is to mount the transmit antennas longitudinally along or near the centerline of the aircraft, would the proposal be discarded as not technically compliant?

The Government cannot comment on whether or not a potential Offerors technical approach would or would not be technically compliant. However, if the antennas are positioned so they are not blocked by other antennas and also the configuration of the aircraft is in compliance with all other requirements of the PBWS, IRD, and overall RFP, then a prospective Offeror's proposal may be technically compliant and/or acceptable.

IRD, paragraph 4.5, table (unnumbered)

The table in IRD Paragraph 4.5 lists ERP by frequency over a range of bands. In order to choose an acceptable transmit antenna, the desired beamwidth of the antenna must be provided as this will affect both the presentation to the training audience and the antenna's gain. The antenna gain will determine the required output power of the amplifier.

What are the desired transmit antenna beamwidths by frequency band?

The Government is in the process of updating Paragraph 4.5 of the IRD. The transmit system must be capable of meeting the requirements listed in the IRD throughout 360 degrees.

PBWS Paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, 6.3

These paragraphs state the contractor will permanently base one SOJ aircraft on the East and West Coasts

(paraphrasing). Permanently basing only one highly modified, technically complex aircraft on each coast will require a duplication of resources: special test equipment, peculiar support equipment, hangar facilities and uniquely skilled personnel to include pilots; and would likely require movement of some of these elements from site to site. Has the Government performed any kind of cost analysis or feasibility study to see if this dual-coast, single aircraft per coast solution is more efficient and/or cost-effective than basing the aircraft at the contractor's main facility?

The Government's requirements for basing, both east coast and west coast are defined within

Section 6.0 Basing of the PBWS. The Government does not have any further details or amplifying information on the topic.

PBWS Paragraph 3.1.4, Table 1 The only EA technique generator listed in Table 1 (GFP/GME) is the MAXDRFM. Does the

Government intend to procure a technique generator more suited to Standoff Jamming?

The Government does not have any amplifying comments or guidance for this statement.

PBWS, Section 3.3.1, Initial and Full

Operational Capability Does the Government anticipate any changes to the definition of IOC or FOC prior to RFP release?

At this time, The Government does not anticipate any changes to the definition of IOC or FOC prior to RFP release.

PBWS, Section 3.7.4, Mission Commander and

Special Mission Operator

In this section, the government states: "The Contractor shall provide a Mission Commander (MC) and

Special Mission Operator (SMO) as aircrew for all SOJ missions."

Does the Government expect the MC and SMO to be experienced/former Electronic Warfare Officers

(EWOs) or Electronic Countermeasures Officers (ECMOs)?

No, the Government does not expect the MC or SMO to be former EWOs or ECMOs. The

Contractor MCs and SMOs need to understand the aircraft EW systems and how they work.

PBWS, Section 6.1, Permanent Basing Can the Government provide any more details on basing for both the East Coast and West Coast?

The Government's requirements for basing, both east coast and west coast are defined within

Section 6.0 Basing of the PBWS. The Government does not have any further details or amplifying information on the topic.

PBWS, Appendix D, Table 3, EA SOJ Aircraft

Requirements

With the requirement for Internal Racks, the Government states "Four (4) CFE 19-inch standard industry electronic racks, ...with seating for at least one operator per rack, in addition to racks for CFE equipment."

How many operators are expected to perform on each SOJ mission typically?

Typically, SOJ missions can be performed by one or two operators. However, the requirement is to provide seating for at least one operator per rack, in addition to racks for CFE equipment, allows for additional operators for each rack if the mission/event requires as part of service contract execution.

QASP Does the Government anticipate any changes to the QASP (14 pages), as currently written?

At this time, The Government does not anticipate any changes to the QASP (14 pages), as currently written.

IRD, Section 5.0, Comm Jammer Within the IRD, the Government stipulates the requirement for a Comm Jammer that can jam in the UHF and HF bands (VHF not required). Is the Comm Jammer GFE or CFE? It is not clear in the IRD.

IAW the PBWS, Appendix D, Aircraft Capability and Configuration Requirements, the

Communications Jammer is Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE).

RFP, Section A, Solicitation/Contract Form

Are there any guarantees contemplated for a Contractor that provides SOJ services? The Government states that this competition will "result in the award of a Single-Award, IDIQ type contract." If a

Contractor puts extensive time/resources into the proposal and ensuing contract and receives satisfactory assessments from the Government, would there be any consideration for an additional 5-year option?

The Government will define the minimum and maximum quantity amounts associated with the solicitation IAW contract clause 5252.216-9506 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES

(NAVAIR) (MAR 1999). The quantities will be defined within the posting of the final RFP. At this time, there is no provisions for an option ordering period offered for this solicitation.

RFP, Section C Can the Government provide further details on the expected flying hour program for CAS SOJ aircraft on the East and West Coast?

The Government has developed a historical and forecast flight hour data document for this CAS

SOJ Jets program. This document will be provided in a future SAM.gov posting.

PBWS Paragraph 3.1.4, Table 1

1. Is there a duty expert, or POC, on this program that we could talk to regarding the equipment? I am looking at this from a mission operator’s perspective, and how long any training would take to get fully up to speed on the equipment?

2. Is there a chance to take a visit with the expert, and maybe see the equipment first hand?

At this time in the active solicitation process there is not a duty expert or POC that the Program

Office/Government is willing to coordinate communications with regards to planned Government

Furnished Equipment (GFE). Additionally, the Government does not anticipate providing for a pre-solicitation site visit or 2nd industry day to review GFE. Specific questions related to the listed equipment would need to be submitted in writing during the RFP process as prescribed by

Section L of the planned RFP. Please take note that per Paragraph 3.7.4, Mission Commander and Special Mission Operator, of the PBWS which states, “aircrew shall be able to operate aircraft SOJ/EW equipment as identified in the IRD (PBWS Reference 1), to include programming and operating DRFM jammers” and “shall be prepared to relay aircraft instructions, and to conduct blue force communications jamming, communications intrusion and meaconing operations.”